Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,286
- 147
- 106
The problem is that in a society of finite resources, one's riches come at the expense of another's. It is obviously not 1:1 and resources change, and they may drag the other up to an extent (so-called trickle down), but when a few at the top gain in wealth at an exponential rate while a far, far more numerous number of people do not change their wealth, I think we see a problem.
This is assuming that the ability to horde wealth doesn't significantly increase the mean wealth. There isn't a good example where killing off wealth hording has done better then no wealth hording.
Put another way, we only have x amount of cars and car production in the US. What is to say flat wages would increase the number of cars available/produced? I would argue that it is the pursuit of wealth that betters society for everyone. Yes, resources are finite, but we have more of them because of the wealth horders.
