Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj
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. |
Exceptionally well-stated. In this day, if you're arguing otherwise, it's due to 1) naivete or 2) bad faith. May be some overlap.