>>Don't you think that applies to the 2% and the 5% and at the very least the 50%.
>>The 99% of America are largely still in the 1% of the world and they don't seem to set as high a standard for altruism than they standard theyve set for people richer than them.

None of that matters once the cars are burning in the streets. If you don't believe revolution is a risk when a tiny section of society is accumulating everything, that's fine. If you are saying that the top 2% will be just as culpable, or even the top 10%, iow why choose the 1%- I take your point. For me it's because the hockey stick is far more pronounced up at the 1% level as the citation pointed out. The days when big businesspeople knew to leave something on the table for the next fellow are long gone: these days the table itself has been broken up and sold and all that remains for the next person is an unpaid bill. ;-) Also it's true that a certain tiny subset continued to profit as the financial crisis they caused was a real problem for most everybody else. FWIW, New Zealand was largely immune to the crisis because its banks had little exposure to the toxic instruments so that's not an expression of envy, it's an observation by somebody who anticipates no benefit personally. Usually the most valuable sort of observation, but make of it what you will. ;-)