The churn doesn't seem to be a factor in any of this. At what granular level the control resides may not be informative either.
Barack Obama proclaimed income inequality to be “the defining challenge of our time” in a 2013 speech.
mises.org
That seems an odd place to slice this particular pie. There are many benefits to having centralised governing structures. Making them as accountable as possible seems a better answer to me. Creating a power vacuum with no oversight just hands the power to anyone with the might to take it. Not a great solution so far as I can see. Sure some ideal level playing field where everyone has an equal opportunity and ability to exert control would be lovely but it is naive and anti-historical to think that is possible in human society.
You can’t make them accountable in the long term when they only need to worry about the next election cycle. Political lobbyists will find a way to use the government’s power to bestow privileges for themselves at other’s expense. People’s individual votes become meaningless. Let people govern their own affairs to the extent that they deem appropriate and not allow others to trample their property rights. You don’t just go from A to B, it would involve a long drawn out process which begins by decentralising sovereign governments first and working our way downwards. An impossible task perhaps given people’s propensity to want to control the actions of others, which they believe central government will provide them.
Why should growth be the standard? Why shouldn't sustainability or general happiness be the metric of choice? I often rail against it because it is camouflaged in reporting often in the phrase "profit growth". Profit is growth, so this is growth ON growth and that is unsustainable, hence why I think this a poor metric or goal.
Growth means we produce things cheaper. This shouldn’t be controversial that is the goal to strive for if you seek to improve material well-being. However it is not the ultimate goal, people have their own list of goals they want to achieve. I for one donate to charity for other goals I have in mind. A lot of people give up their time and money to help others, their family and friends. However if our capital stock is not growing, it means that our material well-being is either stagnant or in regression. People can’t invest everything they have they must consume to live, however to maintain prosperity they must not live outside their means, i.e. they must not consume their capital stock, only a part of the income it generates, if they seek to avoid impoverishment. It is not sustainable to consume your capital stock. Prices allow us to perform the calculation here to determine how we are going. There is no such objective standard to measure happiness.
On a side note, what we are witnessing in the west today (for the past several decades in fact) is the consumption of domestic capital stock. Credit expansion through both the actions of central bank’s loose monetary policies and fractional reserve banking practices of commercial banks has led to massive distortions in market prices and led to wide scale malinvestment. In addition to this, government’s have been increasingly intervening into the market process through large scale redistribution programs, onerous regulatory burdens and wasteful spending programs. The solution to this problem has been to provide higher doses of the poison. Our outlook for increasing material well-being looks grim, I don’t believe today’s children or even their children will enjoy the level of well-being experienced by their parents and grandparents. The major reason why these problems were allowed to be given the light of day is because of the power of centralised governments with no incentives to preserve long term capital value.
Only if you think capital value is a good metric. See above.
It is the only method that allows for rational economic decision making. Everything else is reaching in the dark, blindfolded.