My Home About Me

An op-ed by Arthur Brooks in the Wall Street Journal defends the super-rich:

First, the super-rich have the ability -- and increasingly the willingness -- to be super-givers as well. Bill Gates is an obvious example: Through philanthropy, he has turned his attention to giving away the vast wealth he has accumulated, proving that giving money can signify as much success to a person as accumulating it can.

Second, as long as a fortune is earned (as opposed to stolen, squeezed from governments or otherwise extorted from citizens), pecuniary acquisitiveness is directly related to the comfort of others. Larry Ellison's company has created tens of thousands of jobs, introduced technology that has benefited all parts of the economy and paid billions in taxes. When Mr. Ellison measures his success with money, he spills opportunity and economic abundance onto all of us, directly or indirectly.

With a defense like this, the rich might as well just give up and march into a gas chamber and get it over with. Their wealth doens't need to be justified on the grounds that it has any particular effect on other people. It doesn't need to be justified at all. Their wealth is their property, and that's the end of the discussion.

options   oil   technicals   stock   investor   charts   Short selling opportunities   Technical chart patterns   support/resistance levels   ETFs (exchange traded funds)   Deron Wagner   Basic Materials sector   IRS denies trader tax status   trader tax status   mark to market accounting   Patience in the markets   Dow Monthly Performance   Dow Performance since 1900   Amateur Investors   Nasdaq Composite chart pattern