Inequality much worse than most think

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Well it's still not clear to me. The concept of equality under the law is much more clear and seems clearly desirable. If only we would stick to it.

What does equality under the law mean? The classic case these days is marriage laws . Gays for example are free to marry the opposite sex just like everyone else so what's the issue? I also need to take an eye test to drive. Is that a form of discrimination? Could it be? What if statistics show that any less than 20/20 shows a .00001 increased risk in fender benders? Is 20/20 only drivers "equal".

Don't want someone with 90 cents to cross a bridge, equally apply a $1 fee. Don't like kids then make a law that houses are 1000 squire feet and no more and change the zoning for the park, ya know, "equally". Know someone you don't like who drinks, vote for the Mayor who would make the town dry. Equality under the law is abstract squid ink, and it can be used to oppress. In fact that is exactly what taxes on labor is, masquerading as equal while in fact favoring the wealthy.

I am also not sure what could be so unclear. The US was founded on such things as the Scottish Enlightenment like Locke, and Smith. The oppressive force was not very ambiguous. It was the system of legally enforced privileges. It was a labor theory of ownership which certainly clashed with the concept of a wilderness of royal lands, albeit with land owners being treated "equally" under the law.

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Mark, it seems you have missed the mark. I don't think anyone here is "being a defeatist" we simply have come to terms with reality. There is a large difference between being a pessimist and a realist. Unforunately most people can't distinguish between the two.

I have not given up but I am a realist. (Again it is not about "money" or getting "rich" for me personally) I realize that I have friends who are no more intelligent than I or even less so that get fantastic positions due simply to the ability to get into and out of an ivy league school (or who had parents who focused on their education etc to help get them there).

My GF sees this all the time at her work. The people who are fast tracked to manager/director aren't the best but the ones who are tied/associated with someone higher up who probably got their position not by skill.

One girl who calls the CEO "a friend" because they both go to synagogue together went from being an analyst straight to manager skipping years of work.

The fact remains that a majority of people can succeed at a majority of jobs (aside from the most specialized jobs that is) if they are given the opportunity but 99% simply aren't due to ethnicity/university/religious or political affiliation etc.

It is a hard world for a realist someone who refuses to buy into the propaganda that every organization or political party expouses. The Real Estate agent who doesnt buy into the Rah Rah Rah propaganda of Keller Williams at their annual meetings will never be "seen" as a "good soldier" for the firm.

I have actually been told by a large investment bank that I would have to be a "good soldier" and "fall in line" at the bank if I worked there even though that person knew I was unconventional and believe that groups automatically create by their very nature an opposition group and must be diametrically opposed to the "anti" of their ideas/beliefs.

I do not choose to play the game.

It appears to me you have a distorted outlook on reality and have difficulty understanding characteristics and personalities that result in success. While it's true that relationships as well as physical appearance can facilitate success to imply that this is the sole reason for most peoples success is preposterous. And to say that most people can easily be interchanged among jobs is hopelessly myopic.

It seems that your outlook on success ignores the fact that intelligence, experience, aggressiveness and varying personalities suited for different types of roles play major roles in success rather than opportunity. The reasons and mechanisms for success vary from industry to industry but I would say in most industries aggressiveness and intelligence play a major factor. In fact I argue aggressiveness / perseverance is far more important than intelligence in most industries and really opportunity has almost no bearing. Furthermore your belief that most people are of roughly equal intelligence that outlook is quite off base and seems to indicate you simply haven't worked with a large cross section of the workforce.

Aggressiveness and intelligence create success. Luck an opportunity play a small role, but nowhere near what you claim.

[jr429]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Spencer, not everyone wants to play in the NBA or even be a manager. Most are perfectly content at their analyst position or admin position and happy with taking care of their family/kids.

But where is the equality of opportunity for the people who are actually striving and putting in what mark called boot strapped hardwork to get ahead?

My assumption is that carig has tried bootstrapping and hardwork to get ahead much more than his fellow man and hasnt because he hasnt been "granted" an opportunity to do so.

I am telling you now the HF managers I meet on a regular basis are no more intelligent than I am and in most cases don't understand anything outside of fundamental credit or equity analysis yet I am not allowed to work at their fund because I dont have the "right" pedigree to be let in and given an opportunity.

Opportunity matters. I may fail in my future hopeful opportunity that I am working toward but at least I get a chance to see if I can do it or not. The problem is I may never be given an opportunity just like the thousands of QBs who can play better at the NFL level but were never given a chance.

