Like anything some is good too much is bad, a gradient work for a complex society, a brutal difference like kings and dark ages poor eventually bring collapse

Wealth inequality was not the defining aspect of the relationship between kings and peasants. It was also not the reason for the collapse.

The defining quality was the mechanisms by which kings extracted wealth from peasants (indirectly, through layers) which doesn’t resemble what we have in western liberal democracies today. Things like tallage and arbitrary taxation, labor dues, mill/oven/wine press monopolies, heriot, merchet.

Serfs were legally bound to the land.

The Black Death killed 1/3 of Europe’s people, giving peasants leverage because without enough workers, lords could not enforce arbitrary dues because peasant could walk out or revolt, such as the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.

That’s when the Dark Ages extraction model started to break down. Not because of wealth inequality, though it can see why they get conflated.

If we take the top billionaires in western liberal democracies today, they do not extract wealth from the average worker (there’s no duress, for instance), and it is clear that they have created more wealth than they have “taken”.

>"If we take the top billionaires in western liberal democracies today, they do not extract wealth from the average worker (there’s no duress, for instance)"

Yeah, right. Soviet level propaganda

If you can explain the mechanic, I’m all ears and open to change my point of view.

> Soviet level propaganda

I’d be careful not to conflate billionaires in Russia with those in western liberal democracies. Totally different.

> I’d be careful not to conflate billionaires in Russia with those in western liberal democracies. Totally different.

Actually, they're pretty much the same.

they “extract” wealth on the back of shared investments like infrastructure and now our data/IP with AI

it’s not the same as your examples but i’m not sure that it needs to be exactly the same

Yes, this is easy to explain.

It creates a country nobody is willing to fight for. Beyond certain levels of inequality, you get systemic dysfunction.

Beyond a certain point, having a country where teeth are “luxury bones” and you have people putting off healthcare items due to cost isn’t sustainable. We’re past that point, and need to cut the rich down multiple pegs.

> Beyond a certain point, having a country where teeth are “luxury bones” and you have people putting off healthcare items due to cost isn’t sustainable. We’re past that point, and need to cut the rich down multiple pegs.

Concur that poverty should be eradicated and that overt time the minimum bar for what qualifies what each human deserves/needs rises. However, that's orthogonal to wealth inequality.

It is not impossible to have huge wealth spectrum and no poverty. Conversely, it is not uncommon throughout the ages for societies to have little wealth inequality but extreme poverty.

>Can you explain what is wrong with people having different levels of wealth?

There's nothing wrong with it, in moderation. Where it becomes a problem is when the distribution of wealth starts diverging widely from people's expectation of what a fair distribution would be, accounting for different levels of ability and luck. Aside from this cognitive dissonance, there are also pragmatic limits on how big a disparity can be while still having a functional democracy. It's clear that truly enormous disparities in wealth, made even worse by a lack of regulation in political donation, lead to major distortions in the principle of "one person, one vote" which is a cornerstone of democracy.

>Or asked differently, if it is bad, should every individual have the exact same wealth?

No, because people have different levels of ability and experience different amounts of luck. Inequality is inevitable, and the vast majority of people understand and accept that. But they also expect that the system should at least roughly resemble a meritocracy, and that is impossible to maintain in an unregulated capital system because of the feedback loop between capital and income. Most professional sports leagues recognize this problem: once a franchise starts winning, they make more money, which allows them to buy better players, which leads to more wins, etc, until you have a league where a handful of teams can win the championship and the others are perennial also-rans. So they cap the amount of money that can be used for salaries. They are free, of course, to make as much money as they can, they just can't plow it all back into player salaries. Capital is regulated to preserve the fairness of the system. That doesn't mean the teams are all equal, there are still franchises that perform better over time than others. But it's more clearly tied to intrinsic merit like coaching systems and player development, not just going out and buying proven superstars.

Similarly, a person of average skill can get lucky and make a large amount of money. Having that capital in turn makes it easier to make more money. Over time, and across many such situations, capital starts outrunning merit as a predictor of someone's future income, which is socially demoralizing. That's where the US is today: a pervasive feeling that the system is rigged. To a great extent, this widespread perception contributes to the current political climate in the US.