occupied
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2011
- 36,705
- 17,194
- 1,590
Yes, but the problem with your logic is seated in the idea that we have an aristocracy in the US, when what we really have is a meritocracy. How do people get rich? They make something from nothing. Sometimes they get rich by spending years in medical or law school, or by thinking of a new idea or invention, or by taking a new approach to running things that already exist to reduce the cost of production, and yes, sometimes through simple dumb luck. But even those who have profited from luck had to put themselves into a position to be lucky, having a business in place which profited from some lucky change in circumstances. No one is handed wealth in this country except perhaps by their wealthy parents, who earned it by doing one of the things listed, and as often as not those that inherit dont manage to hang on to it; surely youve heard the phrase shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations. Sometimes it doesnt take that long; sports figures who earn huge amounts of money are often penniless within a couple of years after their stardom fades. The passive investors that you seem to regard as the idle rich can and often do lose their wealth, if they arent smart about what they do. They are rewarded for choosing the most efficiently run companies in which to invest, and penalized for choosing those less efficient; this is good for the economy as a whole, driving down prices and creating more wealth. The poor and middle class have the same chance to work their way up if they are willing to do what it takes; the class you are born into is not a life sentence unless you refuse to participate, and instead decide that your lot in life is the result of the existence of the "evil rich".A more realistic question would be what would happen if the stranglehold the rich have on the economy and politics were somehow broken? If the country were run for the general benefit of all rather than just the aristocracy? This is the question that has always kept the ruling elite awake at night, wondering when at last the serfs will storm the castle. It will be very soon for them if things do not change for the better and instead continue down the same corpse littered path so many societies ruled by an untouchable elite have traveled before.
You misunderstand my point, I was making the case that yawning intractable income inequality has been the death of more than one society, every one of them thought that they could just build walls, hire soldiers and stomp on the rabble hard if they developed the courage to complain too loudly. Loss of freedom is inevitable if opportunities continue to be scarce while a tiny minority live like Roman emperors. These are the real rulers of our country, the ones who are stubbornly called "job creators" by some even though they seem to really suck at it, how little you expect of them to still defend them from criticism in the midst of a disaster their greed precipitated. When did it become so horrible to defend the poor working man? When did it become such a sin to criticize the "job creators" for their failure to actually create jobs?