I will wring my hands for both groups. But the point you seem to be missing is that advertisers have worked to influence the subconscious. It's not a matter of you making conscious, rational decisions about what you buy. You are influenced without your knowledge. Even if you are on-guard against it (and most people aren't) you can still be manipulated. I am hyper-aware of this dynamic and even I have been sucked in.

You seem to chalk this up to weak-willed people, sure in your knowledge that you would never be influenced by advertizing. Though I don't know you, I doubt it. These people have spent almost a century refining the art of influence at a distance. It's not just ads on billboards, television, magazines and websites. They have studied the psychology of acceptance, rejection, love, want, fear, hope, envy, superiority, belonging, self-esteem, class and status. They work your feelings about who you are and your place in life. Do you know why you have to add an egg to an instant cake mix? It has nothing to do with making the cake.

Can you cite any evidence for this? I'm not talking about theory, but about real-world cause and effect. Because I don't think it's anywhere near that simple.

You sir, are spot on. And I also think this is why America will continue its decline into neo-feudalism. We have a number of dearly held, cherished beliefs that are really counter productive.

Perhaps, but there is plenty about Capitalism that discourages benevolence. If that were not the case, this story wouldn't have the appeal that it does and supply-side economics would work. Capitalism facilitates aggregating wealth in the hands of the owners. Many of those owners strove to become owners in order to become wealthy. You don't become wealthy by sharing.

Considering the state of income and wealth inequality, it seems no one is defining it.

Who pissed in your corn flakes? I have to marvel at the level of discourse when a person considers this CEO to be a "kind hearted socialist". You really think paying people more than you absolutely have to is Socialism? The propaganda is working well.

Our modern economy is based on this dynamic. We would not be able to sustain economic growth if people just bought what they need and maybe a little extra. Because of the way our monetary and economic systems are set up, they require constant growth or the music stops.

I would also add that people are constantly inundated with advertizing. That advertizing often seeks to make the subject feel inadequate in some way and offers the solution by way of the product being advertized. People have studied how to make people react in a certain way and what triggers their responses. Basically it is those people's job to figure out what makes you tick and use that knowledge to manipulate you. So I can't be too hard on people who make seemingly foolish decisions with their money. We are so immersed in advertizing and PR it's hard to even see it happening. The psychological pressure is immense and is designed to be hard to resist.

I know what you're saying. I would have lost quite a bit of value in my portfolio had what I advocated transpired. But you know what happens when people are shielded from the consequences of their actions? They do it again.

It's not about getting at rich people. It's about exposing the criminality that lead to the crash. There was massive fraud at all levels; from the banks to the loan originators to the ratings agencies. But because of the way it was handled, most people don't know that. The banks that were systemic risks, too big to fail, are today even bigger.

We haven't corrected the conditions that allowed the crisis. The people who caused it through fraud and negligence have not been held to account. And the public doesn't understand what really happened and why. All that is by design, of course. But it also guarantees that it will happen again. Sure, handling the aftermath of the crisis the right way would have been painful. But many people were hurt by these bad actors, and have had no restitution. They lost their homes, declared bankruptcy, etc. Hell, people were foreclosed upon who didn't even have a mortgage! None of that was dealt with, and the people who made it happen got 7 figure bonuses. Corruption has consequences, and so does not dealing with that corruption.

Yeah, but back then they hadn't yet criminalized childhood like they have now.

Meh, I'm going to go with option 3; breaking the law and doing my best not to get caught. Insert Judas Priest song here.

And an anti-tax mantra that sounds good on the surface but starves states and cities of revenue, forcing them to cut services or shift the cost to the students, thereby funneling money to Wall Street.

I'm not disagreeing with your point about greed at the Universities. But the big financial boys know how the system works too. Consequences aren't always unintended.

They still do well largely because they have captured the government. Can you imagine what would have happened to the 1% if the banks had not been bailed out, but put into receivership instead? If shareholders had been wiped out and bondholders taken a haircut? If people had been charged with their crimes? If the public had been allowed to see what they had actually done?

There is a myth in America that those at the top, those who have been financially successful, got there because they are the smartest and most capable among us.

It's not true.

I think that describes life in general, don't you think?

This is a good point. They don't have to convict you to screw up your life.