I don't have direct disagreement with you -- what you say is true in spirit, and reflective of America past and present up to a point. But it may also be worthwhile to note two things: -- You incorrectly assume that all "rich" individuals automatically share your viewpoint. There is no inconsistency in being wealthy, emotionally well adjusted (i.e.. no guilt / shame etc.), and yet still morally / pragmatically concerned with inequality issues. -- In pounding the table that "ANYBODY IN AMERICA CAN BECOME RICH," you are evangelizing. This is an ideological faith-based viewpoint, presented in stark black and white terms, where non-ideological empirical observation, plus recognizing shades of gray, would perhaps better serve.
HOGWASH! Do or do not. I'm not concerned whether the "rich share my viewpoint". Nobody needs the "consensus of the rich" to become rich themselves. It's a fact... "Do/produce ENOUGH of something which is valuable enough and you can become rich".
Actually, the rich DO get richer, and the poor DO get poorer. Here's the distinctive difference, and cogent explanation. The POOR in attitude lose, while the RICH in attitude GAIN.
As for the rich... that's how it should be. As for the poor, they need to lift themselves up by their own boot straps. If man were a "population of animals" (which in fact we are)... the old, infirm, unable, lazy... would be the first to suffer predation... thus strengthening the remaining herd. That we support and coddle the weak is socially laudable... but lame and harmful if we consider the overall health of the human population.
Whoosh. You said: You incorrectly assume knowledge of others' point of view. But I can see you're not interested in subtleties...
I have no concern about "others' point of view".... other than if you become rich, you tend to think "if I did it, others can also". Do or do not. Whining and bitching because, "it's not fair that others did while you didn't" is not an acceptable excuse.
The "devil" is always in the details..or in this case...the subtleties. There is no such thing as competition with others. The mind can only think one thought at a time. To be creative, the mind must concentrate, or shift the mindset, towards creation, NOT competition. Great athletes, or traders, really only ever compete with themselves, or their previous performance.. not others. We don't "attract" abundance by struggling and fighting, we "attract" by creating. If we assume there is only lack, which is an illusion, then we are stuck in that state of lack. However, if we shift into the creative mindset, by noticing all of the abundance we are surrounded with everyday, then things begin to change for the better.
Right. Not sure who's whining and bitching here. If it's a race to get to $100 million net worth first, I'd bet on myself moreso than anyone else on these boards -- and in fact I do just that, every single day. As for all the hoo-rah stuff, yes, every trader worth his salt knows that cultivating PMA (positive mental attitude) has tangible value. Of course, it's easy for this realm of thought to get all mooshy too --- Oprah Winfrey and "the secret" and all that. Anyway, the discussion was more interesting when it revolved around genuine economic debate and the dynamics of societal trends. The switch to self-help ideology, not so much. Probably a good time to write off the thread...
There are two fundamental flaws with your obesity analogy. Firstly, it is possible for a bank to be very large and also very well managed, i.e. highly solvent. It is practically impossible for a human to be very fat and also healthy. Secondly, how much an individual eats and exercises is truly impossible to police - it's entirely his choice. The Glass Steagal act very effectively prevented deposit taking banks from risking depositors' money in the markets until it was abolished in 1999. The fact banks are regulated means you can check up on whether or not they are obeying the law by looking at their accounts. Simple question: had Glass Steagal NOT been abolished, would we be looking at the sort of disaster we saw in 2008? My guess is we would be seeing something like the 1998 LTCM debacle, but that's about it.