Would putting a limit on extreme wealth solve power imbalances? | The Excerpt

Forbes maintains a real-time billionaires list. All ten of the richest people on the list have each amassed fortunes greater than $130 billion. While some have pledged to give most of their wealth to charity, that still puts them in an enormous position of undemocratic, unvarnished power. The average CEO now brings in over 300 times the average worker’s pay according to the Economic Policy Institute. All of which begs the question, should this level of unbridled wealth even exist? In her new book, “Limitarianism, The Case against Extreme Wealth," Ingrid Robeyns argues strongly that it shouldn’t. She joins The Excerpt to discuss how more people need to have this conversation about capping extreme wealth.
#podcast #money #economy

[patrickglass]

Excellent interview! Ingrid Robeyns explains clearly and succinctly why extreme wealth is bad for civil society, democracy, and the Planet. It needs to be curbed and she tells us why. Thank you

[Kimm.J]

People can obviously have wealth... and pay taxes accordingly.

[progamerhennessey]

Yes, a couple million is generational wealth for the average American even in today’s economy.

[jackbarnes]

Musk earned it by creating a product that people wanted or could use. The fact people were willing to pay these amounts makes him brilliant not evil. Not one poor person would choose to remain poor than be super rich. This conversation is nothing but jealousy.