Why do the rich get richer and poor get poorer?

[Consept]

59 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

For a rich person to remain rich and get richer, it's quite easy. You just gotta not be lazy or stupid and then do anything with your money. That'll work just fine. That's the mindset it takes to become richer and not devolve into the middle class or even poverty. You just gotta have a minimum amount of intelligence in order not to devour the piles of money that you currently have. But if you are poor and struggling to pay the bills, then no amount of mindset is going to help you unless you are extremely smart and/or get lucky somehow. Notice the huge difference. A poor person might have to work in a toxic environment for 12-14 hours a day just to survive, like sweatshops. If you think that mindset is a crucial factor there, well good luck with that. On the other hand, a rich person can easily sit behind their desk for a few hours and things will get done for them. A rich person does not even need to work at all actually. If they're smart, they can use their money to create a lot of passive income. For example, a rich person could buy a number of apartments and rent them and hire someone they trust to collect the rent. So basically, they'd be doing nothing and living like kings.

You seem to miss my point, im agreeing with you, if you are necessarily focused on survival because of what you were born into and have not had relevant education on how to build and manage wealth then yes, it will be extremely difficult to get out of that cycle. But mindset is incredibly important if you were to get out. I think what youre reacting to is mindset, i dont mean delusion as in being unrealistically hopeful, what i mean is learning specific techniques to build wealth or success and not holding on to things that can keep you down, specifically an abundant mindset over a scarcity mindset as laid out by Maslow. Now this is very hard to get to if youre born into certain circumstances but its still the key of getting out. 

As @integral pointed out and if you read that article the main reason for the next generations not holding on to wealth is not being taught about money and how to hold on to it, in most cases the rich parent never even talked to their children about it which resulted in them losing it. So we're talking about a very human problem in which if you dont learn how to do something you wont be able to do it, regardless of rich or poor. 

Lets say everyone in poverty was given money, universal basic income, where they dont have to worry about survival anymore, i bet you a lot of people  would still have problems if they dont invest in learning how to invest, save and build wealth. In the article they mention that it was an average of 19 days before someone who received inheritance bought a new car, thats what happens if you havent had the education around money. 

But yes i see your point that the system is not fair and it makes things very difficult, there should always be free healthcare for example. But to say that knowledge around finance is irrelevant in your success i just dont see that to be true. 

Heres come of the simple advice i mean in -

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/millionaire-shares-biggest-parenting-regret-not-teaching-kids-6-top-money-lessons.html 

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by Consept

[Gesundheit]

@Consept Okay, let me clarify before going any further that I understand what you mean very well, and I hope you're not assuming that I am stuck in a victim's mindset that you're somehow helping me out of. I understand the importance of mindset, and I would never dismiss it at any point in my personal life. That has been my initial position from the beginning even before starting to comment here. So, let's get that out of the way, and just keep our focus on the topic at hand, which is wealth vs. poverty. This discussion isn't about me complaining about poverty. It's about me exposing the injustice and inequality that is inherent within the heart of the social system. The social system is designed in such a way that can't be sustained without poverty. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be this. You should get the idea that there are poor people within the system. It's the other way around. There's a system that necessitates poverty.

Now, I am going to play this little game you suggested, just to show you how gullible it is.

Let's say that all of those poor people you talked about tried to be smart and decided to start saving/investing their basic income instead of spending it here and there.

Is that even possible, realistically? Do you know what would happen? Any guesses?

First of all, the basic income you suggested cannot come from nothingness or from Mars. The most fundamental fact here is: Money is finite, and therefore cannot increase overall, it only gets split between people. That being said, where do you suggest the money should come from? Who's going to provide that basic income? The government? The rich? The middle class? Other poor people? Whose money is going to decrease?

Now, let's assume the problem above is solved and everyone is happy. The next step is choosing between 3 options (unless there are more):

1. Spending
2. Saving.
3. Investment.

#1 Spending:

We already know what would happen.

Let's go with #2 Saving:

If everyone saved their money and did not spend or invest it. What's likely to happen is that the economy would collapse very quickly, because of recess and slumpflation. Money would just decrease in value. And that would create poverty once again.

