youtube.com UK.
Reasons, he says, are 1. massive decreases in tax rates for very rich in UK in 80s during Thatcher, increased integration between rich and poor economies (US/UK and India/China), and 3. mismanagement of crisis in such a way they allow for massive wealth increases for the very rich.
Once you get a very rich class, they have huge amount of assets and huge amount of passive income (for Example Sunak has $700m and therefore generates around $30m per year), so what they use that income for is to buy more assets (from the middle class, he says), which pushes asset prices up, and ordinary families get poorer and lose their wealth, and upward social mobility becomes difficult. There is some point, he theorizes, that there is a spiraling effect.
Because when asset prices pass a certain cost, if you don't already have assets you can't get assets. Even if you make good money, twice the median, you still can't buy those assets and move up in class.
People tell the young that if you can't get money, you're lazy or incompetent, while ‘making it impossible for them to succeed.’
People with 100b pounds, if you don't tax them, their wealth will grow and grow until they take what you have.
...
Relatedly, I saw posts and threads that said Indians own more land in London than British. That Gujaratis own almost half of US hotels.
Are we overcapitalized? Can some cultures handle higher capitalization?
Also, tyrants love immigrants more than citizens, it has been suggested.