On 2/23/2012 1:30 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:

I think there is certainly a PERCEPTION that the wealth is
concentrated in fewer hands, but is it really.

Wealth concentration just doesn't matter in terms of how people live
their lives.
I think that to the extent that Bird-e is talking about it as an
indicator of power concentration in the hands of a few, that it can
matter.

Apart from having a little more disposable income to spend on lobbyists,
I don't think it matters if the top 0.01% have 20% of the wealth or 30%.
The reason is that it's not a zero sum game. If their share has grown
over time, it's because total wealth has grown, and they've received
more of the growth. It's not as if wealth is static and the top wealth
holders have increased their share of a constant size pie, in other
words by taking wealth away from people who used to have it.