People always do. You can cap what they make at the executive level. The tax system, especially inheritance taxes, can be cleaned up to stop generational pileups of cash. Most importantly, laws should be passed to only allow individual voters to contribute to politicians' campaigns with a cap that prevents the rich from outspending the poor. Tax dollars can provide the rest to candidates that make it past a certain amount of local voting. Strategy, not dollars, will win those elections.

Those would've achieved a lot. There's other ideas like preventing overlapping boards of directors where competitors are in cooperative positions. One can highly tax investments like high-frequency trading that are parasitic on the economy while low taxes on anything highly likely to benefit it. No or few special laws for big companies or the rich. Better balance of budget between social concerns and war department with more focus on education and infrastructure. Subsidizes from taxpayers requiring good terms in company's charter for employees, I.P. licensing, whatever. Many things we can do.

Perhaps wealth re-distribution?

Does not work, will create just another layer of very rich. Look at Russia after 1992.

I don't see how russia proves anything. to me, what didn't work wasn't wealth redistribution, but planned economy. And planned economy has become mire viable since then, thanks to computers.

Russia after 1992 made experiment in wealth redistribution within capitalist system restored. The resjlt was devastated economy and creation of oligarchs. Read 'The Iron Heel' by Jack London, this is what happened in Russia when it turned back to capitalism.

Russia made one big "mistake" after 1992: "privatizing" the public sector by "gifting" enterprises to friends of Yeltsin. You could of course call this redistribution of wealth, but that's not what anyone has in mind here.

@physicalist. Far from that. Apart from few friends of Yeltsin, there arose an entire new generation of speculators, benefited from 'voucher privatisation'. Technically it was very much literal public wealth redistribution.

Revolution is the final answer, as always, the majority will win no matter what.

Taxes, welfare etc slow-down/mitigate that, but that's not enough for the so-called 99%.

I'm not sure I call a revolution "a win" - see the French revolution (hundreds of thousands dead in cleansings, country ruled by ruthless dictator) or Bolshevik or Chinese Communist Revolutions. I'm finding it hard to come up with a positive counterexample.

American revolution? Is that one a flop? (I mean for now, future trajectories aside.)

It's a good example IMO. I didn't come to my mind because I see it more as a colony liberating itself rather than internal turmoil - the ruling masters were mostly on another continent, so there was no problem of what to do with them after they lost power (and in America, the royalist fled to Canada, which was not an option in other revolutions as they didn't leave large areas of land loyal to the old order).

Quite possibly the only popular revolution of the modern age that didn't end in massacres. Probably because it was, despite all the rhetoric, controlled by a group of generally conservative oligarchs who really weren't trying to shake things up that dramatically.

It did not ended with a massacre only because it started with that. Ask ghe First Nations. Lacotas for example.

That's kind of an idiotic comment. The thirteen colonies had almost no contact with the plains tribes, like the Lacota, precisely because the British government had attempted to block passage of settlers past the Appalachians after the Seven Years War.

No. But rich will not give up their power. Anarcho-syndicalism has the answer and there are very successful experiments in modern days Spain with communas.