Well, this is starting to drift from the original point, but it's all just supply and demand, my man. The guy taking a job for a pittance wage is presumably doing so because the alternative is worse, otherwise why take the crappy job? Is it really "wealth" as we know it? I suppose not, but it's still a better alternative, as uncomfortable as that might seem sometimes. But life isn't always all sunshine all the time.

Wealth is not fixed...repeat that 1,000 times. That's all that matters here. Capitalism is a system that allows people - anyone - to create wealth. Hell, look no farther than all these crazy tech companies coming public, the saas and social media revolutions or whatever. Why are they almost always US companies? Why isn't this stuff happening in Romania? We have a system that lets people create wealth for themelves no matter how rich others are, and it attracts talent and hard work and all that stuff, and it becomes a big virtuous circle.

Anyway, my point is just that wealth in this country isn't a real problem. It is not suppressive. It's the opposite, actually.

If there is one problem though, and this is something more recent, it's that with technology we all seem to have our faces rubbed in others' wealth. This is sort of a real problem...sort of. There are tons of really interesting behavioral economics studies that deal with this and show how it makes people feel worse about themselves. A topic for another day I suppose...

I suppose what this boils down to is that you and I fundamentally disagree on what makes someone wealthy. The below is an interesting take on the old parable of the fisherman and the investment banker. Capitalism is not the be all, end all of economic systems. It is certainly the system that best enables federated wealth-building, but it is not like everybody benefits equally. For real-life proof, have a look at the Banana Republics from the early 20th Century that profiteers created in Latin America.

http://blog.figuringshitout.com/the-parable-of-the-fisherman...

Hmm, how do I put this gently? Let me try.

I hate to break this to you, but you dont have the ability to "fundamentally disagree" on something like this. Put simply, you dont know what you're talking about. You obviously dont know anything about economics, and to the extent that you've read something it's clearly been selective in order to fit your worldview. You can disagree with me and be wrong if you insist on it, because these things you're saying are fundamentally and demonstrably wrong. You might as well tell me the sun rises in the west.