Getting back to what we were actually talking about…
You said words to the effect of as soon as you take a single step away from widening the wealth gap, you’re automatically in a socialist death spiral . It logically follows that narrowing (or halting the widening of) the wealth gap is undesirable, since death spirals are undesirable. Yet in two years, covidism (which you seem to find more undesirable than anything else ever) has redistributed wealth upwards so fast, I bet even the victors are surprised.
So to take that last sentence again…
I bet Bill Gates is there at the bottom laughing his ass off.
Why do you suppose someone like him, an über-rich arch-capitalist, would be there? Could he have pulled off a Bond villain scheme if the system hadn’t allowed him to amass so much wealth? Theoretically yes, because schemes require power, and wealth and power are not quite the same thing. But when you get to that kind of level, they might as well be.
As people have argued before, once you already have the money for so many private islands and yachts and spaceships and whatever else happens to be trendy, what more do you need? “But it’s not fair! I earned that money! If I pay more tax than the peasants, it’s morally wrong!” Maybe you did earn it, but there’s this thing called civilization, and getting it to work and stay working is complicated. It can still work with some people being super-rich, even ultra-rich. But über-rich? There’s a limit to everything.
My suggestion was that there’s no such thing as a perfect system, no utopia. There are just different varieties of imperfect, and if we want to modify the characteristics of any particular “natural” imperfection - a little hollow in the fabric of socialspace - we’d better (a) weigh carefully what the costs are, and (b) make sure not to fall into the “if a little is good then more is better” trap.
Exactly.