Now, with #3 Investment:

Scenario #1:

The investment market would close down very quickly or the stocks would drop down and lose value, due to over demand and lack of supply, and most of those poor people would end up right in the same place once again, poverty.  A small portion of the poor would likely make it to the middle class, and the rest would have actually had spent their money in vain. Why? Because investment is not an infinite pool of ever-growing money. Now, as the money increases through investment, the poor growth rates would still be lower than the rich and the middle class, so they would likely eventually become poor again if they didn't figure out a way to make it further. If they succeeded in making it further, the overall value of money would decrease, and other people who would have lower growth rates would get marginalized at a certain pace, until they reach poverty.

Scenario #2:

Major capitols would bankrupt and many businesses would shut down due to lack of demand. Many rich people and even more people in the middle class would become poor, which still would not solve the problem of poverty.

I don't know what else.

Note: A mix of the 3 options would not work either. And actually, it's already the case. Some people invest, others save, and others spend.

________________________

The point of all of that is that poverty is not a simple problem that you can magically fix with a nice utopian idea. And that it's definitely not the poor's problem.

Y'all need to get this idea out of your head, because it's wrong and poisoning your mind. Poverty is a systemic issue that has existed probably throughout all of human history within all of its civilizations. The root cause of poverty is simply selfishness, aka corruption, inequality, etc... Unless you have a solution to that problem, don't blame the poor for being stuck. Yes, I could break out of poverty, but someone else would have to be poor in exchange. Someone has to be poor. If it's not me, then it's you. If it's not you, then it's someone else. I hop you're appreciating the depth of what I said in bold. Even if I successfully became rich, someone else would have to become poor. And once I am rich, then it's very unlikely that I would go down anytime soon, because the system is rigged to support me. Do you see how the system is fundamentally rigged for the benefit of the rich? It's the same as the carrot and stick principle. The human riding the donkey is the rich using the poor for their selfish reasons. Now, of course, I'm not demonizing the rich here. They're just ignorant and unaware, and of course, extremely selfish. I understand why this is the case and why it's necessary at least at our current level of development. But I don't want to go into that here because it's kind of off-topic, and I've already written a huge post that I don't want to make any bigger.

You're an intelligent person, I like reading your posts, and it's really a pleasure discussing with you. I hope I've made myself completely clear.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Gesundheit]

@Consept I updated my last comment.

@integral I've given my final insights here if you're interested.

[Consept]

@Gesundheit

Thanks for the kind words, my ego was happy with that lol. But yes I enjoy discussing these topics so don't think I'm attacking you in anyway or think that you're arguing for a victim mindset because I don't feel that. 

As I said I agree with most of what you say but don't get me wrong either, I don't claim to have some definite solution to the problem of poverty, I'm only speculating, I was using ubi as an example. I also don't think it's those in povertys fault that they're there and I recognise someone will always be 'poor' or worse off than someone else, I'm not sure it has to be blunt as i become rich someone else has to be poor but I get your point. 

The system is rigged to a certain extent but a big factor of this starts at the early education level, simply put, those from more wealthy families have better education for their kids. Education is a massive factor in terms of getting out of poverty. If we're talking about America (I'm from UK) the way funding for schools work is that they're funded by their areas residents, do if its a poor area the funding will be poor, this keeps the cycle going. 

A rich family is also likely to have rich people that can mentor or at least be an example of success, this isn't going to be the same in poor families. Families in poverty are more likely to be broken, there may not even be a father figure in the home, this is a big factor that I've seen working first hand at a youth charity. What tends to happen is young boys look for role models that are usually negative, drug dealers, rappers etc. 

Basically there are many things that keep poverty cyclical. Now, you're looking at things from an overall perspective of what if all poor people invested the system would crash. Realistically it would take a long time for that to happen, but there is a lot of work to be done both from a systemic point of view and a personal point of view. The system has to be changed, things like education, raising the basic level ie free health care, giving as much opportunity as rich people, free Higher education etc. But also on the personal side there has to be a change in mentality as these are also responsible for the cyclical nature of poverty. A stupid example is playing the lottery and gambling is usually done mostly by those in poverty, this is a mindset of this is the only hope I have to get out is doing this, this could be changed and the money put into it put into something more positive or saved. Same goes with coca cola, smoking, alcohol etc. 

