Are those two choices mutually incompatible?

Posing this as a hypothetical, let's assume that the current near-record level of income disparity in the United States continues to increase, and that this trend also takes hold in Europe and Asia. It's made possible, however, by a separate set of rules for those who possess great wealth. They are allowed to game the system by manipulating currencies, practicing insider trading, and pulling the strings of their politician puppets so that the effects of new laws and regulations are always in their favor.

Although some people are made uneasy by the staggering amounts of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few in this scenario, most are willing to accept the situation as long as their own lives are measurably more comfortable. We're stipulating here that "a rising tide lifts all boats" and that enough of the massive capital gains accrued by the superrich will trickle down so that the populace as a whole is kept satisfied. Jobs are created, consumer items are produced more cheaply, and the pageant of celebrity culture continues to entertain.

So, are you okay with that? Or would you have some concerns about it?


I can see at least three possibilities that might make the situation unsustainable.

First, it could turn out that the whole thing is, in essence, a pyramid scheme and that it eventually collapses under its own weight, leaving the rich somewhat less rich but leaving the middle class destitute and the poor starving. This, according to some, is what caused the financial crash of 1929 and led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Second, the unchecked accumulation of wealth into the hands of only one-tenth of 1% of the population represents a growing power disparity that eventually may be seen as an unreasonable risk. The issue here would not be fairness so much as danger to the liberal democratic experiment. Can a society still be considered democratic when "one man, one vote" is supplanted by "one million dollars, one million votes"? If the rights and freedoms of everyone else are subject to a plutocracy's condescension, then we are in trouble, and some people might decide to fight back.

Third, and related to the point above, is the question of fairness. Will the monumentally expanding gap between the have-everythings and the have-a-littles finally become so exaggerated that it results in open revolt? (This outcome seems the least likely to me, since if it was ever going to occur, it should have happened by now.)


But let's assume that the disparity does continue to increase and that the situation does not prove unsustainable. As stipulated earlier, the rich get a lot richer, but the rest of us are willing to go along even though we know that the privileged few are maintaining their status by cheating. Are you okay with that?

If the only other option is to change the system so that the rules are the same for everyone, but by doing so, it means we all have to accept a slightly lower standard of living, is that a choice you would make?

And finally, are we really limited to just those two directions? Is there something else I'm missing?