[danghica]

You seem to assume that extreme inequality in society is to be fought against only if it leads to an overall degradation of material prosperity. That is nonsense. People always wanted more equality for the same reason they wanted democracy, no matter what the level of material prosperity in a country. People have a deep-seated need to be engaged and to have a say in the unfolding of their own destiny at the scale of society, to have meaningful lives. Indeed, the average person in the US, EU, Japan, Australia, etc. has food, clothes, transportation, health-care (perhaps not US), technology and so on that would make the kings of 100 years ago envious. But they also know that their influence on society through conventional democratic means has decreased dramatically in the last 50 years, as the super-wealthy amassed the material and political means to control the decision-making process. And guess what? Many people hate that. Many people will not be bribed into political submission by knick-knacks, amusement and delicious snacks. There is deep resentment brewing.

[VLM]

Your argument is not bad. However there is also a stability issue you missed. The fundamental reason why democracy is proposed or the american dream is proposed is pacification, just like welfare. A calm population who think there is a defined set of fair rules and a path for success don't revolt. Its vitally important for societal stability that the general public doesn't notice they have no chance for improved conditions, in fact things only get worse for them, and they have no input on leadership because they get to vote, but only for almost identical hand picked candidates. If you can't have actual fairness, or actual progress, or actual democracy, it becomes very important to make sure no one notices. The next few decades are going to be very interesting to watch. Can enough riots be prevented by reality TV shows and football games and iDevice releases, or will the cities and gated subdivisions burn from lack of distraction from the fundamental problems?

[Radim]

I like how you just reiterated GP's last "point of irony" there, in a roundabout way.

Because that's how much of the rest of the world feels re. USA/"the west". One-percenters... complaining about their own one-percenters...

And yes, there is deep resentment brewing indeed.

[danghica]

There is absolutely no irony. Extreme inequality is undesirable on any scale. This is consistency, the opposite of irony.

[marknutter]

We'll go with this definition of irony provided by the Google: "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result."

Class warriors wanting to decrease inequality by getting the 1% to pay their fair share, not enter into global trade agreements, and keep jobs in America end up increasing inequality globally by focusing only on efforts to prop up the global 1%, the majority of whom live in the U.S. Sounds pretty ironic to me.