We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Well, the OWS Movement didn't last through a rather mild winter. They may have some vigor left as the election cycle heats up, but for the most part the press has ceased to be impressed with their value.
It seems the Fed isn't all that impressed, either. While I'm no fan of the Fed as a manager of the economy, they do some fine research.
Income inequality should not be vilified, and public policy should encourage people to move up the income distribution and not penalize them for having already done so.
The issue has little to do with the income of the top earners and everything with how long they keep earning.
Letting the government focus on this single issue will entrench the top earners - leading to your outcome. Letting the market work, they will shift in and out over time.
Remember, in 1980, who had heard of people like Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates or even Carlos Slim Helu (lol, well, he's Mexican, but the point is still clear). By 1990, Gates was barely a blip on the screen, though we'd heard of him. And so on.
When the government focuses on keeping 'equality of income' on an even keel, the differential may shrink, but the families at the top become entrenched due to politically assured stasis.
It's worth mentioning that if government allows the central bank to manage the process through a false market (crony capitalism), there isn't much difference to how Socialists handle it. The only difference is the [i]claim[/a] that the market allowed it to happen, when this would clearly not be the case.
Bulldog makes a great point. Look back 150, 100, 50 years ago to those identified as being wealthiest. Those fortunes either became the basis for a foundation (doing worthy projects, we hope) or became less notable due to changes in the economy/new inventions. The Fed is simply managed by a bunch of people making educated (?) guesses, a task that has seldom succeeded longterm.
Look at John Reed (former chair of CitiGroup and the NY Stock Exchange and now president of M.I.T. where all those algorithms were established for trading hedge funds and, supposedly, keeping our economy stable), who has yet to lasso the finer points of running a massive organization over a long period of time. I'm not suggesting he's not an intelligent man, just that the premise is wrong: attempting to run profitable huge organizations usually doesn't work for very long unless "exceptions" are made via cronyism -- special favors by government regulation to select parties. It like turning a semi-trailer around on a two-lane highway. It's far easier and less disruptive to allow many smaller companies, agencies, etc. to tackle the vargaries of the marketplace where fine tuning is possible faster and less likely to lead to the mismanagement of an entire economy.
Big is not better after a certain point and finding that point (which I thought our anti-trust legislation was to designed to do) has been ignored by the powers-that-be since they took on AT&T and Microsoft.