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"?

Edit for clarification:

I was asking if it is better to have a system where those with money, and weath get the lion's share of benefits from economic production, while the middle class and lower tread water or lose ground, or if productivity gains end up spreading out more evenly.  The current trends involving the United States is that the middle class, since the late 1970s has seen their wages stagnant or decrease (adjusted for inflation), while those who have money, and the rich, have had their incomes and wealth greatly increase.  People have borrowed to keep up with the Jones in this, and worked more hours. So, say these trends continue where the top end up with an ever increasing percentage of wealth and income, while the middle class disappears, and you have increasing numbers of people falling further behind.  In this case, is this system superior to one where there is a middle class that gets also benefits from gains in productivity, and increased profits.  Or if the natural order of things is to have only rich or poor, if that is superior.

In this, the responses I see these as replies that fit the context of what was discussed above.
* Denying this is happening, and showing there is a middle class and wealth distribution isn't a problem, as the middle class is keeping it up.  In short, wealth naturally doesn't tend to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands.

* Argue this is wrong, and needs to be tackled.

* Argue that this is the natural order of things, and the best system is one in which either you get rich or remain poor, because everything is dependent on the individual, and those who are competent always rise to the top, and this shouldn't be tampered with.   In short, wealth does naturally accumulate in fewer and fewer hands and that is a good thing.

I think the problem is not with spreading wealth around, but giving wealth away to those who do not deserve it, and creating a cycle that rewards not working and punishes those who do work.

In my opinion wealth should be in the hands of those that work hard for it and those that can create new wealth/resources with what they have.

There's one powerful quote that my high school Econ teacher said to me: "In a capitalist society, in order for there to be rich, there has to be poor"

Not everyone can be a lawyer, and flipping burgers at McDonald's or being a janitor are jobs that need to be filled too. If everyone was a lawyer or a doctor or something else, then all those blue collar jobs would be left voided. And then, if everyone had the same amount of wealth by being doctors/lawyers/etc, then people who wanted goods more than the next person would just bid the prices up, and that would just cause more inflation for the few (in this eutopic type of world) who didn't have much money, they wouldn't even be able to survive.

So spreading the wealth would be bad because competitiveness will just drive prices up, leading to others getting paid more, then there's an income gap with citizens. But if all the wealth is in only 1% of the populace, they'll just bid prices up amongst themselves, and for those that don't pay that extra premium, they'll just become "poor". (poor is in quotes because one may have a lot of money, but it's value decreases if prices go up).

Both means reach the same end, and it's not good for the people. Just let people do what they want, and don't screw with their money, and I bet that some sort of equilibrium will be reached

I remember a teacher in college that spoke of the two systems and he said that both have serious consequences, they are destined to fall.

Socialism tend to give the people the same resources even though their professions are different. Why becoming a lawyer, a doctor or an engineer if you are going to get the same as a janitor or a waiter in a restaurant?. This system rarely gives economic rewards unless you are incredibly good and lucky. Socialism misunderstands the word "equality". This ins result makes people want to leave the country in search of a better life. or a less desire to go beyond because you will get nothing from it. By having the wealth spread  the same the risks of tax increase comes and the inflation rates can reach the sky.

Capitalism, on the other hand, while more rewarding it gives green light to exploitation. In many cases you don't get what you worked so hard for, and you get more money not because of what you know, but on who you know applies perfectly. by having the wealth on a very few there comes a risk that is these hands fail the rest of the world falls. It makes the economy more fragile and less flexible to changes.

My teacher suggested that the solution lies in "proportions", a bit of capitalist with a bit of socialism. but to take this from theory to practice is impossible. because the human factor is the problem. 

You will reach a stable state, but in my opinion it would not be a pleasant one. The poor would be horribly exploited because they would have no other option but to work for whatever the rich are willing to pay.

In my opinion there needs to be a careful balancing act between socialism and capitalism. While there will always be the poor and the rich, in my opinion we need to make sure that the poor aren't so poor that they are living out on the streets. My motto with this thing is that you need capitalism to keep people reaching for the top and socialism to stop them falling off the bottom.

@bloodwalker. You'll find that pretty much every Western country today does indeed balance socialism with capitalism, some are more weighted to capitalism (ie. USA) and some to socialism (for example I believe Sweden is quite heavy on the socialism).

Bmaker11

Just smacked this thread up.

When money is in more hands, it gets spent.

When it's in a few hands, fewer amount gets spent.

What cheeses me is that these rich people encourage donations to charity. The wealthy parasites do not donate  to charity. They trick middle class workers into donating to charity. Eugenics is a powerful thing. Environment, children in Africa is black mail. Natural selection: you pay enough taxes, let these people in Africa die and take care of you and your families. Political black mail that governments and billionaires encourage people to donate to charity. Middle class people pay too much taxes. 

The wealthy elite billionaires have the same self-centred views on the world. Their philanthropist ideas have an evil agenda behind it. Al Gore's global warming and climate change is nothing more than a cynical cash grab. Buffet and Gates promoting charity is just another scam. I would not trust these charitable billionaires who accumulated wealth through monopolies and eliminating competition. Elites own multinational companies and pay little or no tax. Pays tp have corporate lawyers who can channel funds into safe tax free havens. 

http://www.battleforjustice.com/Eugenicist.html

New feudal system: modern billionaires are like autocratic kings and queens of the past. 

yes, let's spread the wealth. I want some free money. lol

That's right everyman for himself,who cares about the rest of the world. lol