People with certain assumptions about how income and wealth "should be" distributed like to show these charts and act like they are undeniable proof that something is inherently wrong with capitalism.
I don't "act" anything, the graphs show a serious fault in capitalism (at least the version we like to use here in the states).
People at the top tend to work more, have better educations, and have more ambition[...]
Please stick to reality and not personal observations. Working "more", "better" education or "more" ambition are relative/vague terms that I would never use as proof of anything, especially in making a point as to why it is OK to have 1% of the population keep 90% of the resources.
[...]so I'd say they should have a disproportionate share of wealth. What's a "fair" amount for the top 1% to have? I don't know and I don't think it's any of my business to even try to decide.
First and foremost, wealth and "fair" are a borderline oxymoron. Moreover, there is a difference between wealth (which is a very relative term) and sheer accumulation of unneeded resources. You are all over the board on both terms and make vague distinction. I repeat: There is NOTHING fair about 1% of any population getting to keep 90% of the resources in the country (be it currency, gold or bitches).
Secondly, and this is from a purely economics 101 point of view, in any economy you have to produce something of value. Selling shares of stock XYZ or defending a person in court has very little REAL tacit value. Building roads, houses, hospitals or making bread has lots of economic value. The problem comes from the fact that compensation for this value in our country is irrationally skewed toward jobs/enterprises that create very little value. There is NO WAY IN HELL 1% of the population create 99% of the value in any country in any period of history, so that is capitalism's main problem: Rewarding a minority, income-wise, and ignoring the majority.
Eventually this economic system, AS WITH ALL OTHERS, fails, because corruption seeps in and more economic distorsions percolate every facet of our society. It happened in Rome, with the British empire, etc. Just setting up a system that looks "fair" from the beginning (meaning everyone's given equal chance from the getgo) doesn't mean the system is "fair," it just means everyone was given equal stake when first introduced, that's all.
The second biggest problem with our version of capitalism is that it requires continuous profit as the fuel of the enonomy. No profit, no economy. And we're seeing the effects of this today.
So for the arbitrary time interval of 2000 to 2006 the wealthiest people increased incomes at a faster rate than the rest of the population.
No, that's not true. In fact, the "arbitrary" intervals you're referring to best describe the other side of the equation, meaning the times in history in which the majority's increase of their income took place at a higher rate that those in the top minority. I just posted that particular year range because I though it was eloquent enough to get the point accross.
If it makes you feel any better the same people who had big gains in the artificially selected window of 2000-2006 endured massive losses in 2008 and will continue to do so in 2009. But I fail to see how their loss is my gain.
Like I said, look at the income inequality graphs from when they were first produced and YOU TELL ME it is not ALWAYS (apart from brief moments in history) skewed toward the very rich.
And how you could just equate some rich guy losing 5 million bucks to someone having to live out on the street because they LOST 50,000 dollars speaks volume about the irrationality with which you view economic activity.
