I fail to see how that comparison explains anything (other than money corrupts politics). That kind of reasoning seems to suggest that wealth is a zero sum game where if I have a dollar that's deprives you of a chance to have that dollar - doesn't work that way. People seem to think that the existing "wealth" is created by the "money" printed by the government and though it defies logic, that because Bill Gates has billions of those dollars (in reality he does not physically) that that means there are less dollars floating around for the rest of us. Again, doesn't work that way.
Though not a popular take among the proletariat, the real reason for the state of wealth and poverty (indeed all over the world) is the political control of those in power. Even more of a tragedy is that unlike certain countries where being born into "royalty" or power taken by a warlord who rules with an iron fist controls every cent, in our system and country we have voted our overlords in by our our own hand, and given them more power over us they were ever intended to have (BATF ring a bell as well as most any other sacred cow subdivision of goobermint ? ) based on their empty promises and rhetoric and bought that " bag of magic beans". The US Constitution written by those 'old dead white guys' gave us the opportunity to do and have better, and compared to most places in the world we still have that opportunity. But we have allowed those whose tactics are to divide us and pit one group against another to foster the "us against them" attitude and brand success as the fruits of evil and greed with the successful "refusing to share" with the rest of us. Thus robbing Peter to pay Paul has not only become commonplace but has been elevated to virtuous behavior and policy when Paul is a deadbeat that won't work even when he's physically and mentally able.
A very good book I read plainly says that, a) the poor we will always have with us; b) we who are able must do what we can to help them; and c) that a man who will not protect and provide for his family is worse than an infidel and that if he won't work he shouldn't expect to eat. With choice comes responsibility, or at least it's supposed to. We have basically allowed that notion to fall out of favor. Those who cannot, cannot, CANNOT provide for themselves (see item 'a') must be helped by those who can (see item 'b'). Trouble is, in the name of 'compassion' and 'dignity' and 'progressiveness' we have allowed, encouraged and facilitated the notion, idea, policy that we must not even consider item 'c' as it is somehow "cruel and unacceptable".
Our system guarantees (or is supposed to) equality of opportunity - not equality of outcome. Too many of us have forgotten or jettisoned that notion when we enter the voting booth.
