> the fact that the system is actively working to transfer this money elsewhere?
A one-guy example vs. "the system" - which overall clearly works towards concentrating wealth, not towards distributing it. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/f...
Or do you really see "the system" (especially when left alone) work towards spreading wealth away from the rich? Even just away from the concrete person who are rich right now, to new people, even if the overall distribution remained the same. As far as I know not even the second option is happening, being rich seems to be very much "genetic" (in quotes, of course), to different degrees in different countries but even in the best of cases a clear trend.
In any case, I'm a little confused about who meant to say what and whom I should be responding to since it was the OP who wrote
> Wealthy individuals are a flaw of capitalism and the system will always keep trying to get rid of them.
EDIT^2: Before anyone else mentions it, I find discussions such as these silly: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/is-increasing-income-in...
To me this is a discussion about how wet water really is. With tens of millions uninsured, articles like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/un-extreme-pov... -- I think discussions like the linked one are like discussing if there really is more or less water coming through the leak in the roof (or the ship's hull). Overall, over longer periods, the problem does not seem to be going away one bit. Whether it gets half a percentage point worse or better depending on the measurement period and the measures chosen, so what. The main point remains.
A one-guy example vs. "the system" - which overall clearly works towards concentrating wealth, not towards distributing it. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/f... Or do you really see "the system" (especially when left alone) work towards spreading wealth away from the rich? Even just away from the concrete person who are rich right now, to new people, even if the overall distribution remained the same. As far as I know not even the second option is happening, being rich seems to be very much "genetic" (in quotes, of course), to different degrees in different countries but even in the best of cases a clear trend.
In any case, I'm a little confused about who meant to say what and whom I should be responding to since it was the OP who wrote
> Wealthy individuals are a flaw of capitalism and the system will always keep trying to get rid of them.
Edit: just to poke some fun at The Economist whose link I posted, here is another one from the same paper with a contradicting headline: https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2017/06/29/why-the-...
EDIT^2: Before anyone else mentions it, I find discussions such as these silly: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/is-increasing-income-in... To me this is a discussion about how wet water really is. With tens of millions uninsured, articles like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/un-extreme-pov... -- I think discussions like the linked one are like discussing if there really is more or less water coming through the leak in the roof (or the ship's hull). Overall, over longer periods, the problem does not seem to be going away one bit. Whether it gets half a percentage point worse or better depending on the measurement period and the measures chosen, so what. The main point remains.