It was reported in the news last night that Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ net worth soared past $100 billion with $2.4 billion of it coming on Black Friday. While others were jumping up and down with joy, that event triggered this somber, less than scholarly, article. In a world where too much wealth flows to those few at the top of the wealth heap, it comes at the expense of those multi-millions of others much further down that same wealth curve. Put another way, that marginal $2.4 billion of Bezos’ wealth increase cannot be felt or appreciated by Jeff or those around him in any way at all, while it could feed many millions of hungry people. That is too much wealth going to one person.

Despite the relative prosperity many of us see today because of a very long business cycle, there are still 5.8 million unemployed residents, and at least double that number who have given up looking for work. Unemployment is not due in any significant way to laziness, or ethnicity, or religion; rather, it is the consequence of hunger, and illiteracy, and obesity, and drug usage, and mental health issues—all of which are the unintended but the real aftermath of what remains when too much wealth is scooped up and flows into the unimpeded coffers of those the top.

I could end this essay here because, so far, I have told the unvarnished truth—and that, alone, is something of a lost art nowadays. But the unvarnished truth does not, and will not, change a thing when it butts its head against apathy and ignorance and greed. Reversing the tendency of apathy that causes some to sit still while life is happening all around them requires lighting a fire under the bloated asses of those who are inflicted by it. Reversing the emptiness of ignorance requires motivating and teaching those who are afflicted by it. And doing combat with greed requires a mental, psychological, and moral transformation within those afflicted by it the likes of which all the past saints and prophets who ever lived failed to accomplish. Other than that, the rest of this essay should be a piece of cake.

But you and I dare not fall into the abyss of despair just because the task before us lays squarely within the bounds of the impossible. The impossible is a temporary condition that has never met the power and the fury of another condition called a “can do” attitude. My outfit in the Vietnam War had an attitudinal answer to the issue of what is possible and what is not. Memorize it, if you dare:

The difficult we do right away; the impossible takes a bit longer.

Trust me on this: If you ever walk into a group of individuals who are possessed by the preceding “can do” attitude, and you confront them about it, you are in for the ass-whipping of your life. Your job title, your past honors, and all your connections will not protect you against those who dare to do what others say they cannot.

Here are a few of the obstacles that members of the “can do” group find in their path, stated roughly in the order of why the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer:

First, we are perpetuating a myth about free markets. Laissez faire (leave it alone) as an economic principle has outlived its usefulness. What worked well in 1776 when wealth was divided up with due respect for everyone, is not true today. The Gini Coefficient (see definition) for wealth distribution is overwhelming proof that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. Indeed, the U.S. with the most wealth also has the worst distribution of that wealth in the entire industrialized world. These facts are indisputable. They are also the consequences of our inheritance laws that allow too much wealth to be passed on within families—unearned and at the expense of all others. And by the way, Donald Trump’s recent “tax plan” would eliminate the inheritance tax altogether, thus making the task of solving this part of the “too much” problem much worse. Back in 1776 when life was simpler, and markets were freer, and tax laws were fairer, we did not have this issue. Then along came politics wedded to ideologies, and matters got worse. Today the former free market lays somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea. We must interrupt and change this issue. How? Impeach Trump, stop his outrageous tax bill. Vote him and all like him out of office. Work with all those organizations that oppose this practice.

Second, the Federal Reserve sets the nation’s monetary policy. They inject new money into the economy according to their combined wisdom about what is needed. So far, so good. But once banks step in and scoop up that money, the problem immediately gets worse. Why? Because capital flows to its place of immediate returns, and to hell with you, me, and the economy. Instead of lending that money to small companies and to individuals where it can get into circulation and create GDP, jobs, growth, and prosperity for all--banks lend it to themselves, and to large corporations where it is used in stock buy backs where it pushes up the price of wealth items in personal wealth accounts (stocks, bonds, and real estate). This practice must stop. How? Go to the Federal Reserve website. It lists the name, address, and email of every PhD economist who works for us in the name of the Fed. Ask them and their bosses to explain how they can do more to stimulate the economy rather than the wealth accounts of the few. When they are inundated with 5 or 10 million emails that persist, sooner or later, change must happen. Whining elsewhere is OK, but it is not likely to be as effective as going to the source. The old argument about laissez faire is so much baloney when large banks with access to large stacks of money are now a big part of the problem. Also support community banks and credit unions who lend to individuals and to small businesses.

Third, there is too much nepotism, cronyism, loyalism, and (yes!) sexism that dominates who occupies each of the high-level positions within our private, governmental, and educational institutions throughout the land. The IQ curve alone tells us that there are at least 50,000 others who are as well or better qualified to assume every top-level position in the land. Moreover, a moron is never better qualified than is a bright person. The myth that search committees can find the one person best qualified to hold any given position fails the logic behind the law of big numbers. More likely than not the search committee’s task is to weed out the brightest, the innovators, and the independent-minded who can and do think for themselves and will support those under them in favor of like-minded wimps who will do only as they are told. The best example of this affront to logic, to fairness, and in favor of perpetuating the status quo that I can recall is found in this example: Retiring Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis was introducing his successor, relatively unknown Brian Moynihan, to a group of bankers. As Lewis stepped away from the lectern and Moynihan stepped up, an eerie silence permeated the group. Lewis then rushed back to the microphone and blurted, “Don’t worry, he’s one of us.” The bankers sighed a large breath of relief and applauded enthusiastically.

That is enough for today. This “can do” session is closed. Let the assault on the impossible begin.