re: #30 Bob Levin

You’re making assertions as if they were geometric postulates, and they aren’t. You have to prove them.

‘Money Talks’ doesn’t prove anything. If you go back to the days of the Robber Barons, the original one percenters, you’ll note that their families are not as powerful as they used to be, and that new faces have taken over. When is the last time you heard the name Morgan in American politics? But you do see the name Paul Allen a lot. Morgan’s money doesn’t say much anymore, nor does the Rockefeller money. Buffet money says different things than Ford money. Gates and Jobs money says different things than Vanderbilt money.

So, I’m just asking—if money talks, what is it saying?

The point is that circumstances have changed and the “Robber Baron” families as you call them are not running everything today because they were not allowed to get to that point.

Explain to me why, as an example given above the USA is so different from other advanced countries:

In Sweden 20% of the people own 32% of the wealth, and pay 27% of the total tax revenue. 80% own 68% and pay 73% of taxes.

In the USA 20% of the people own 84% of the wealth, and pay 64% of the total tax revenue. 80% own 16% and pay 36% of taxes.

I do not think we have had this type of wealth disparity in the USA in the recent past, and I suggest that there is something wrong in this kind of skewed tax revenue.