> Shouldn't there be a cap on how much one person can have and floor on how little a person can have? I think so.
Why fix a cap? As long as you have a free market, people will compete and the fortunes of yesterday does not mean the fortunes will be there tomorrow. Plus, people die, so whoever was powerful 50 years ago is progressively replaced by the normal order of things, their wealth heavily taxed and split among their descendants.
> Would you be OK if one person controlled 99% of the world's wealth?
It would be great to stop drawing caricatures in order to have serious discussions. Otherwise anyone can make grossly inaccurate assumptions and reach extremely nonsensical conclusions anytime.
I wasn't drawing a caricature. I asked a question about wealth concentration. How about answering it? Is there a level of wealth concentration that is immoral or unfair? I believe so. I think it is the case that 500 people control more wealth than the bottom 3.5 billion. That seems absurd to me. The free market is not a great mechanism for controlling such an outcome given that we are in a situation of extreme wealth inequality. The distribution of wealth in the world is grossly unfair. And yes I'm in the part where my wealth is grossly unfair in comparison to the bottom 50%.
Why fix a cap? As long as you have a free market, people will compete and the fortunes of yesterday does not mean the fortunes will be there tomorrow. Plus, people die, so whoever was powerful 50 years ago is progressively replaced by the normal order of things, their wealth heavily taxed and split among their descendants.
> Would you be OK if one person controlled 99% of the world's wealth?
It would be great to stop drawing caricatures in order to have serious discussions. Otherwise anyone can make grossly inaccurate assumptions and reach extremely nonsensical conclusions anytime.