I have to take issue somewhat with Richard Bridge's assertion that skewed distribution of wealth and income is dangerous.

I might agree in a country where the polarisation of haves and have nots is extreme, such as Middle East / African dictators sitting on mountains of gold whilst their population starves. However, in The West, the safety net is a bit higher than that. So whilst The Duke of Westminster and a single mum in a tower block are poles apart, both have free access to healthcare, enough money to feed themselves, running water, etc. Also, luxuries can be affordable, such as television, internet access, transport.

I don't try to keep up with the Jones's. Many people may be happier if they didn't too.

I get rather agitated when comfortable people use words like "dangerous." I accept that society based on the need for growth is not a Utopian model, but it is the nearest we have to it. The multinationals who don't give a damn need customers in order to remain multinationals. So perhaps they do give a damn, even if it is based on mutual need.

There is huge inequality in many countries and it doesn't have to be so. However, in The West, we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a few have a lot in order for the many to have work and a social program, then I am comfortable with that. We have governments to walk the tightrope of ensuring inward investment coupled with ensuring the state can afford its social program. I shout at the TV screen too, but at the end of the day I accept they are trying to run the country, however much we agree / disagree with them.