>> Again, for innovation to make a difference, consumers need to be able to pay for it. Not to mention the potential of unrest if the vast majority of people cannot benefit from economic growth. That has been at the heart of almost every revolution in history. Even the Chinese know it.
Consumers have had no problem at all paying for iPhones, iPads, and iPods. Or new TVs or cars or boats.
Meanwhile, the pooling of money at the top continues as it has for, well, since forever. The fact that the Waltons and Bill Gates control tens of billions just doesn't make any difference, because they have made their money, presumably, bettering the lives of ordinary people.
You act as though Gates have $50B somehow affects me or you adversely. It doesn't, so long as there is competition. It is when market forces aren't allowed to work (typically, through government intervention) that a pooling of wealth becomes problematic.
You and I may feel, for example, that Al Gore has contributed little or nothing for the vast sum of money he has received. Or Bill Clinton. But it really isn't, and shouldn't be, our call. These people accumulate their money fair-and-square, and that is really the only criterion that matters. |