So for me the issue has many factors but they usually stem from those 2 roots, one you've highlighted and one I've highlighted. 

Someone will always be poor, but we can change poor from being can't afford medical care and not checking the pain in their appendix to something much more respectful. Many countries in Europe offer free health care and higher education. Portugal drug problem has gone down like crazy because they decriminalised drugs and started offering care to drug users. These things actually work systemically and when people aren't so worried about survival, they can move to more abundant mindsets and have better lives. 

 

 

 

 

@integral

[Gesundheit]

3 hours ago, Consept said:

@Gesundheit

Education is a massive factor in terms of getting out of poverty.

How exactly? I actually can't see the link here, and I think education is overrated. What does education have to do with wealth? If anything, it's a tool for learning a skill. But there are many skills that don't require formal education. For example, a carpenter does not require professional education, at least where I live. There are formal institutions that grant degrees, but they're basically useless.

As well, this extends beyond just the more bodily kinds of occupations. I don't know what your degree of your education is, but it's not like schools or universities actually teach a lot. Most of the time a person spends at education is spent on learning theory that has very little to do with the actual final job that they'll be taking. And this is not exceptional to poorly funded schools or universities. It's a universal theme that even Harvard graduates experience. The gap between theory, i.e. Academic education and practice, i.e. The real job. I've read an article about this long ago, so I'm not sure I will find the link, but I'll look and see if I can. The bottom line of what I read at the time is that it's actually much more efficient to take a 2 years practical experience or seminars through some sort of institution than to actually chase some 4-5 years degree in universities. The former person comes out after two years of experience ready to start their own career, while the other person usually would have no clue what to do with their degree, neither would they likely have the required experience to make something meaningful out of what they have learned. It's not impossible, but the point is that the time spent on higher education is basically a waste of time, and so is the money and the funding. The best occupation a graduate could have would be a professor in the same department, because of the huge amount of theoretical knowledge that they have. But what about other jobs?

So, to return back to the topic, I don't really see how education is the key to remove poverty. At least not the mainstream kind of education. Maybe you mean education is the key to remove unemployment, and removing unemployment is the key to remove poverty? But again, I would have to disagree.

3 hours ago, Consept said:

@Gesundheit

you're looking at things from an overall perspective

@integral

I'm looking at it even from a universal perspective.

Actually, the reason why I'm poor is not my lack of skills or education. I am now 24 years old, and have been working on and off, but mostly on, since I was 10. I have worked in different jobs, probably 6 or 7 jobs, so I have a variety of skills and experience. I know English besides my original language (which is rare here). And besides all that, I am one year away from getting my general practitioner's degree. But can you imagine that I can't even afford to buy a phone? Even if I worked two full-time jobs simultaneously, I would still not be able to buy a phone, or maybe barely after a number of months. The reason why this is the case for me is not lack of skills or education. It's because of the political situation in my country. The economy is extremely poor, so I am getting affected by it, as many others in the same country. We are a third-world country, so we're not industrial. We don't make phones, or really anything else. All of them come through importation, and illegal importation at that. The government here is communist, and it's being restricted and sanctioned by the US government. So, the people here are getting affected by those sanctions, though indirectly. The government is extremely corrupt, and uses us as an economical human shield to keep itself from falling. So, we're facing two major injustices, both external and internal. How do you solve that? People who had some money moved out before all this. They forsaw that it's going to happen and moved out. Others, like myself, were too young to realize anything, and my parents weren't and still aren't that smart, so we stayed and now are stuck here. Cars now have to wait in line for 3 days to get some fuel, which is a limited amount controlled by a smart card. The same thing with bread, although just a few hours. Electricity bill is very expensive too. And much more... I don't want to bother you with the details of my story, but what I'm trying to say is that, again, it's not our fault that the world is conspiring against us (figuratively). Most of us were in the middle class before the political crisis, but now we are poor. My country is not the only place where injustice happens. Poor African countries are very similar to us, and they're probably being exploited by first world countries and their own governments too. So back to the universal perspective I mentioned above, the same dynamic I highlighted regarding the rich and the poor applies on the level of nations. Developed nations are basically the rich people nowadays, and the rest are either the middle class or the poor. That's the system we're living in. For other countries to be rich and able to afford a high standards of life, others have to be poor and exploited. My country happens to be from the latter group. The game is greatly skewed against us. There's very little hope, and it's only getting worse by the day. Last year was better, and the year before was better, and so on.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Consept]

@Gesundheit

I'll give you a fuller response later, but studies have shown a strong correlation between level of education and earning power, this article breaks it down - https://www.qs.com/what-effect-does-education-level-have-on-wealth/#:~:text=There's a clear correlation between,the greater your salary becomes.

