This is a fair reply, and I was being a little glib. This is in response to the facile premise and body of the article that seeks to defend wealth concentration

This is a fair reply, and I was being a little glib. This is in response to the facile premise and body of the article that seeks to defend wealth concentration. What is clear is that wealth disparity is making it hard for more than half of the country to meet basic needs, and they are not contributing towards consumer spending measures because they are unable to not because they are unwilling to. The article makes a much better case for updating the higher tax brackets, taxing income avoidance strategies more effectively, and using the proceeds to ease the load on the least wealthy half of americans so they are able to contribute to consumer spending and live happier and healthier lives. This is where behavioral, microeconomics, and macroeconomics meet up. You have to appreciate the stress on individuals and the social fabric that these figures imply.