A number of concerns surrounding inequality have been produced in the past year as the idea of 1% of the population owning 90% of the wealth has began to be a popular subject. Figures differ depending on the criteria of the study, some find that the world's top richest 1% own over 40% of the world's wealth to 10% of the richest own 85 or 90% (Wikipedia has a readable summary with citations at: http://en.wikipedia.org/...). See also an article in the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/...) When the focus is on earners the top 1% of earners are often found to own some 90% of the wealth in some countries (see CIA figures for inequality or Gini index at https://cia.gov/...). In the 15th century about 0.5% of the French population was of the noble class. Historian Gordon Wright (Wright, Gordon. France in Modern Times. 4th ed. New York: Norton, 1987) and Jean de Viguerie (Viguerie, Jean de. Histoire et dictionnaire du temps des Lumières 1715-1789. Collection: Bouquins. Paris: Laffont, 1995) argue a percentage of nobles of 1%. One might then say that nothing has changed from feudal times regarding wealth and power.
In history powerful actions can be initiated by a simple minority that is organized and motivated. The Bolsheviks made up far less than 1% of the population in Russia in 1917. The percentage of American adults who voted on the question of ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1789 was less than 5% and less voted for it according to Charles A. Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913).
The effects of inequality are generally destructive to stability and democracy. Levy, the great Roman historian of the first century of our era, tells us that in the early Roman Republic, about the 3rd century B.C.E. Roman law limited the amount of wealth a family could control as it was recognized that increased wealth in a few hands created disorder and a public policy that lacked gravitas, while increasing corruption and injustice. Appian, a Greek who lived through the Roman Civil Wars, argues that the Romans were better organized and less corrupt before the final Punic War when the wealth of empire became concentrated in a few families and these came to use their power to control politics. M. Rostovtzeff, the great historian in his book, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, also points to the accumulation of great wealth at the expense of the farmers and middle classes as the main element in the corruption of the political life of Rome and the triumph of the generals.
If we are to avoid a similar fate, America must begin to tax the rich and reduce the size of fortunes to 10s of millions from billions and the size of corporations, from 100s of billions to 100s of millions. To fail in this will only lead to the trail of violence and disorder that Rome collapsed into and we will see our freedom and our liberty evaporate in bread and circuses on the internet.