coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
You have some objection to my answer. You want to laugh. I agree I am talking in terms of a physical economy...not casino winnings which should never be allowed to disrupt the real physical economy. My answer seems to make you nervous? I can see that. But your idea is to start with a static unfair distribution of wealth and continue in this manner which approaches the 99% having nothing at all, and when that end point is reached the value of the holdings of the 1% also approaches nothing and in a precipitous manner. Wealth addiction of the 1% is actually not any different from drug addiction in terms of patterns of human behavior. Aberrent accumulations of wealth and power cloys the judgement of these excessively rich people and we have the same patterns of denial that come from meth heads, less the pimples and rotting teeth. It is an addiction however that is licensed by our slavish adherrence to an economic theory that parallels the childhood game King of the mountain. These rich people begin to equate the existence of their personal wealth with morality and seem willing to do anything to maintain it, regardless of their actual personal needs, which actually could be well met with about 1% of the wealth. This is not rocket science, but you know in your heart, it is reality.
No, because the amount of capital needed between running Google and operating Tom's hardware store are not the same. By your reasoning they would be. Most of the great wealths are tied up in the ownership of their companies, not what they use.