 

 

 

 

@integral

[Rajneeshpuram]

Having born in wealthy or poor family, education, genetics, believe systems, friends, behaviour, luck, part of the world, ... the are hundred variants that affect your probability to be richer or poorer.

[Gesundheit]

3 hours ago, Consept said:

@Gesundheit

I'll give you a fuller response later, but studies have shown a strong correlation between level of education and earning power, this article breaks it down - https://www.qs.com/what-effect-does-education-level-have-on-wealth/#:~:text=There's a clear correlation between,the greater your salary becomes.

Really?! After everything I said?!

Of course higher degrees correlate with higher salaries, no two people dispute with that. And actually, that's why I'm studying in the first place. Of course, if I get a higher degree, I will have more opportunities of working at higher paying positions. Nobody disputes with that. But you're forgetting that for you to get a higher degree, you will have to study more years, which are practically wasted years where you're just a consumer without an income. So, you're basically just lending your future self some money from the present, and not much will change overall. I really hate getting this technical, but let's consider the following:

Less than a high school diploma – $553 per week.

Bachelor’s degrees – $1,198 per week.

Master’s degrees – $1,434 per week.

These numbers are from the link above. Do you know how many years you'd need to spend as a consumer until you reach from $553 to $1,434 per week? Nearly a decade! And that's assuming that you're moving at a normal pace without repeating years or even dropping out. During that time, you'd be just spending money. And unless you work a part time job, you will be losing money until all that money starts to pay you off eventually after more than a decade of hardwork.

Let's say you're 15 years old and started working at $553 per week. Instead of going down the Master's degree path, you continue with the $553 per week. Now, I don't know what college/university fees are in your region, but they're probably expensive, given that you said that rich people get to higher education easier. You do the math. How much different would it be if you went with $553 per week for 10 years instead of spending (I don't know) for the same amount of time? You see, in order for you to increase your income by 2.59x, you'd have to spend a decade paying for education and possibly working in order not to regress. So, you're studying (which is a form of work/full-time job) + working a part-time job + paying fees in order to get the 2.59x increase while instead you could have gone with the simpler route that only requires work and could also increase with time. But eventually, does it really make much difference in total? I mean after you start earning the $1434 per week, if you were to do the math, would it be very different? Or is that an illusion that people are buying simply because they lack enough critical thinking? Do you see where the problem is? Do you see the sneaky trick? Is it really so hard to understand?!

I feel like your main point here is that education could eliminate unemployment, which in turn should eliminate poverty, but that's too naive and simplistic, still. The truth is that unemployment exists because there's a finite number of jobs within society, not because some people are lazy or uneducated, although I'm sure some people are lazy or uneducated or both. If there were infinite jobs, everyone would be employed. But, there's only a handful of positions within society. And once they're occupied, there will be unemployment, due to lack of supply and over demand. That's why governments fight overpopulation so hard. Because we have more people than society needs. In fact, there are even jobs that aren't even necessary just to help against the unemployment issue. They just exist as a coping mechanism with overpopulation.

Now, even if everyone gets employed, poverty will still not go away. Because some people hold most of the money and they only get richer. So, by definition, no matter how you work or make, you will still not be earning enough in comparison, because their money increases at a much faster rate. One might argue that the good life does not require being rich if there's good healthcare system and everything. But that still misses the point of inequality, which is a rich person's gaslighting technique in order to hold on to their wealth. Let alone what I said above about poverty on a national/global level.

3 hours ago, Rajneeshpuram said:

Having born in wealthy or poor family, education, genetics, believe systems, friends, behaviour, luck, part of the world, ... the are hundred variants that affect your probability to be richer or poorer.

No. There's only one variant, and it's called luck. Everything you mentioned and did not mention are subcategories of either being lucky or unlucky.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Gesundheit

[integral]

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

No. There's only one variant, and it's called luck. Everything you mentioned and did not mention are subcategories of either being lucky or unlucky.

