We don't ignore the problem, we just have better than a 3rd-grade
understanding of economics. Your puerile fantasy above assumes
that "accumulated wealth" is like a big pile of food being hoarded
but not eaten by anyone. Let's examine one particular accumulator:
Not one single dollar of Bill Gates' fortune is being unproductive.
Most of it exists in the form of Microsoft stock, actively feeding
the 12,000 families of MS employees, their distributers, suppliers,
disk makers, retailers, consultants, trainers, magazine publishers,
and all of the other productivity that MS created; some part of his
wealth is being consumed in his fancy new house, cars, travel,
entertainment, etc.--employing lots of builders, auto makers, plane
mechanics, movie producers; the remainder of the money is personal
investment, such as bank accounts, personally owned stocks, bonds,
venture capital, etc. This amount, even though he may have a bank
receipt saying that his account has $1,000,000, the fact is that
the bank is then lending that money to new couples to buy houses
and cars, to small businesses, to developers. Banks typically only
have on-hand less than 10% of the actual deposited amounts; all the
rest is in investments working.
If you think wealth redistribution reduces poverty, then prove it.
The historical evidence is that it has been tried and failed every
time. Actions must be judged by their rationally expected results,
not by their motives. A hungry man prefers actual, physically
existing food to a society that /wants/ to feed him but does not.
Capitalism feeds people. Socialism steals their money and leaves
them begging. Results are what matters.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>