Well, no. These people, with their outsize influence, have aligned themselves with the wealthiest for political reasons: when they're grouped together, it's eas

Well, no. These people, with their outsize influence, have aligned themselves with the wealthiest for political reasons: when they're grouped together, it's easier to fend off attacks on their income and wealth. The fact is that the vast majority of people in above the 5% mark come from comfortable families. This would be fine, except that 1) they live in and influence a society where many live in exceedingly uncomfortable circumstances, and 2) instead of recognizing this as a moral travesty and acting accordingly, they hoard not only resources but the opportunity to better oneself. We passed the point where "personal responsibility" was a reasonable justification for systemic suffering when we stopped hunting with rocks. Much of civilized history has been marked by the apparent ability to provide generally for the populace and the baffling decision not to. I don't think it's radical to say that we're discussing a manifestation of this phenomenon, more than anything else.