| richardhutnik said: Harken back to Joe the Plumber and how Obama's spread the wealth around comment was spun to be socialism. Even today, that is the charge, and the spin. Well, I want to ask here if the alternative is better. Is it better that wealth accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, as say the top 1% gets an ever increasing share of the pie, while the median income is flat or decreases? Robert Reich, in his latest book "Aftershock" says that the effect of more wealth accumulating in lesser and lesser hands is a major reason for the economic issues we have today. So, I ask, what is superior: Is it better that wealth accumulate in less and less hands, or that it be "spread around"? |
Would you rather live in North Korea or Switzerland? They're the ultimate examples of weath accumulating in a few hands (North Korea) and wealth being spread around (Switzerland has the highest median income in the World).
