Wealth inequality doesn't mean all that much, to be honest. Unless the top start buying the government - which they are. But, after all, would you rather have a sixth of a small pizza, or a ninth of a big one?
Well, what's the diameter of the pizza?
The assumption being that the 1/9th slice is bigger than the 1/6th slice.
Well, it worked for the Etruscans.
Not so much.
I think you're trying to imply that having such a high fraction of wealth owned by such a small amount of people somehow increases wealth, but that's just not true. The only way to increase global wealth is by mining (or any other mean of collecting resources) or by inventing new technologies that allow the quality of life to maintain with a fewer resources (e.g. a computer chip that requires less copper). If your goal is to increase the quality of life for all people and not just the 1%, having the wealth distributed like that isn't helping.
Increase taxes for the rich a great deal. Like go full on French with them. And pass laws which don't allow the super-rich to keep their grip on politicians which cause them to become even richer. The inequality wouldn't be so bad here if the super-rich didn't control the politicians. But they do.
Too bad the only way that'd happen would be if a decisive majority of Representatives and Senators were to be suddenly and simultaneously replaced with young and idealistic people who all all agreed to do that.
We should kill all the rich people.
Yeah, agreed with all of that.
And I thought you were a conservative....
Doesn't mean I have to like asshole politicians and rich jackasses.
But then we'll become the rich people!
It actually kinda does...
Just your daily reminder that...
