Why Income Inequality Matters

<i>"The second, and more important, way is that to become rich in the first place, they typically have to do something extraordinary. Some inherit their money, of course, but most build a better mousetrap, finance someone else’s good idea or at least run a chain of hairdressers in a way that keeps customers coming back."</i><p>Or they might have just been more successful at screwing over their competitors; could have lied, bribed, cheated, stolen, slept, or killed their way to riches; could have managed to convince a whole lot of suckers to buy crap that they didn't need or that was even harmful to them.. etc. All tried and true ways of getting rich.

The bigger question is whether, given that real wages in the US have stagnated for the last 20-30 years, the outsize compensation given to elites is a function of productivity gains increasingly depending on them or just an increase in relative bargaining power.

&#62; Rich folk affect the rest of us in two big ways. First, the way they spend their money has all kinds of ripple effects. Their hunches move markets. Their consumption supports a whole sub-economy of hoteliers, watchmakers and financial advisers. And their philanthropy funds schools, pressure groups and research into tropical diseases.<p>Article misses that inventions start as only affordable by wealthy people, but that follows into commoditization and everyone gets to benefit from them. People get so envious of what they don't have, failing to notice the asinine amounts of prosperity around us, things the kings of old could have only dreamed of.<p>Anyways, I am coming to terms with the fact that human nature doesn't like anyone having more... I'll do what I reasonably can to not participate in various redistributions and confiscations, but I'm starting to accept that there'll always be people wanting to do it and attempting it.

tl;dr: The article says that usually rising inequality is a sign of a broken system somewhere, and that governments should fix the brokenness rather than attacking the rich directly. In the US, they blame the banking system. In China, the problem is the laws that prevent migration between countryside and city.

I think it's funny that they use the term "Propagandists" when refering to Al-Queda, but "Think Tank" when referring to the USA. Maybe there's actually a difference between a think tank and a propagandist. Can someone elucidate me?