I agree with everything that guys says. I don't think it was him though. I am inspired to read some of his books.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100589198 Not sure where to stick this article, but I thought this was as good a place as any of my threads. I find this article taking the "on the other hand" argumet and it is all over the place. For example: "...True, the Fed may not be able to directly reduce inequality. But some economists say the Fed has done its part to increase inequality in recent years. Monetary easing has benefited asset prices. And the top 1 percent owns an outsized share of assetsâespecially stocks..." LMAO! It is DIRECTLY involved in creating the inequality. Then it says: "..What's more, there is still widespread disagreement among academics and economists on the exact causes of inequality. Is it globalization or tax policy or the decline of labor unions or CEO pay or Wall Street or "winner-take-all" markets? Or some combination of all?" Seriously? These people overcomplicate the obvious. This statement says it all, and it goes to the heart of this thread. Capitalism (and by extension Objectivists) believe that innovation and forming an economy around human age old desires is the best economic system to achive its own goals. That if you feed on the individuals ego, by extension we are all better off. Most religions believe that man should strive to have only what he needs, not a '"winner-take-all" mentality. But hey, the more complicated it sounds, the more the masses can be kept in the dark. "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child." - Pablo Picasso