I am not saying that. However, if money can be anything, one of those things can be broadly classed as access to resources, and winnowing further, the material goods needed to survive. If that is the case, than the mere fact that the majority of wealth is beyond reach for the majority of the people, then they can’t possibly see their needs met- therefore, poverty is a condition necessitated by wealth.
Or to turn the question around, if the wealthy had less- much less, even, and thus less claim to or power over available resources, wouldn’t it follow that the poor would have greater access to and power over resources?
I’m certainly no fan of most of the world’s governance, but aren’t you being at least a little disingenuous with this sideline? Of course, one could easily argue that any government’s failures are tied to their relations with the wealthiest of their society. To return to Cleveland, where the public schools have long been drastically underfunded, what responsibility do the rich have for that condition? Did they not close up their factories, stripping the city of tens of thousands of jobs or more, only to re-open them elsewhere so that they could be even richer? Do they also not fight vehemently against property taxes, hamstringing the city’s ability to fund the schools? Do they not also leave themselves for greener pastures?
Whose words reach closest to the inner ear of government? Those whose money, whose wealth buys them that speech? Or those with little or no voice? Why do governments fail? Is it simply because governance is fallible? The wealthy suburbs of Cleveland have excellent public schools. Do governments in wealthy communities perform better because wealthy people are superior at governance? Could it be possible that the wealthy simply prefer to share only among themselves, while giving hardware store doughnuts to the poor?
