People in Washington (or elsewhere) who wield a lot of power without being rich, wield that power because it has been delegated to them. They are accountable for that power. Rich people are not, but probably should be.
The problem isn't merely the concentration of power, it's the concentration of unaccountable power. This is also why people are upset about secret courts and lack of congressional oversight over secret services: it withdraws accountability from an institute wielding power.
Re:Thomas Piketty’s plan to fix the economy
by missedthecue on Thursday May 07, 2020 @11:46AM
(#23104328)
>People in Washington (or elsewhere) who wield a lot of power without being rich, wield that power because it has been delegated to them. They are accountable for that power. Rich people are not, but probably should be.
I specified the qualifier "unelected"
If there were no billionaires would the so called "power imbalance" be restored? Does someone with $900 million not have the power of someone with $1 billion? Of course not.
And money doesn't linearly equate with power. There are a number of powerful people in Washington, even unelected ones, who have no substantial fortune to their name yet wield far more power than say Jack Dorsey, Bill Ackman, or Marc Andreeson. If Piketty was truly against all concentrations of power, he would call himself a libertarian.
But Piketty is not against concentrations of power. The core idea behind Piketty's philosophy is a moral one. He believes that some people having a significant amount more than others is a moral failure in society, and must be corrected, even at an economic cost.