Sunday, November 6, 2011
1%
I think obligated is the wrong term here. Much of the money that people in general receive is more than likely going to no be handed down to others for the sheer sake of kindness. Obviously, the 1% have more money than the 99%, but that's how it has always been. In reality, if the richer were to hand off their money to the less fortunate, it would simply increase members of the 99%'s fortunes thus bringing them one small step closer to the 1%. I'm not saying they shouldn't contribute their money to the 99%, but I can't see it being a good idea. In theory, there can be no equilibrium, at least not that I can tell, for economic classes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I find it interesting that you put the focus on "equilibrium" when it comes to everyone's economic state. When I looked at this issue, I always assumed that the issue was the size of the gap between the rich and the poor, not that one existed. I thought that the goal was to improve living conditions for the poor enough that they would be comfortable, not to bring down the rich.
Post a Comment