[jjav]

Wealth, at the top end of the scale, is not money, it is power.

Between two people who make 100K vs 1M a year, there is a lot of difference in purchasing power, but there is basically little-to-none difference in power. They're still working class people, neither of them can buy favorable laws or supreme court judgments.

But when you concentrate most wealth into a few people, those people have inordinate power to influence government, legislation, laws and courts. They get whatever they want, which of course is even more concentration of power in their hands.

You can't have a functional democracy when a handful of people are far more equal than most of the population.

[yesfitz]

This reminds me of "Mag Wealth"[1] from Mag World.

I wonder if there's any effective way to peacefully prevent that concentration in the long run, or if it's something that requires constant vigilance.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45938427

[leosanchez]

> those people have inordinate power to influence government

Relatives of the President / Prime Minister also have influence on the government.

[bigbadfeline]

> Relatives of the President / Prime Minister also have influence on the government.

Not necessarily, in a properly working system it wouldn't happen. When it does happen, it's a sign that the elected official isn't up to par, which in turn, is a sign that the pool of candidates wasn't either. And guess who exerts the most influence on selecting the candidates and electing the leaders - it's not their relatives.

Follow the money, first and foremost - any deviation from that leads to errors and waste of time.

[leosanchez]

> Not necessarily, in a properly working system it wouldn't happen.

Why wouldn't this apply to billionaires ?

[triceratops]

Because nobody votes for billionaires. They don't have to follow ethics standards like elected officials do. They are free to make decisions that selectively benefit their family or friends (as long as they don't screw over their own shareholders).