Who do you propose manage it? That seems overbearing, to assume that some entity can do a better job managing the wealth of those who earned it. Wealth inequality will always be with us, just as it has all throughout history. In a free market, bad decisions are punished through the loss of wealth.
certainly an adorable point of view, but most wealth being transferred internationally these days is captured through exploiting natural resources (hundreds of millionaire Saudi Princes) or outright bribery/graft (many chinese political officers buying up California, many russian political and corporate officers buying up London and NYC).
There's a reason middle eastern and russian rich people buying up Manhattan real estate insist on installing 3 bullet proof panic rooms throughout their apartments. Stealing resources and exploiting people grows your enemies list considerably.
Not all wealth comes about because a 28 year old IPO'd their billion dollar social flimflam startup.
> bad decisions are punished through the loss of wealth.
We've lost that ability in any meaningful capacity.
Lumber Liquidators stock fell 80% on the management's bad decision to use crappy Chinese flooring, so that is one example of bad decisions leading to loss of wealth.
Wake me up when HSBC sees meaningful fines or when Putin has his $70 billion in illegally acquired wealth confiscated.
People in the Hacker News sphere both exaggerate the proportion of rich people who got there in decent ways (in reality, it might be 10% in the U.S. and 2% globally) and the degree to which Silicon Valley is an exception.
Not all wealth comes about because a 28 year old IPO'd their billion dollar social flimflam startup.
Worse yet, most of the 28-year-olds who are able to get the introductions and press support necessary to make a flimflam unicorn are the offspring of those resource extractors and corrupt officials and health insurance lobbyists. It's like money laundering, but with social assets (connections, pedigree) rather than financial ones.