Y/N?

Marx postulated that, in a purely capitalist society, there would eventually become an overwhelming disparity of wealth between the very rich and the common man. Think Dickens' London, mid 19th century, or better yet, Paris, 1788 (not exactly capitalist, I know, but the dichotomy of the society is similar in scale). Marx, having lived the ravages of impoverished London, concludes that the only response can be socialism. His view is understandable, if a bit idealistic on the true character of human nature.

Current capitalist thought, specifically American economic pragmatism, holds that this can never be true, because for so long as one has an idea it is possible for one to earn money, and a lot of it. If anyone can have an idea, anyone can be rich, hence leveling the playing field; and who doesn't want to be rich? Those who believe maybe a little socialism would be good for the democracy, well, they're just too lazy to get rich themselves, and seek to spoil being wealthy with backbreaking taxes for those of us who do.

In a booming economy, this might actually be true. When money is plentiful on the ground, credit, which is that age old companion to commercialism, is easy to come by. If you can get credit, you can develop your fabulous idea, make a mint, and never worry for money again. Its when you cannot get credit that the idea breaks down. When there is no credit, there is no way to develop the idea, only the possibility of selling it to the highest bidder, who might not be bidding very high at all. This is leaving out the money and legal clout necessary to enforce a patent, if it can be enforced at all.

All of this, of course, increases the divide between rich and poor, and, in a country that was supposed to be about being a self made man not even death can assist in leveling the playing field, we end up in the ugly conundrum we face today, with megacorporations, legal near-monopolies, and 10% of the country owning more wealth than the other 90% combined. Unite that with the fact that money means more than words or intent in the political sphere, and we are heading down a very dangerous road.

Here's the question:

In the 1990's, when the economy was booming, was the wealth better distributed? Can the line where the shift started to be made at the downturn of the economy, or can it be made at the tax cuts and deregulations of the Bush (and Clinton) years? Which is more important? And, knowing the potential this has for our democracy, what the hell are we going to do to fix it?