> What "systemic damage" is being done by Larry & Sergey having become so much richer than they used to be ...
The systemic damge, ISTM, comes in part from a combination of widespread awareness of increasing inequality with some natural human tendencies:
(1) we tend to judge our well-being not on an absolute basis, but by comparing ourselves with others (another word for that might be "envy"; sorry, I couldn't find a cite quickly); and
(2) we want what we want, and to varying degrees we think we're entitled to get it.
The effects of this combination seem to get damped down, at least to some extent, when most people can get an adequate living and sufficient psychic income from employment.
And when properly channeled, this combination can sometimes lead to productive disruption.
On the other hand, this combination can be bad news if too many people -- especially energetic young males -- have too much time on their hands. See, e.g., street gangs, drug cartels, radical political- and religious movements, etc.
By no means am I condoning envy or a sense of entitlement; I'm just pointing out what seem to be brute facts that we have to deal with if we want to keep society viable.
[EDIT to respond to TomOfTTB's comment:] TomOfTTB, you're right that I'm just trying to clarify the problem. Some ideologues insist that there's a simple solution (while often disagreeing vehemently about what that solution is). Me, I'm not so sure.
I don't disagree with your points but I think you're just clarifying the question. The issue here is what to do with those problems and whether it is moral for the Government to forcibly remove wealth from people and give it to other people based solely on the fact that the people receiving the wealth think it's unfair they have less money.
It is "fairness of opportunity" vs "fairness of result". Or maybe more to the point "if we can't yet guarantee fairness of opportunity are we then justified in equaling out the result"
The systemic damge, ISTM, comes in part from a combination of widespread awareness of increasing inequality with some natural human tendencies:
(1) we tend to judge our well-being not on an absolute basis, but by comparing ourselves with others (another word for that might be "envy"; sorry, I couldn't find a cite quickly); and
(2) we want what we want, and to varying degrees we think we're entitled to get it.
The effects of this combination seem to get damped down, at least to some extent, when most people can get an adequate living and sufficient psychic income from employment.
And when properly channeled, this combination can sometimes lead to productive disruption.
On the other hand, this combination can be bad news if too many people -- especially energetic young males -- have too much time on their hands. See, e.g., street gangs, drug cartels, radical political- and religious movements, etc.
By no means am I condoning envy or a sense of entitlement; I'm just pointing out what seem to be brute facts that we have to deal with if we want to keep society viable.
[EDIT to respond to TomOfTTB's comment:] TomOfTTB, you're right that I'm just trying to clarify the problem. Some ideologues insist that there's a simple solution (while often disagreeing vehemently about what that solution is). Me, I'm not so sure.