Is wealth in fewer hands better than "spreading the wealth around"?

[Kasz216]

Legend11 said:

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).

I don't think you necssisairly know what Median income means.

It's totally possible to have a high Median income yet a high gini coefficent.   Switzerland is actually a pretty decent example of this.

Which is the stat you are looking for.

Switzerland's Gini coefficent 33.7%.   North Korea's?   31%.

The "wealth" is actually spread around more evenly in North Korea then Switzerland.

Using your own logic, you've disproven your own point. 

 

Though regardless, the real answer is pretty simple.  Whatever grows the economy best at the time, is best... because as long as you have basic controls at hand, everybodies lives will be better.

 

If you live in a shitty economy where there is no growth... it's not going to matter how the wealth is spread... cause it ain't gonna last.