Instead, in many countries, it's not uncommon for some people to be sitting on a hundred, a thousand, even a million times as much money as others. The disparity is so great that it's difficult to fully visualise - hence why you get videos of people like Tom Scott driving around trying to demonstrate just how different these sorts of numbers are.
More importantly, wealth scales in a strange way. Becoming a billionaire didn't just entitle you to more exotic holidays or vehicles or mansions than your millionaire peers, it brings incredible ability to influence politics and the world, with next to no accountability from the people whose lives you are affecting. You can buy media companies on a whim. You can demand meetings with politicians. You can make economic threats in order to get your own way. And, unlike politicians, there is no democratic process to elect you or remove you.
The analogy is, therefore, absurd. The premise is that, if you have an issue with wealth inequality, you have an issue with inequality universally, at all scales. But it misses the point that the issue with wealth inequality isn't that the numbers aren't an identical, it's that extreme wealth actively causes problems.
I'd like to give you a thought exercise, if you be so kind to me. I'd like for you to take that Dutch argument and replace Dutch with "human adult" and Asian with "human baby" (assume it's a booming population where babies outnumber adults) and see if your reasoning serve you well.
It's difficult to take you seriously.
I think it might be easier for you to explain your point if you didn't describe it in analogy, and instead described it directly. The criticism is that large (i.e. several orders of magnitude) wealth gaps are bad for society, and that they cause tremendous power imbalances in what would otherwise be a democratic society.
Purely in terms of wealth inequality, and not through analogy, why do you disagree with this criticism?
There are capitalists in this world. There are communists in this world. There are Christians in this world. There are Muslims in this world.
I'm not taking any sides. I'm just saying that it is impossible for all of them to be right... Because they are mutually exclusive ideologies/religions. Someone is bound to be wrong. Therefore, someone deserves to be treated poorly by the law. Infact, dare I say, all these 4 groups are being a bit childish. Also, "totalitarian" is also another such group. Anyway, personally, for the current situation of the world, I think that the world needs at least one adult leader at the helm. In other words, dare I say, a single leader. No, definitely not someone who believes in totalitarianism.
Finally, personally, I think that if I fail to feed my children properly, then, it's either a failure on the part of society to educate me properly or to manage the resources. I am, afterall, a product my society.
Also you might want to actually watch the movie. The whole point about growing inequality is that society is failing to provide economic opportunity because inequality is going through the roof. Education will not help you because of the economic realities.
If someone culture is to be honest and not steal, they don't. But having an ideology is not a invitation to force ones own values on to other people. I'd like to live in a honest world and that's the part of the world I limit myself to. I do not force my views onto others or claim to speak for other cultures.
Secondly, in response to your second paragraph, I'd like to quote another sibling comment of mine already in this thread.
That is what is being eroded by the wealth inequality. The wealthy are significantly insulated from the law, are shaping laws that further reduce their chance of loosing wealth, increasing their wealth in the process and reducing everyone else's economic opportunity.
For a society this creates an unstable situation, if all economic (and political) power sits in the hands of only a few that creates unrest often leading to a violent overturn of the situation (or trying to counteract via totalitarian measures).
As a side note, you say you're content with not being wealthy, but how far would this content stretch, would you be content if you are so poor that you'd struggle to feed your kids?