Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7
It will likely do both, but my question is what does one have to do with the other? In a free market, there will always be "inequality". Winners and losers. The lucky and the not-so-lucky. What does "wealth inequality" even matter? If we all had equal wealth, who would be making major investments and creating jobs like we see at Vista Tower, One Chicago, Lakeshore East, Amazon distribution centers, factories, etc.
|
Your first embedded assumption is that what we have today is truly a "free market". Your whole comment rides on that belief and I'm not so sure it is true. I see subsidies, government intervention, regulatory capture and negative externalities all over the place. One only needs to look at the concept of super PACs to see how the wealthiest among us have changed the rules to benefit themselves.
The second assumption is the strawman that people are arguing for "equal wealth". The primary argument I have seen is that
wealth inequality has grown significantly over the past 40 years and it is reaching historic levels. This is bad long-term for the economy because it hurts the purchasing power of a large portion of society and our economy is built on consumer spending.
This is why
even billionaires are sounding the alarm on the dangers of inequality.