DBT
Contributor
Some reasons why gross inequality in wealth distribution is bad for society and economic activity:
''One political consequence of inequality that turns into an economic liability is that it creates a feeling that everyone is only out for themselves. This impression undermines the social cohesion that lubricates economies and societies. As people become more fearful, selfish and insecure, corruption flourishes, crime jumps, anti-social behaviours increase, labour unrest stirs and legal disputes tied to commerce rights rise. When people feel they no longer live in a fair society or one where they have much opportunity they will eventually react.
''A second economic liability created by the political fallout from inequality is that the resentment against economic injustice – epitomised by globalisation – nurtures an environment ripe for populist policies''
''A third political threat from inequality that carries economic costs is that the concentration of economic power can undermine democracy because it gives the mega rich too much political power. As the wealthy use this muscle to expand their economic interests (via, for instance, subsidies or anti-competitive moats around their assets), the core political institutions of society are eroded.''
''Lastly, inequality imposes direct long-term economic costs because unequal societies prove to be faulty and inefficient economies. When too much income and wealth gushes to the top, the middle and lower classes are incapable of marshalling the purchasing power needed to fan sustainable economic growth.''
The latter two points I can accept, but the first two sound positively bizarre in their phrasing. Shouldn't they be saying "massive wealth inequality is a problem precisely because everyone is only out for themselves! Economic injustice should lead to resentment and lead to the adoption of more populist policies!" The way it's written, it sounds like they want people to remain ignorant, such that any measure to correct wealth inequality would be no better than one that simply conceals it, lest those terrifying populist policies are nurtured to fruition.
In general, people are only out for themselves, that includes those who find themselves on the lower rungs of society resenting the gross inequalities we see. Not that it's ethical or fair in any case.
Some have the ability and/or the luck to amass fortunes (or inherit), and some don't. Most people probably don't have the opportunity or the business acumen to build huge fortunes. Hence the world as we now see it, where wealth freely flows upwards into the coffers of the mega rich without any sign of abating.