Near the end of the article, he does seem to hint at it, but most of the article seems to point in the direction of saying that wealth inequality is a good thing because it encourages competition.

Obviously I think we would all agree with that as a general statement, but to what extent should this inequality be? That is the question for debate. After all, even in your most communist countries, doctors and scientists still earn quite a bit more money than does a janitor. But not 190 times more (per the chart I posted above).

My opinion is that when the inequality results in some people not have necessities to live (i.e. people living in poverty), then it has gone too far. Yes, we should all work hard and aspire to own a BMW or Ferrari, or a big house. But those who do not achieve should not be homeless, hungry or lack proper medical care.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...