> The key question is how much is "too much," and more importantly, if the proposed fixes for that are worse than the "problem." Sure. Let's make a change to n

> The key question is how much is "too much," and more importantly, if the proposed fixes for that are worse than the "problem." Sure. Let's make a change to normalize wealth and measure the outcome. We'll tweak as necessary. > I don't think the situation is as clear-cut as this, at least in the US. No matter how wealthy you are, you still have only one vote, and both sides have no shortage or rich benefactors. There's plenty in the political arena that can be bought, such as votes, minds, and territory. That's the entire point of political advertising. > I don't think it is, though. If someone has 1000x my assets but cannot use them to make his lifestyle notably better than mine, that in no way makes me "relatively impoverished." His additional zeroes in his bank account can only make me feel bad if I choose to feel bad about them (and many do). Those 1000x assets can be used for loan collateral. Assets aren't really assets if they don't do anything. You are relatively impoverished.