I would like to offer another viewpoint. Inequality itself is permanent and unavoidable, even in a command economy and totalitarian government. It comes from the great diversity of society’s people themselves. But what is so objectionable in our situation isn’t that the rich have wealth, but that the poor and the young have so many impediments to their own advancement.
If I can find greater success by working harder or smarter, or if I can easily create a small business, if I can climb the ladder and better care for my growing family, and if all my neighbors can do the same, then I don’t much care if Gates and Buffet and Trump are wealthy.
If the wealthy gain their riches by earning them through creating and delivering great products and services that people want to buy, in the process employing people, instead of through cronyism and buying political favors, or by gaming the system, then I’m fine with it.
But increasingly these conditionals are breaking down. There are more and stronger policies and laws and regulations that make starting a small business difficult. The way we fund and structure education works strongly against the poor, especially in the inner cities. The way hedge funds make money is just despicable. Soros, for instance, takes hedges against nations’ currencies, then actively works to create financial crises in those countries. Cronyism is becoming the way of life for big corporations and Washington. Wall Street reaps profits from their schemes, and when they fail, taxpayers bear the losses. That is far from a complete list.
As I have written elsewhere, if we do not have a society and system which most people see as fair and equitable, where the same rules apply to all of us (yes, I’m looking at you, Hillary), where we all can get ahead to the extent we wish to apply ourselves, then the investment of our citizens in our founding principles dissipates. In that condition, we are too open to unwise adventures into other systems. Democratic Socialism, anyone?