We need to narrow our terms
I posted anohter response to Ethan Faulkner tonight. I like his work. the discussion was the wealthy creating a feudal system. I wanted to make a distinction. Here’s my reply:
It’s important to make a distinction here. Being wealthy does not put you in the same boat as the Davos/WEF cult that is buying influence over you. I know many wealthy people who are decent people. It is being wealthy and amoral. or being the lackey of the amoral wealthy, clawing away all that is decent and good in the world, like Bill Gates, Geroge Soros and that knob, Al Gore, is the center of the problem. I begrudge no one their wealth. But when they use it to by political whores and pervert the system, then I nave a real problem. Which to say the political whores availing themselves of wealthy people are the root of the problem. Hell, some wealthy people are just buying what is on offer.
For more on what makes these twisted, insecure lunatics tick, go here.
This distinction is critical and often gets lost in populist rhetoric. Separating wealth-creation from wealth-abuse keeps the conversation honest and prevents throwing out entrepreneurship with the corruption bathwater. Wonder if the real issue is less about wealth itself and more about regulatory capture, like the mechanisms that let influence be purchased in the first place? I saw this firsthand when a local developer bought zoning approval thru campaign donations, nobody cared about his net worth til he started buying votes.