Does that mean, in a theoretical world where wealth is by all means easily distributed, you’ve got a mere 0.001% that could triple the per-individual wealth of half of the worlds population—if we just took theirs and passed it out?

I’ve heard philosophers say, it’s a figure of authority’s continuous responsibility to justify its existence. Given, wealth is influence and influence is authority, should we not audit cases where wealth is so concentrated and ask ourselves question like ”how is this contributing to the benefit of all?”

I’d.argue, we shouldn’t allow such concentration of wealth in the first place—meaning there should be a preventative plan that Just Works. This can be compatible with whatever else you want, free markets or not. Be it a stronger progressive tax or a cultural change toward worker collectives owning the means to production, there just shouldn’t be such wealthy entities.

The concentration on wealth leads to concentration of influence, meaning politics and media. We’ve had a shrinking number of independent major news organizations since the 1980s. A 1983 analysis showed that about 50 companies “controlled more than half” of U.S. media. Today, there are estimates of a handful of people owning the vast majority. Not to mention, they can apparently choose to purchase massive Social Media platforms (like Twitter) immediately before an election.

Right now, though, we have this problem where such silos already exist. They use their influence, vast as it is, to protect and enrich themselves—PACs, Super PACs, gratuities, lobbying firms, and more recently meme coins. All acting as a conduit to influence politics and legislation. We can’t make progress while these issues continue to stand in our way, can we? So, what do you do?

Who’s to bet there’s not a strategy being honed since WWII on how to bootstrap an army as fast and effectively as possible?