The Yankees didn't make it to the World Series this year. The New York team and their $206 million-a-year player payroll lost in the American League Championship Series to the Texas Rangers, who had a payroll of $55 million.
What does that mean for some of the topics often discussed here? One of the complaints often made about campaign spending is that it isn't fair that one rich person or corporation can spend money that will outweigh the votes of many other non-rich persons. But it's difficult to actually buy an election in America. Money can be an advantage, but it's only one factor among many, as losing political candidates like Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and Michael Huffington have all found out.
Another issue way it comes up is in the discussion about income inequality or attempts to eliminate it through the estate tax or other taxes. The claim is that once someone is rich they have an unfair or insurmountable advantage over someone who is poor. Again, money can be an advantage. But just like the Rangers beat the Yankees for the pennant, people who start poor sometimes wind up richer than people who start rich, or wind up triumphing in other ways.
The Rangers could have sat around crying into their beer about the fact that the Yankees have so much more money than they do and can afford more expensive players. Instead they spent their time practicing and figuring out how to beat the Yankees despite the income inequality. Of course, life isn't always exactly like baseball. Over the years, the Yankees have won a lot more pennants than the Rangers have. And revenue-sharing in baseball means there is some redistribution at work. But it's still worth noticing that the Yankees don't win every year.