Serious (but not easy) answer: You can move to a different country that more aligns with your moral standings or interests. You're (presumably) a valuable asset that will provide a net-positive contribution wherever you move, and a loss will be incurred when you emigrate.

It's a huge undertaking, but you _can_ vote where your tax money gets sent. You can ensure it bootstraps a more equal system instead of propping-up an unequal one.

I did this myself, and I feel good about having done it.

There’s not much you _can_ do on your own. Vote, get politically involved on a local level. Try to change people’s minds.

i'm kinda jaded because it seems the type of people that get into politics do it to gain money and power.. so voting always feels like picking the lesser of two evils

I think idealists often get into politics as well, but they're not cold, calculating and power hungry enough to get into the important positions.

Start by just attending a some meetings of your local school board, city council, etc. Sit, watch, and maybe take notes. Compare the reality with local press coverage (if any) of it. Try analyzing the social dynamics. Talk to other ordinary citizens about it.

If the only people paying real attention to gov't leaders are the greedy and power-hungry, then few decent people will run for office. And very few of those win.

Not only that, but one rotten apple can kill decades of work (see Trump, Putin).

I feel like a few people tried recently but they missed

so then let's just give up altogether?

Title I of the Smith Act prevents me from answering that question.

A classic example of how the vaunted "First Amendment" doesn't actually help. Sure after a couple of decades it might be repealed, and your conviction would be quashed. Doesn't mean it doesn't stop the damage in the first place.

Using alternatives surely helps. I think so many people use Amazon because of familiarity and predictable delivery costs (free IIRC with Prime).

A lot of the time other web stores can offer the same value.

What you can do depends highly on your skill set, your network, and your willingness to spend effort on this.

If you feed this into a decent chatbot, or in an Ask HN, you might be surprised.

There are very concrete actions an individual can take against wealth inequality of another individual.

And then what? Another bald head will replace them, but this time with an army of peons on their side to protect them president style, because for them it is much easier to buy loyalty of even 1000 men than it is for you to rally people to your cause.

Given the number of assassination attempts on Trump, some which got very close, it makes me wonder how effective those peons can actually be.

But yes, generally this is how druglords work.

That’s because Trump needs to show his face. If you’re making billions as a CEO you can protect your identity, there are billionaires in Germany that hadn’t shown their faces online in decades.

Why should someone need to start a business just to have as good a life as their parents did? Why is today's wealth inequality optimal for society? Rich people in the past got by just fine. They started businesses, succeeded, lived incredibly comfortable lives, all while earning a smaller multiple more than the people working for them. The centralization of wealth is a sign of a sick society, especially when people who provide labor suffer and get less of the pie.

Let's assume he does and is very successful, he makes $1T. Then what? Giving it all away won't resolve growing inequalities. Using it to influence medias and politics?

I'd much rather live in a society where Jeff Bezos has more wealth than me and I can buy things on Amazon, than in a society where Amazon no longer functions as a company because it was destroyed by a military insurrection and also the leaders of said insurrection have unequal access to resources compared to most other people (because they're the leaders of a military insurrection; there's not a whole lot of equality in a military)

I'd much rather neither, but apparently that's utopian.

Dictatorship is an almost inevitable outcome of huge wealth inequality.

At the very least political checks and balances erode rapidly, because most politicians, judges, and media people love easy money. If a billionaire throws money at them they'll do whatever they're told to do.

There aren't many systems that protect non-compliers from negative consequences when they're surrounded by corruption.

Supposedly you’ll be at the helm, Lenin style.

Also, who said anything about Amazon? Why are you myopic? The whole system is rotten to the core when a single person can make it in a minute more than 99% of world’s population and not use the money to advance the world. And before you mark (ha, get it?) me as a communist – I’m not against wealth and personal ownership. It’s one thing to own a Ferrari and an expensive home, and is another to live in a cookie clicker world watching number go up and doing nothing with it but multiply the money.

Amazon is the reason Jeff Bezos has a lot of money, and why you've heard of him and not a number of other people who have similar amounts of money.

so it is either or, eh? this is the fault of our society (the most in america due to two-party system) where we have been programmed (especially in recent years with party-controlled “social” media) to think this way. there is of course much more sane middle ground but we are past the point, evidenced by comments like yours, where this is even debatable. any approach to a more sane scenarios will be labeled as “socialism” etc…

Are there not wealthy business owners who donate their money to poltical causes they believe in in other countries with differently designed electoral systems?