1998 is well past the frame of reference I would use for what a healthy distribution looks like. I tried to find data from the 50s and 60s, but only found the s

1998 is well past the frame of reference I would use for what a healthy distribution looks like. I tried to find data from the 50s and 60s, but only found the same report you did. > In other words, what is your model here? American history clearly shows that economic concentration leads to market crashes, recessions/depressions, political unrest. For 40 years we put clear rules into place to prevent concentration and keep power broadly distributed - small business owners and farmers has power that could match the financiers and industrialists - and we had no major crashes, no depressions, far fewer lives ruined due to jobs and homes lost. You don't need to look at random other countries, just look at what worked in this one. > Why any rational person would want such a situation is beyond me, even if you genuinely see yourself as a Federalist. That 50% is more like 60M adults who vote Republican, and probably some of their children, so more like 20-25%. Most of those people are angry for good reasons, but there is always a chance one of the candidates can really help people like FDR and LBJ did. The whole notion of breaking up big government is an ambiguous, ideological statement that doesn't mean anything. You have a choice between private interests (mostly in finance and tech) deciding the rules you get to live by, or you can choose an elected public body. I'd rather have one hand on the wheel than none.