> This is stupid. You have this marxist idea that conflates wealth and value. I just want to point out that to philosophers and economists interested in Marx,

> This is stupid. You have this marxist idea that conflates wealth and value. I just want to point out that to philosophers and economists interested in Marx, that's not a solid point. Marx rarely uses the term 'wealth' and his definition of 'value' is very specific. Marx's point was that wealth always takes a specific form, there is no 'wealth' in abstract just as there is no 'production' or 'population' or even 'value' in the transhistorical always-the-case sense. >In reality, there is no real problem with wealth inequality as long as people don't all work for one person, which never happens because of dynamics of demand and offer for labor. This seems to be deriving an 'ought' from an 'is'. You may find no problem with wealth inequality, but a wide variety of esteemed economists, sociologists and philosophers do. You need to consider the question of to whom wealth inequality isn't an issue, on the basis of which facts, and which model of wealth and value.