It's only been a stable system as long as the richest were only rich enough to keep doing what they're doing in the marketplace, and not rich enough to buy or b

It's only been a stable system as long as the richest were only rich enough to keep doing what they're doing in the marketplace, and not rich enough to buy or become the marketplace. That is one reason excessive inequality is destructive to society. It is no problem if the best snack vendor can afford to buy the biggest snack truck. In fact that should be encouraged so we can have more of the best snacks. It's also no problem if he can afford a mansion. He deserves it for working so hard on snacks. It's bad if he can do anything that negatively affects his competitors, like buying the adjacent stands to leave empty, buying up all the snack ingredients so nobody else can get them, bribing the market manager, or making a law that all snacks must be french fries.