> One is that those extra zeroes may have come from exploiting you, and reducing your potential wealth. This is way too common, so that many people assume it by default. It is getting less common, in a slow process lasting for centuries, but is still way too common to ignore. Those extra zeroes also lead to more opportunities to exploit you, in a vicious cycle.
I understand this, but high level claims like this are unfalsifiable. They can be made at any level of income inequality, and cannot be disproven.
That's not to say it's wrong, but readers should be wary when reading something like this. It's possible it's correct at face value. It's also possible it's wildly overstated. And it's also possible that trying to fix it through government policy will be worse than dealing with it as is.
> The other one is that some goods are limited, and you will be in direct competition with those people on many markets.
So will everyone else, though. That's the nature of markets. Yes, wealthy people will have easier access to limited resources, but that is always the case even at lower levels of inequality, and (in this case) does not necessarily result in overall worse societal outcomes (particularly relative to alternatives).
That's not to say your claims aren't valid--they absolutely are. I just urge caution to readers to acknowledge that these were true back in 1860, 1920, 1980, and today. I see these more as reasons why capitalism is less than ideal, but in no way indicative that it is not good.
I understand this, but high level claims like this are unfalsifiable. They can be made at any level of income inequality, and cannot be disproven.
That's not to say it's wrong, but readers should be wary when reading something like this. It's possible it's correct at face value. It's also possible it's wildly overstated. And it's also possible that trying to fix it through government policy will be worse than dealing with it as is.
> The other one is that some goods are limited, and you will be in direct competition with those people on many markets.
So will everyone else, though. That's the nature of markets. Yes, wealthy people will have easier access to limited resources, but that is always the case even at lower levels of inequality, and (in this case) does not necessarily result in overall worse societal outcomes (particularly relative to alternatives).
That's not to say your claims aren't valid--they absolutely are. I just urge caution to readers to acknowledge that these were true back in 1860, 1920, 1980, and today. I see these more as reasons why capitalism is less than ideal, but in no way indicative that it is not good.