[adventured]

It's a populist call to arms. You'll be seeing a lot more of it over the next few years, expanding ever more loudly toward the rich, wall street, bankers, and corporations, with calls for much higher tax levels and minimum wage. The Fed's asset bubble-based fake recovery did absolutely nothing for the bottom 50%, but has vastly increased the wealth of the top 10%, the future social consequences of that are obvious.

[brc]

Indeed. If you take a populist rant like this, and replace keywords like '1%', 'rich', 'banker' with words like 'Jew','Semitic' and 'Zionists' - you start to get an appreciation for how ugly these latest movements really are through the lens of history.

Do I mean that some of the public policy choices of the last decade are beyond criticism? No, definitely not. 'Too big to fail' is a terrible phrase because it calcifies economies and entrenches bad practice.

But the latest meme of 'if you're rich you're a parasite and should be stripped of your property' is disturbing for me. It lumps a class of people into a 'generally bad' category without looking at specific problems. There are angry young people out there who have been fed a simplified story and are running around with 'eat the rich' style placards. That is worrying to any ordered society.

[honestcoyote]

To be fair, the actions of many (not all) of the rich in this country have brought it on themselves. When the middle class is stagnant or declining, and the wealthy keep getting richer and richer, then the populist rhetoric will take root.

And who can blame them exactly? When wages are stagnant, income inequality is rising, most companies have little-to-no loyalty to their employees and discard them at will, and many of the rich and comfortable push relentlessly towards eliminating the safety net, then those at the bottom are going to feel more than a little resentful. They feel ignored and powerless, which is a correct assessment of their position.

While not all the rich are bad, it's very hard in the current climate to have the slightest bit of sympathy for them. They, as a class, have the power to change things and avoid the coming storms, but, they've already shown they're not the least bit interested in addressing the immense financial inequalities and the problems to an ordered society caused by such divisions.

[logfromblammo]

If the rules of the game seem rigged against you, there is a great incentive to either stop playing or to cheat. Some people don't seem to realize that a gigantic portion of everybody's wealth in developed nations is the ability to go out in public without fearing for the loss of your life, liberty, or property.

When you intentionally cultivate a class of people with little to lose and much to gain by brutal and violent action practically on your own doorstep, you are very likely to be hoist by your own petard. If I were a billionaire, I would be quite certain to conspicuously make myself an obvious asset to the whole community, particularly with respect to the folks that might be thinking of me as they rescue mostly-edible food from garbage containers. Public relations are important, if you wish to be a man that is not an island unto himself.

[cheshireoctopus]

You may want to consider re-reading this article as you seem to be misinterpreting it. The author:

a) is a wealth manager b) is not advocating a populist eat-the-rich" revolution c) doesn't use the keywords "1%", "rich", or "banker" as you imply (I fail to see why you want to bring Judaism into this?) d) does not imply "if you're rich you're a parasite and should be stripped of your property's wealth"

Here, for your convenience, is the author's thesis:

"A bloated and out-of-control financial sector does not add any value to society. Society benefits when the financial sector is kept as small as possible."

The author is ranting on the size of financial institutions, not the rich. Hope this clarifies things for you.

[brc]

My reply was to the parent and a general comment, not specifically referring to the article.