Originally Posted by xenigo

I'm all about liberating government, legislation and lobbyist kickbacks from financial institutions, etc. But what really jacks me up is the whole rallying against the 1%. 13% of the 1% are financial people, but the remaining 87% are doctors, lawyers, and small business entrepreneurs. These are restaurant owners, laundromat owners, franchise owners, etc.

I think all of us aspire to be part of that 1% who make more than $335k / year, and doing so does not imply that you run your business in anything less than above-the-board. It doesn't mean you take government handouts that others are not receiving. It does not imply you engage in government cronyism. It doesn't imply you lobby for legislation that prohibits competition, etc.

Their big kick on being anti-capitalism is pretty short-sighted. The radiologist and oncologist, and cardiologist that spent 12 years going through school is well deserved to be in the 1% and he wishes no ill will on your ability to succeed. He was handed no free ticket to getting through school and scoring well on tests, and doing the work he needed to do to get to where they wanted to be.

The lawyer who spent 6 years in school to specialize in torts may have a love for money but has nothing to do with why you aren't doing well yourself. Just because he makes $1m a year or more doesn't make him "greedy". It makes him motivated.

The guy who owns 4 Subway Sandwich shops who makes $500k a year isn't "keeping you down" because you make $8 an hour making sandwiches. The people who work for him work for the highest wage they can negotiate, and he hires the people who work for the lowest wage he can negotiate. That's how business has always worked. Doesn't make him evil for hiring people who agree to do the job he needs done.

I see a lot of people calling for limits on what people can make. I see a lot of people calling for the end of capitalism entirely. What good do people think will come out of this? Business owners are motivated to create, to offer services that serve a need, and to create jobs because of the ability to capitalize off the opportunity. They take calculated risks, they infuse money into the economy. Many doctors push themselves through school to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Now the so-called 99% are pissed off they took out mortgages they couldn't pay for, and because they collectively stopped paying all together, the entire economy collapsed. Now they're upset, and want to point fingers. They say it's the bank's fault, etc.

Well, the issue is complicated. A lot of people are involved, and the 99% say the banks took advantage of their naivete of banking and financial savvy. I think the 99% need to look in the mirror and think long and hard about what they could have done differently.

Their frustrations seem to be aimed at anyone that's relatively successful. Is that fair? There's a lot of people in the 1%. How about the guy who owns all the 7-11's in your neighborhood? Think that guy has anything to do with your problems? They think capitalism as a whole is the issue.

The bottom line is that if you take 100 people in society, 1 person is likely to be driven to achieve far greater education, and have far greater aspirations than the remaining 99%. His idea of a good time is studying business, creating PowerPoint presentations, spending long hours in school, creating flowcharts and diagrams, and developing business plans. That 1% wasn't given money, he was given brains. There wasn't anything inherited. It's just the odds of living in society that 1/100 will go out and exceed all expectations, and as a result he'll live a really awesome life. He'll make a ton of money, and will impress every employer he ever meets. For him, the sky is the limit.

For that person, should we take that inherent advantage away? Should we take away his motivation? A lot of these occupiers think that this kind of person is the evil we have in society...

No matter what, there will always be that 1% that will go out and smoke all of us. That's not because of tax advantages, it's not because of government handouts, it's purely because of genetics. Is it wrong for that person to be in the 1%?