Not evil, but good: by what means the income inequality is useful for the society

A few days ago, Novye Izvestia published an article by political analyst Dmitry Nekrasov "Elite overconsumption: an inevitable evil or a necessary good?" years. Publicist Marina Shapovalova looked at the same problem from a different angle, coming to the same conclusions as Nekrasov:

“Before you can agree that 'the world will not be the same', as concerned thinkers will remind you, the main problem of humanity remains inequality in income.

It’s not about poverty, after all, it’s not about the fact that about two billion out of seven and a half, either live off bread for water, or, at best, do not have access to modern medical services - about comparison! And not in general, but by country. Say, if everyone in the country is more or less equally poor, and no one has accumulated billions, then there will be no reasons for social tension there. And the greater the difference in income between the poor and the rich, the more tense the situation.

I really thought that since “we are all dead”, then the far-fetched problems would be the time to go to the last plan. But no: the left is not so easy to knock off your favorite topic.

I understand why people care about really unsatisfactory consumption levels and the availability of health care. Especially now, during the epidemic. But if you are provided with everything necessary for life and health, as citizens of all developed capital countries, what difference does it make to you how many times the conventional Rockefeller is richer?

"Leftism" with ideas of equality and justice is a trend fashionable today in the most prosperous and wealthy societies. Where there is almost no difference between the richest and the poorest in the level of consumption and the availability of social benefits. The one that is, is described by the brands of the goods and the ownership - which, unlike temporary use, requires maintenance costs.

Concentration of funds in one hand is not an opportunity to eat in three throats, since it is not provided for by nature. This is capital. And the right to invest it. Elon Musk needs it to invest in space projects. Bill Gates - social. To the Russian authorities - to maintain the regime in a resource-rich territory and to finance dirty tricks outside of it. In any case, capital has a minimal effect on the level of personal consumption.

In order for a person to live comfortably and enjoy all the benefits of civilization, personal capital is not needed - this is the main achievement of capitalism. Over the centuries, capitalism has built a high level of well-being for all, and not just for those who are ready and able to take organizational responsibility at the risk of ruin. For its further functioning in the same direction, such conditions in the state and society are needed so that the owner of the capital has every opportunity to invest in projects that are useful and interesting to society. Expanding horizons, lowering costs. Improving the quality of the environment.

And, on the contrary, to make investing in various dirty tricks difficult and unattractive.

By limiting the concentration of capital in someone's hands, one can achieve only one thing: state capitalism. That is, the concentration of the most gigantic funds in the hands of those who receive or seize power in the state. Moreover, the ruling group receives funds that are obviously superior to any personal fortune, without putting in the slightest entrepreneurial effort. Not having experience of effective investment, not being able to create anything. And with the goal of power itself. What interests determine the investment of the funds received by it - I think it's clear.

Because this is what we observe in reality..."