...
What ratio of wealth in the world is it okay for the top 1/10 of one percent okay to own? Is 100% okay? 50%? Is it really okay for 85 people to own as much wealth as the bottom of the 50% of the world population, ...
I said earlier, I don't think I can pick a number, it's about context. But I'm going to try to think about that a bit, and see if I can formulate some kind of answer (I don't expect it to be a number though).
I'm reminded of one of my kid's HS graduations. One student won so many awards, they were literally clinking-and-clanking, hanging around her neck, as she walked up to accept the next award. An incredibly bright, motivated, hard-working, well spoken and well liked individual.
Now how much 'wealth' (measured in knowledge, and ability to use that knowledge), do you think she had, compared to the lower 50% of students (and include the ones that never made it to the graduation because they flunked out, and/or maybe even in jail). Is that unfair? And shouldn't we expect her to be able to parlay all that she has worked for into something far above what the average person attains? Don't you think the idea that this hard work can pay off is a motivational factor? I think deciding that some magic number is going to limit you, would also be a disincentive for the lower range to work any harder - someone is going to 'guarantee' that they are at least 1/Xth as well off as the hardest working students, so let's party!
... when many of those 50% do not have enough food to eat, access to medical care or access to clean water?
Now we are getting to common ground, and again it touches on my issue (unless someone can clarify this), that many of these discussions, including Piketty's book, isn't looking at the big picture - it looks at
inequality within industrialized nations. I am far,far more concerned with those w/o clean water and other basics than I m about our definition of 'poor' in the US (cell phones, medicaid, clean water, plenty of food, A/C and central heat, cable, game boxes, etc). And I'm fine with a lowering of US standard of living if it means we can lift those people up.
But I'm afraid that their plight is less about money, than it is about a corrupt government (or other social issues) getting in their way, or even actively keeping them down. We need to define the problem before we can decide that throwing money at it is the solution.
What ratio is okay with you? If 100 people owned 100% of the wealth in the world is that okay with all of you? Would that be capitalism working as it should? Do you have any ratio where you think tax increases to distribute wealth more equally would be okay?
Like I said, I don't think the answer is a number. And I don't think we would get anywhere near 100 people owning 100% w/o breaking some other rules that have nothing to do with a number, but about control and opportunity. I've got to go tend to some other things, but I'll see if I can take some time to put some of those other things in a more tangible form.
-ERD50