[alexeisadeski3]

When you talk about inequality, you're talking about the Gini coefficient (you may prefer a different definition, but let's just use that because it's well known and simple). There is no reason to think that a Gini of, say, .7 leads to plutocrats or monopolies any more/less so than a Gini of .4.

Plutocrats derive power from their wealth. The Pluto Problem (haha, couldn't resist) is not due to society wide inequality levels, but rather to a political system which enables them to derive said power. Finally, if you look at the richest people in the US such as Gates, Buffet and the Waltons, I don't think that you'll find they have political power even remotely similar to plutocrats such as Berlusconi. Point being that, in my opinion, Plutocrats don't exist in the US. Are there rich, politically powerful people in the US? Yes. Are there people who derive immense political power solely through said wealth? I would say no. It's more likely to work the other way around (political power leads to wealth - as in the case of the Clintons and now Obama).

People may discuss examples such as Romeny et al, but he's only worth $250 million. If it only takes $250m to get political power (and does Romney even have any political power today?), then I'd see your concern!

Regarding your concern over monopolies generally, I am reminded of a wonderful Friedman response to the question 'When have you ever been wrong': "I used to believe that some anti trust activity had merit."

[jerf]

'Regarding your concern over monopolies generally, I am reminded of a wonderful Friedman response to the question 'When have you ever been wrong': "I used to believe that some anti trust activity had merit."'

I consider it a good and proper task for the government to ensure nothing, including itself, gets too large. That is not to say that our government today can do it. I'm not sure what to do once you pass a certain event horizon of concentrated power... well, actually, I'm pretty confident the only answer is to wait for the concentration to inevitably collapse and take some percent of society with it (historically, at times approaching 100%), but I don't know how to reliably make that safe, let alone painless. I'm not sure there is a way. I'm more interested in building robust societies that can survive disruptions than in trying to prevent them; there's pretty good mathematical reasons to believe that's simply impossible. To say this puts me out of the political mainstream would be putting it lightly.

Anyhow, it's not news to me that my preferred politics doesn't produce Utopia... I would be much happier if everybody else realized that neither do theirs.

[alexeisadeski3]

I enjoy our exchange :)

Unfortunately I do not share your confidence that concentrated power is inherently unstable or self destructing. What evidence is there of such a claim?

Even the most extreme concentrations of power, such as North Korea, in fact contain complex webs of mutual support within them when viewed up close.

To get back to the original topic, though, I just don't see how any non-extreme (below .9 Gini) distribution of income can be considered unstable or problematic in any way. It's not as if someone is simply doling out wealth and income; this stuff is created and earned!