Posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 13:25:45
In reply to The top 1%, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 10:02:14
Well, in those terms, the top 1% is a misnomer. It might be more like the top 10% of the 1%. Certainly people are not targeting local gynecologists. I don't see this movement as an assault on people earning $300,000. Actually, while many Americans dream of earning that sort of income, it's really not that much anymore. Think of how many millionaires dot the country. It's not like when I was a child.
I don't know. Three million people to be angry at may not be too many. If you are looking world wide. Or looking at the
people who benefit w/o any national loyalty to any country that trade on commodities that would be more than enough to feed nations of people if only those head these corporations would yield some of their profits.Corporations vary in size and influence. I belonged to a corporation until my father's house sold. My siblings and I were counseled to form a corporation to ward off liability if someone was to injure themselves on the unoccupied property. As far as my our own often dipped into retirement
fund, I have a very uneasy relationship to it. I keep thinking we need to place our money in a less profitable but more socially responsible fund.Ever since Revlon workers were shafted in, when was that, the late eighties, I trust no corporation to benefit anyone. I think the intent to ward off all liability and responsibility and the ability to do so is problematic.
Do you think the premise of OWS movement is misguided?
I dig a pony.
poster:floatingbridge
thread:1002133
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20110926/msgs/1002168.html