[speedplane]

> Wealth inequality is not a problem in itself. Poverty or theft is.

Inequality leads to power centers. Power centers lead to systemic corruption. Systemic corruption is a problem.

So yes, extreme inequality is itself a problem.

[FooBarBizBazz]

> Inequality leads to power centers

Yep, though I'd flip it: Concentrations of power create opportunities for wealth inequality. Or they're not even different things. Whenever something is centralized (Google), or a chokepoint is created (Suez, Panama), or network effects stabilize a monopoly position, then the people who control those contested single points of failure become wealthy; their wealth is their control of those resources (e.g., Bezos' shares in Amazon). Prices are Lagrange multipliers; they're forces impinging on a constraint (e.g., limited land in SV). Whereas systems that are more local and distributed create less concentration of power and wealth. Unfortunately they also tend to be less efficient. Where they win is in redundancy and robustness. I suppose this means that if you want more of the latter, then you need more chaotic conditions. Which might be even worse.

[marcusverus]

Why focus on a politically fraught issue like taxes/wealth redistribution as a path to addressing issues which are are not constrained by party politics? Surely it would be easier to gain a broad base of bipartisan support for legislation addressing corruption, if corruption is the problem, or concentration of power, if that's the problem.

It seems to me that wealth equality is nothing more than a handy wedge issue. The concept of 'fairness' is baked into our monkey brains[0], which makes it easy mechanism for engendering anger, in the hopes of turning anger into votes.

[0] https://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2070