>>>>>>>>>http://www.businessinsider.com/an-investment-managers-view-2013-11
>>
>>>>Do you expect them to simply give away their money until you both have more equal amounts?
>>>>
>>>>How is that not greed and jealousy?
>>>
>>>Mike - did you actually read the article? It says that the top 0.5% or 0.1% aren't just doing better than everyone else (which is tautological). It's says they're doing so by activities that are harmful to the economy as a whole. Opposing that is not class envy.
>>
>>It says that?
>>
>>Where?
>
>"I think it's important to emphasize one of the dangers of wealth concentration: irresponsibility about the wider economic consequences of their actions by those at the top.


Thats also a tautology.

My question is how different would things be if you were on top?

None at all I imagine.

You think they are greedy and should give away most of their money but thats something you wouldnt do.

The money you donate is probably beneficial to your tax statements.

You know for a fact that we all use our money to fund the exploitation of humans and the planet over in China. We sort of feel bad about it but we don't stop. No different than how he described the top 0.5%.

You Miss 1% are no different from the 0.5%, the only difference is the size of your financial worth and you have the nerve to think yours should be closer to theirs.


Heres the thing sister, just because youve done nothing about it, doesn't mean there's nothing you can do about it.


> Wall Street created the investment products that produced gross economic imbalances and the 2008 credit crisis. It wasn't the hard-working 99.5%. Average people could only destroy themselves financially, not the economic system. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the collapse was primarily due to the failure of complex mortgage derivatives, CDS credit swaps, cheap Fed money, lax regulation, compromised ratings agencies, government involvement in the mortgage market, the end of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, and insufficient bank capital. Only Wall Street could put the economy at risk and it had an excellent reason to do so: profit. It made huge profits in the build-up to the credit crisis and huge profits when it sold itself as "too big to fail" and received massive government and Federal Reserve bailouts. Most of the serious economic damage the U.S. is struggling with today was done by the top 0.1% and they benefited greatly from it."


A more plausible theory is that the majority of the wealth that vanished was caused by a ridiculous amount of houses built fast and cheap being built and sold for high dollars.

All the money went in to it, and the land developers cheapened the supply and weakened the demand making the money simply vanish all on a desire to make as much money as fast as possible.

How many homes dis your husband build in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s?

Did he think about what building more homes cheaper would do to the market where everyone was putting money?

Its not just people richer than that throw money around and cause problems.

The solution to the worlds problems is not you getting closer to the 0.5%.

Though that seems to be what you want to happen.