The growth of the wealth of the super rich, and the increasing gap with the less rich, is a manifestation of exponential math. Two investors put money into the same investment that grows at 10%. One invests $1,000, the other $10,000. Each year, the gap will increase.

There is nothing immoral about this.

Where super wealth becomes a problem is when that wealth is used to influence policy. Effectively, the super-wealthy can choose to behave as unelected politicians. This is a problem.

Soros and the Open Society Foundations is an example of where this is manifest. He contributed $32 billion to fund the organization. His Open Society Foundation employs 1,150 professionals who promote his political agenda[1]. Whether you agree with his political agenda or not, Soros and I are both American citizens. We both have one vote. My influence in US politics should equal his. It does not. The only Americans who should have more political influence than I are those who have been elected or appointed to government positions.

Carlos Slim has owned 9-17% of the New York Times. Lauren Powell Jobs foundation owns the majority of The Atlantic. Bezos himself purchased the Washington Post. Perhaps these simply seemed like good investments, and I am certain that wealthy persons have owned media for centuries. But the unprecedented wealth of this century increases the potential influence the super wealthy can wield. This is a concern.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/billionaires-are-buying-medi...

[1] https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/past?page=2