Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
My rampage as you call it and one in which I have some very wealthy compatriots, has not been about Income inequality, but about Wealth inequality. They are different. And Wealth inequality has grown in the last 30 years, but like Global warming some choose not to believe in it.
Here's a simple example and why as an old Wealthy man told me once: "Never touch the principal"
Joe and Sam both have an income of $25,000 per year. But Joe has a net worth of $1 million, and Sam has a net worth of $0. Here we have no income inequality, and yet Joe flourishes, while Sam struggles to survive. This is a very simple illustration of why wealth is what really matters, rather than income.
|
so when is it acceptable to you, for someone to accumulate massive wealth, thus contributing to wealth inequality? Are the Clintons evil
for doing so? Are the Obamas evil for doing so?
Wealth inequality wil
always increase as the economy grows, because wealthy people
have more to invest. Pete, would
you support a law, which tells
people that after their wealth surpasses a certain amount, that they are no longer allowed to work or to invest?
All of the bitching about wealth equality, is based on the demonstrably false
assumption, that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty, as if the economy is some
kind of see saw. One side goes up, the other must go down. It doesn’t work that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Threaded Mode