The data seems to indicate that the gap between the 'have very muchs' and the 'have very littles' is growing. The "have just enoughs" have kind of been getting crushed.

Yet...this is invariably attributed today to the growth of rampant capitalism. Is that justified, or is that just a relationship pulled out of someone's backside because it "seems right"?

Were I to assess capitalism-ness as a metric, I'd say it's pretty clear that the USA in the late 19thC and early 20thC - the era of the rail barons, the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, the Pullman strikes (1894), the Triangle Shirtwaist fire (1911), etc. - was a society far more "nakedly capitalistic", unfettered by government oversight or regulation. Further, the sheer growth of government since that time, the 1929 crash, the New Deal, WW's I and II, the War on Poverty, the Great Society Programs, etc. would suggest that capitalism has been if not receding, than at least mitigated strongly by regulation, government instutions and, honestly, public expectation.

My point is that the growing disparity in incomes between the top and bottom has paralleled the ebbing of capitalism, not been counteracted by it. Adam Smith might hypothesize that as the government is more and more involved in the market, it picks with disproportional force 'winners' and 'losers' that may be contrary to the long-term health and benefit of the system. Capitalism is conflict-based. Successful capitalism REQUIRES some people make bad choices and suffer for those choices for the collective good. It equally requires businesses to fail - with the concomitant pain for the workers of said businesses. A close reading of the Wealth of Nations makes it clear that for capitalism to function at its healthiest, it HAS to be universal. Any intrusion of anti-market activity - specifically, government - harms the efficacy of the system as a whole in broad and subtle ways. (FWIW union activity itself is inherently NOT anti-capitalistic, as some shallow commenters have suggested; labor organization, striking, etc are all very inherently capitalistic responses to perceived imbalances in the power between employer and employee; HOWEVER, government taking a side and preventing the natural resolution of the conflict is very *definitely* anticapitalistic)

I'm not making any prescription here. Just observing that the 'common wisdom' that 'as capitalism increases, so does wealth disparity' doesn't seem to be borne out by historical fact for at least the last 100+ years.

An open letter to those who complain about the political climate:

Isn't this exactly what we wanted?

I mean, we're the electorate, and we consistently vote for representatives who are short-sighted, self-interested, and frankly, stupid.

I don't care WHICH side of the political fence you're on. Both parties have full rosters of idiots, and we seem to be listening more and more to the histrionic extremists and punishing the moderate centrists.

BOTH parties seem entirely focused on maintaining their own partisan grip on power and enriching their supporters, rather than actually doing their jobs.*

*and yes, it's not just Democrats and Republicans.  There is a rind of political 'conscientious objectors' who insist on voting for third-party candidates.  Yes, on occasion when the two major blocks are precisely balanced, this can make a difference in US politics.  But understand, the bulk of the dialogue is between the two basic parties in the US, and the the 'third option' only has influence as a tiebreaker.  They throw no weight, politically, except insofar as their message becomes broadly interesting to one demographic or another such that they're co-opted into the main platform of their nearest political faction.  So yes, you can sit comfortably with your conscience that you're 'doing the right thing' but understand that in practical terms you're impotent to make policy.

Instead of having a reasonable cross-spectrum discussion about meaningful subjects like the role of government in the 21st century, we seem to be satisfied with an educational system that churns out 'citizens' with only a faint grasp on basic concepts of math or reading (to say nothing of civics, history, or art), and who are thereby easily swayed by entertaining but vapid emotionalist demagogues from both extremes.

Assume you have a budget planner who can't do basic math, and continues to budget your spending for far, far more than you make every year. Then, when things get tough, he does things like whine that "you need to just make more money" and cut off your long term investments instead of making the needed choices about maybe not buying a new gun this year, or cutting off some of the freeloading relatives who could probably get a job anyway (mainly because the guy you buy guns from takes him on junkets, and the freeloading relatives keep recommending that he's the guy for the job, respectively).
Wouldn't you FIRE him immediately for gross incompetence, if not have him outright prosecuted?

Some of us had the 'excessively sympathetic friend' in high school. The friend that, whenever something went wrong, they always 'helped us' by figuring out someone else to blame for everything. Didn't get the library book in on time? It was the LIBRARY's fault for being closed on Sunday (not you, for waiting until the very last moment to return it...). Girlfriend dumped you? She was a controlling harpy (it certainly had nothing to do with you cheating on her, that was just a mistake...). Failed calculus? Of course it was because the teacher hated you (and nothing to do with the fact that you got stoned instead of doing your homework). It was always someone else's fault.

Those are the talking heads on both sides.
They are entertainers. They are employed because they are entertaining blamers. Not because they're reasonable, not because they're wise. And we keep listening to them - the Limbaughs and Colters, the Maddows and Mahers. These are the people that make us feel better because everything is "someone else's fault".

WE are the ones who keep returning 95%+ of politicians to their seats.
WE are the ones who are ultimately responsible for putting them there.
WE have nobody to blame but ourselves.