In 1982, the average American on the Forbes list of 400 richest had a net worth - total - of 230 million dollars. By 2016 the Koch brother's political donor group alone could put an announced sum of 889 million into the level of US politics directly responsible for selecting Federal and Supreme Court Justices, without serious effects on anyone's net worth. In the intervening years of growing rich guy influence, all five of the Justices who delivered the Citizens United ruling were appointed by Koch supported Presidents and confirmed by Koch favored Senates.
The Citizens United decision - the Court that delivered it - was a direct consequence of allowing too much wealth inequality. It was not "conservative" in any meaningful sense (there is no way on earth to derive Constitutional rights for incorporated capital and anonymous foreign interests from any American political tradition or common practice or "original" intellectual discussion) - that destruction of vocabulary as a means of crippling reason is standard tactics in modern authoritarian movements.
For what?
It's a bad system of governance - the gold makes the rules is even worse than he who has the gold makes the rules.
It's a very good system (from my pov, as someone who values freedom and liberty) for producing and allocating goods and services for which a market can be set up (a function of government).
It's a mediocre system of adjudicating social status and societal relations. imo.
Yes, it is. You continue to argue with observation - this is not an opinion question, it's a data and evidence question.
I'll try pictures:
https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/wealth-inequality-problem-one-chart/
By now, less than 1% of the US population has accumulated more than 40% of the US wealth, including most of the wealth from the net gain in productivity since 1982 or thereabouts (top third got all of that). The analogous situation in some arena of business would be called a de facto monopoly, and anti-trust legislation would apply. Government coercion enforcing the breaking of trusts is part of the standard regulation of capitalist economies, necessary because trusts destroy the market competition that is their means of self-regulation.
Why are you obsessed with your fantasies about other people's moods and character flaws and "fairness" and so forth? The topic here is governance of a capitalist economy, in particular what to do if one has mistakenly allowed its natural tendency toward disproportionate wealth accumulation to run too far - and it's doing serious damage.