> So you don't care that all of humanity is living objectively better now vs. the rest of history. You just care that some people are filthy rich and you don't

> So you don't care that all of humanity is living objectively better now vs. the rest of history. You just care that some people are filthy rich and you don't like them one bit. Sort of, yes. But my issue with this is not that the obscenely wealthy have so much more per se - I guess there is a moral argument to make there, but I'm not the one to make since it doesn't bother me too much either. I'm mostly with you on that: speaking in strictly material terms we shouldn't mind too much if a small group of people are much much better off than everyone else, provided that everyone is still looked after and the situation is improving. And, if you're some trickle-down theorist or whatever, you might even say that some people have to be obscenely rich for there to be any progress. I don't agree with that at all, but it's another argument you hear. Anyway, outsized wealth inequality like this need not be just a problem in a material sense though. It's also a problem in a political sense. Wealth and power are pretty highly correlated, but democracy functions best when power is more diffuse. So a concentration of wealth interferes with healthy politics and governance, and that's why I don't like the massive disparity in wealth we see know, and why I think it's very dangerous.