2 questions;
- Would it negatively effect economic expansion if there were no large gaps in capital ownership?
and
- Is there a positive correlation between market economics and concentration of wealth/capital into fewer hands?
-
My understanding is that economic expansion comes from division of labor, accumalation of capital, and human genius in better use of resources. Those things increase productivity, which is economic expansion. Now if there were no large gaps in capital ownership, people could still specialize, become partners in a business so that they have the neccessary capital to operate it, and think.
-
This is a tricky one.
Of course the guy who invents the better mousetrap and knows how to turn it into an effective business [= Bill Gates] will get very rich. Because people will willingly give him their moolah in exchange for his invention. So that wealth/capital will seemingly concentrate in his hands.
And I say seemingly because there is something being overlooked if we just focus on Bill Gates counting his piles of coin. And that is that everyone he had an interaction with is better off as well. We know this because they think so too. It is why they bought his stuff in the first place, because in their opinion they are better off having it.
And indeed, the Industrial Revolution, for example, raised the standard of living for everyone involved.
Now is it a bad thing that one guy got a lot richer? I don’t see why, since it was not done at other peoples expense, but rather as a consequence [and thus a just reward] for improving the well being of many many people.