We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A better example might be the life of Charles M. Schwab. He engineered the creation of US Steel in part from Carnegie Steel Company, and became its first president. He became fabulously wealthy but lost most of it in the 1929 crash. He eventually died penniless.
The rich don't always get richer and the poor don't have to become poorer.
The income inequality mantra of the left is about Marxist socialism. To convince the Kulaks and landless peasants of 1917 Russia that Marx was right and socialism would make them all equal was easy compared to trying to convince Americans to give up what we have for socialism. Something was needed to convince Americans that they are all "poor" and that something is greed. Why should the rich have soooooo much and the poor have sooooo little? Elect me and I will tax the rich and/or confiscate their land/home/investments and give it to the poor. Very seductive when you think about it. I wouldn't doubt that you could build an entire major political party around that philosophy.
Makes me wonder when another Huey "every man a king" Long or Herbert "Chicken in every pot and car in every garage" Hoover will percolate to the top of the presidential contenders. The ones we have use income inequality as a talking point but get every vague about what that means to guy with an empty pot and repo'ed chevy.
I found this interesting from the Morning Links link on the guy who was surprised to learn he was a 1%er.
The conservative take on inequality looks at different metrics to make its case. Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute wrote about what they said were two more accurate measures of inequality: the Consumption Expenditure Survey, which measures what households spend, and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, which tracks how much people run appliances such as dishwashers and washing machines, if they have them. By the first measure, consumption has been stable since the 1980s and lower-income households are better off. They found that the rich also consume less in recessions, which periodically narrows the gap. By the second measure, poorer people are not only running their washing machines with abandon but they own them (even if they used credit cards to buy them).
He blew it off for the inequality of the Left but isn't it interesting how the poor seem to be able to afford to run their washing machines, etc.? Just how poor are our poor?