I also agree for progressive measures to prevent huge wealth inequality, which is not the sign of a healthy free market economy. The wealth distribution of the mid 20th century is much more in line with what I and some economists believe to be 'optimal inequality.'

Interesting link here: http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/is-there-an-ideal-amount-...

However, I have very different ideas about why it exists and how to fix it. In my opinion, over-regulation, taxes, and nanny-state-ism have caused both financial problems and culture problems. Our heavy handed government continues to further disincentivize risk-taking, a hallmark of a free society, it entrenches wealth (both private individuals and big companies) by preventing average folks from taking risks in the financial system in the name of protecting them, and by adding thousands of pages of regulations to big industries (be it cable, credit reporting, banking, and soon social media) making them inaccessible to startups without both deep pockets and connections. We also have a government that prefers an inflationary currency for the illusion of growth and questionable long-term benefits, even though the poorest are least able to translate their cash into cash-flow producing assets and the wealthiest have capital gains taxes capped at a lower rate than a relatively low-income earner's taxes, which is indeed a regressive system. Not to mention all of this is done with a nearly regressive tax system (on top of the existing inflation tax, which hits low income earners hardest).

> Is a Foxconn factory worker someone who was lifted out of poverty? Is a quasi-slave working on the Qatari football stadium lifted out of poverty? In exchange for what?

I would counter by asking whether these workers living in free market societies? Clearly not, both are working in dictatorships and are not free at all. Even the US is far from a free market system due to many points, some of which I touch on in this thread.

> Would the reinvigoration of public services by capping wealth (or introducing profit sharing in companies, or 20:1 pay ratios / stock option ratios for companies) be so devastating to all of society that it would indeed be worse than the current destruction of democracy by your Murdochs, Kochs, Zuckerbergs, Bezoses, Rothchilds and whomever else super-rich acting in their own interests?

Yes I think that's the wrong way to go about it. I don't believe in forceful, direct wealth distribution against people who committed no crimes, nor hard, arbitrary caps determined by bureaucrats. Ask questions about how it happened and how to make it better. How about we start with updated income tax brackets for the super-rich or a negative income tax? Right now the highest brackets hit people who are really not that rich (making 470k as the top bracket pays the same rate as someone who made 50m, and probably more considering higher amounts are usually capital gains), where really these brackets should be spread out way further up to 100 million, and perhaps there should be discounts for wealth factored into the income tax -- e.g. if you sold your first startup for 5 million you should pay a bit less than a CEO worth 100m who makes 5m every year. Combining that with a graduated capital gains system that is updated for the modern world (where 470k isn't considered the 'richest class') would go a long way, especially if rates are reduced for people making less than 400k in the current system.