>>10700>What do you think about the relative success of a select few billionaires in the U.S. compared to the general wellbeing of the regular populace?Probably exaggerated. Very likely.
>Do you feel like modern oligarchs generally deserve what they've gotten due to forward thinking?It's about balance. Perhaps I would answer, no. In that they might deserve less than 50% of their wealth. It's hard to exactly put a number on it.
>Do you think that, in contrast, the U.S. has a system with too much crony capitalism? What ideal reforms, if any, would you enact in terms of wealth inequality? Or are concerns overblown?The solution would be an effective progressive tax. Too regressive a tax system stifles innovation of masses with no access to funds. Too progressive stifles innovation at the top. So you need to balance those factors, I think.
Moving in a progress tax direction is a practical challenge, though. Big money is fluid and seeks business-friendly zones. Money buys political influence, and the rich typically wish to make states business-friendly as well.
I don't think concerns are over-blown. I feel a bit like Marx in thinking the system must simply implode at an extreme of inequality. But capitalism is more stable than Marx imagined. There's some maximum allowable inequality -- an equilibrium between the rich and poor. It's probably quite bad, but by definition, tolerable. The New Deal pushed America away from this distribution, but we are inching back.
