01-31-2020, 07:32 PM
Historically, the issue with inequality is not the instantaneous situation today so much as the way the system moves into the future. More concentrated wealth tends to accumulate political power, and encourage more concentration. The markets get "rigged", the government is 'captured', and the situation gets worse. As more people despair (why do you think people are economically frustrated at 4% unemployment?) politics becomes more fraught. From Rome to present day, this process has turned into revolution or war on a fairly consistent basis.
The Piketty book from a couple of years ago said that the wealthiest never know when to quit, and it takes a catastrophe of some kind (say, a World War) to reset the system. He proposed instead a wealth tax to slow this process. (Note that philanthropy is never enough either.)
The question the economists pose is not about incentives (which is where conservatives go to argue this point.) They instead ask, 'how much is enough?'
(Note that macro theory points out that wealth accumulation is a disincentive to growth because savings are not reinvested and rich people cannot buy enough to pump money back into the economy.)
The Piketty book from a couple of years ago said that the wealthiest never know when to quit, and it takes a catastrophe of some kind (say, a World War) to reset the system. He proposed instead a wealth tax to slow this process. (Note that philanthropy is never enough either.)
The question the economists pose is not about incentives (which is where conservatives go to argue this point.) They instead ask, 'how much is enough?'
(Note that macro theory points out that wealth accumulation is a disincentive to growth because savings are not reinvested and rich people cannot buy enough to pump money back into the economy.)