> It's an example that wealth doesn't automatically lead to power. I don't see how that's the case. Their wealth lead to a degree of power that necessitated a

> It's an example that wealth doesn't automatically lead to power. I don't see how that's the case. Their wealth lead to a degree of power that necessitated a specialised task force in order to keep it in check. That the power afforded by that wealth was curtailed doesn't negate it's existence. Should the task force cease to exist they would be free to exercise that power without restriction. > I agree that individual people should not have as much power as many of them seem to have today. I agree but I don't see any reasonable alternative to reducing their level of influence while still maintaining a market based economy. > I don't agree that the answer is a universal cap on personal wealth. I especially don't agree that we should confiscate the existing (legally-gained and legally-spent) wealth of private individuals, people who are not criminals. (At least not automatically criminal just because they're rich.) This is where we disagree. I don't think any overall good comes from any individual having more than $1bn in wealth. At that point you can buy pretty much whatever you want and your offspring will still be unfathomably wealthy for generations. As an individual you essentially have the GDP of a small island nation in your pocket. Personally I believe the marginal utility of more wealth at this point to be effectively zero. Adding a second billion makes no material difference to your quality of life, single digit percentages represent life changing amounts of money for the majority of society. It's at this point I feel we need to seriously interrogate how that wealth is being accumulated and whether it would be better spent elsewhere. Take our good friends the Waltons for example. In accumulating their fabulous wealth they have successfully externalised the cost of labour to the extent that many of their workers can't afford to food or healthcare without society's help. While a pretty specific case, I don't believe the Waltons should receive a single penny until they've absorbed those costs. A wealth cap also acknowledges that society plays a huge part in providing the framework for that wealth to exist in the first place. In my opinion a low degree of inequality is a requirement for a harmonious society. Without hundreds of years of societal investment none of the resources that billionaires relied on to amass their wealth would exist. Try creating a tech startup without literate workers.