Yes, we all see what you mean. But you just received the luck of learning about the system, where most dont. This knowledge will get you out of poverty. = education vai indirect means. 

[Epikur]

26 minutes ago, integral said:

Yes, we all see what you mean. But you just received the luck of learning about the system, where most dont. This knowledge will get you out of poverty. = education vai indirect means. 

No

[Gesundheit]

36 minutes ago, integral said:

Yes, we all see what you mean. But you just received the luck of learning about the system, where most dont. This knowledge will get you out of poverty. = education vai indirect means. 

Lol. You most certainly have no clue what I mean.

You still think that mindset is the great equalizer. But that's not true at all. It's like reading one book and thinking that that's all of reality.

Mindset can only take you so far, as with anything else. The rest is pure luck. Poverty will never cease to exist as long as we are succumbing to these delusional ideas that the rich planted in our heads. We need to free ourselves from these delusions if we want to ever reach equality. Otherwise, nothing will change and we'll forever remain slaves. Yes, slaves! That's the word! We are all literally slaves to the system, and that includes the rich as well. The rich are also slaves to the system, but at a different level. The difference is that we're double slaves, running endlessly and going nowhere.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Epikur]

2 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Lol. You most certainly have no clue what I mean.

You still think that mindset is the great equalizer. But that's not true at all. It's like reading one book and thinking that that's all of reality.

Mindset can only take you so far, as with anything else. The rest is pure luck. Poverty will never cease to exist as long as we are succumbing to these delusional ideas that the rich planted in our heads. We need to free ourselves from these delusions if we want to ever reach equality.

Plus you can not just create mindset from thin air. Ideally it is copied from parents and mentors and having a suited subconsciousness.

[Alfonsoo]

@The_Truth_Seeker I think it’s a the whole mix if money culture, money education, financial support from (rich)parents or lack of all this that make it a snowballing effect for both sides. Of course anyone can break the chain, either a poor persone becomes rich or a rich becomes poor. I believe the most important thing is to self control when buying stuff (meaning don’t buy useless stuff or overbuy. Am I buying this for instant pleasure or for future pleasure? You should ask yourself that. Remember that investing beats saving usually ( you should do both)

[Gesundheit]

1 minute ago, Epikur said:

Plus you can not just create mindset from thin air. Ideally it is copied from parents and mentors and having a suited subconsciousness.

And that's generously assuming that it'll work or take you anywhere. Maybe it'll even hurt, and many times it does. There are literally countless factors that contribute to being rich, but they're all minor compared to the inherently unequal playing field.

[Hardkill]

So then, how does a homeless person ever get out of being poor through no fault of his/her own?

[Gesundheit]

12 hours ago, Hardkill said:

So then, how does a homeless person ever get out of being poor through no fault of his/her own?

They keep hitting their heads against the wall on the hopes that someday it'll crack. AND on the hopes that they won't be crashed by the wrecking ball of the rich.

[Gesundheit]

@Consept @integral

Okay, guys. I've contemplated this discussion, and I think I've got some insight into why there seems to be confusion.

We have been discussing wealth and poverty for days based on vague ideas of what each of the words means. So, here I'll offer a simple model explaining my pov in order to make a common ground on which we can have an understanding.

Let's say there are 10 different degrees to wealth, starting with #1 the poorest people on earth such as homeless people, poor African children, etc... And ending with #10 the richest people on earth; Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc...

Here's a little illustration of the model:

1. Homeless.
2. Barely capable of survival.
3. Struggling to pay the bills.
4. Financially stable, but very conservative and has scarcity mindset.
5. Can afford higher education.
6. Millionaires.
7. Multi-millionaires. CEOs. Wolf Of Wall Street type.
8. Richest 10000 humans.
9. Richest 100 humans.
10. Richest 10 humans.

To me, it seems the confusion arises because we have different ideas of what the word "rich" means. I suppose you think that a person that can afford higher education is rich. But let me clarify that that's not what I think is rich at all. When I say rich, I mean people who are actually literally rich. I mean people who buy gold-coated Lamborghini and Ferrari cars. I mean people who have golden toilets. I mean people at the levels 8,9,10 which I highlighted above in bold. So let's make it clear that I am using the word rich as the absolute concept I explained. Even though, wealth is relative, and we sometimes refer to each other as rich even though we're all technically poor, because anyone with more money than me is technically richer than me. So granted, it gets confusing sometimes.

