You want the economy to be top heavy. You want the best people managing the most money, and you want them to have the strongest incentive for managing it correc

You want the economy to be top heavy. You want the best people managing the most money, and you want them to have the strongest incentive for managing it correctly. When you have 10 billion dollars in capital and you are trying to figure out what to do with it, you want the people managing that money to be top-notch, 0.1% or better. And you want to make sure they have an appropriate amount of personal stake in the game. It's not necessarily fair to the 99% that they aren't given similar opportunities to manage that much wealth, but it's what's healthiest for the economy. It's also healthy to heavily emphasize education, and make sure every kid is brought to their full potential. It's downright unhealthy to have an intelligent human being caught in a poverty spiral. My point is that the emphasis should not be on the fact that we are a top-heavy economy. A healthy economy is going to be top heavy, potentially extremely top heavy. The emphasis should be on the bottom, where people are getting completely bottlenecked by their own poverty. The question shouldn't be 'how can we redistribute wealth?'. The question should be 'how can we give every person a proper education' and 'how can we make sure poverty does not get in the way of a person's creativity and potential?'