Now, I know my model isn't necessarily 100% accurate or coherent but just to help make the point clear. There are articles that present more accurate numbers such as this one: Distribution Of Wealth - Wikipedia. There are technical information and numbers that I haven't necessarily considered in order to keep things simple. Specifically, I think this part is interesting and important to consider:

Quote

The pyramid shows that:

• half of the world's net wealth belongs to the top 1%,
• top 10% of adults hold 85%, while the bottom 90% hold the remaining 15% of the world's total wealth,
• Top 30% of adults hold 97% of the total wealth, while the bottom 70% hold the remaining 3% of the world's total wealth.

With that being said, everything I said in earlier posts should finally make perfect sense.

Rich people are responsible for poverty, and they're responsible for finding solutions. This is an indisputable fact for anyone with common sense. Let's not make the villain to be the hero, or the hero to be the villain here. Poor people are not lazy or unintelligent. They're just unlucky and oppressed. And they're used and exploited more than most.

There's a lot more that can be said, but I think that should be enough.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Gesundheit

[intotheblack]

14 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Consept @integral

Okay, guys. I've contemplated this discussion, and I think I've got some insight into why there seems to be confusion.

We have been discussing wealth and poverty for days based on vague ideas of what each of the words means. So, here I'll offer a simple model explaining my pov in order to make a common ground on which we can have an understanding.

Let's say there are 10 different degrees to wealth, starting with #1 the poorest people on earth such as homeless people, poor African children, etc... And ending with 10 the richest people on earth, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc...

Here's a little illustration of the model:

1. Homeless.
2. Barely capable of survival.
3. Struggling to pay the bills.
4. Financially stable, but very conservative and has scarcity mindset.
5. Can afford higher education.
6. Millionaires.
7. Multi-millionaires. CEOs. Wolf Of Wall Street type.
8. Richest 10000 humans.
9. Richest 100 humans.
10. Richest 10 humans.

To me, it seems the confusion arises because we have different ideas of what the word "rich" means. I suppose you think that a person that can afford higher education is rich. But let me clarify that that's not what I think is rich at all. When I say rich, I mean people who are actually literally rich. I mean people that buy a new Lamborghini and Ferrari car every couple of days. I mean the people who have golden toilets. I mean people who just put their money in savings without investing in anything useful. I mean people at the levels 8,9,10 which I highlighted above in bold. So let's make it clear that I am using the word rich as the absolute concept I explained. Even though, wealth is relative, and we sometimes refer to each other as rich even though we're all technically poor, because anyone with more money than me is technically richer than me. So granted, it gets confusing sometimes.

Now, I know my model isn't necessarily 100% accurate or coherent but just to help make the point clear. There are articles that present more accurate numbers such as this one: Distribution Of Wealth - Wikipedia. There are technical information and numbers that I haven't necessarily considered in order to keep things simple. Specifically, I think this part is interesting and important to consider:

With that being said, everything I said in earlier posts should finally make perfect sense.

Rich people are responsible for poverty, and they're responsible for finding solutions. This is an indisputable fact for anyone with common sense. Let's not make the villain to be the hero, or the hero to be the villain here. Poor people are not lazy or unintelligent. They're just unlucky and oppressed. And they're even used and exploited more than most.

There's a lot more that can be said, but I think that should be enough.

Thanks for this explanation! Makes sense to me. 

[Gesundheit]

Just now, intotheblack said:

Thanks for this explanation! Makes sense to me. 

You're welcome. And I'm glad that it does 

[intotheblack]

1 minute ago, Gesundheit said:

You're welcome. And I'm glad that it does 

I grew up in stage 4 - financially stable but scarcity mindset.  My dad made a lot of money, paid the bills etc. but it wasn’t shared with his family. He became a miser.  I basically grew up thinking we couldn’t afford things, but my dad was low-key hoarding a lot of money.  
Kind of small scale what’s happening with the rich and the poor.  The top rich are hoarding all the wealth.