Lets flip this around - what inequalities and barriers actually exist for those that do want to put in the hardwork and "boot-strap"? I am quite interested in your perspective.

I don't know any hedge fund managers but the bankers I know taking down 7 figure compensations (as I assume most hedge fund managers are) are some of the smartest AND most aggressive people I know which in my opinion is what it takes to succeed in the industry that you seem to be quite familiar with. For example one of my good friends can do 3 digit / 3 digit division in his head, give you all the remainders and once went over to punch a director of a major investment bank in the head for screwing up his deal (and didn't get fired for it). And yes he makes mid 7 figures.

Along with intelligence and aggressiveness you're certainly right in your previous post however that good relationship are needed to succeed - in other words you need to be good with people... We are social animals after all and a few people I know struggle to get ahead in financial services industry because they rub people the wrong way despite their extensive array of skillsets. But to say that you need "pedigree" to work in financial services is pretty off base - I know more than a few bankers with very mediocre educational backgrounds who pushed their way into fairly high level positions.

From my experience those with aggressiveness (and intelligence) create their own opportunities.

[flintlock]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

It appears to me you have a distorted outlook on reality and have difficulty understanding characteristics and personalities that result in success. While it's true that relationships as well as physical appearance can facilitate success to imply that this is the sole reason for most peoples success is preposterous. And to say that most people can easily be interchanged among jobs is hopelessly myopic.

It seems that your outlook on success ignores the fact that intelligence, experience, aggressiveness and varying personalities suited for different types of roles play major roles in success rather than opportunity. The reasons and mechanisms for success vary from industry to industry but I would say in most industries aggressiveness and intelligence play a major factor. In fact I argue aggressiveness / perseverance is far more important than intelligence in most industries and really opportunity has almost no bearing. Furthermore your belief that most people are of roughly equal intelligence that outlook is quite off base and seems to indicate you simply haven't worked with a large cross section of the workforce.

Aggressiveness and intelligence create success. Luck an opportunity play a small role, but nowhere near what you claim.

I've noticed a real correlation between aggressiveness and financial success. Some personality types just do better. That seems normal to me. But the skills that made for success 200 years ago are not necessarily the same today. I think some of us criticize the system when in fact we simply do not have the personality to "succeed" in some fields in this day and age. Call it corporate culture, whatever. It helps to be good at self promotion, have political skills, good with people, charming, etc. Of course those in more technical fields can get by with less of this and more technical knowledge. I realized long ago I didn't have the desire or the skills to play the corporate game. So I found a better fit. Everyone should realize we are not all the same and have to seek out our own personal strengths.

As far as MnMark's comments, I have to agree. Some spend too much effort focusing on unfairness. Other's think its just a simple matter or perseverance. I believe on a Macro scale, sure, there are ridiculous levels of unfairness. But we have to live our individual lives on the micro scale. We have to carve out a life for ourselves and make the most of what is available. Unless you goal is to become President, or CEO of a major corporation, a lot of this stuff doesn't really directly affect us that much. Companies will always need good people who can add value. People want good products and services. As long as you can do that you will be successful.

[DSpencer]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

What does equality under the law mean? The classic case these days is marriage laws . Gays for example are free to marry the opposite sex just like everyone else so what's the issue? I also need to take an eye test to drive. Is that a form of discrimination? Could it be? What if statistics show that any less than 20/20 shows a .00001 increased risk in fender benders? Is 20/20 only drivers "equal".

Don't want someone with 90 cents to cross a bridge, equally apply a $1 fee.

What it means is that if the law says you need 20/20 vision to drive, then everyone needs 20/20 vision to drive. Regardless of whether you are white, black, Mormon, Jewish, etc. If the bridge toll is $1 then it can't be $5 for people of Irish descent. I don't claim that it's a panacea or the only ingredient necessary for a good society. It doesn't make every law just and wise. Seriously, are you really arguing that you want to go back to a system where a race of people can be singled out to have different laws applied to them?

I am also not sure what could be so unclear. The US was founded on such things as the Scottish Enlightenment like Locke, and Smith. The oppressive force was not very ambiguous. It was the system of legally enforced privileges. It was a labor theory of ownership which certainly clashed with the concept of a wilderness of royal lands, albeit with land owners being treated "equally" under the law.

Repeatedly stating that you don't understand why it's not clear is not a compelling argument. I can't follow what you are saying regarding the founding of the US. Is that an example of when equality of opportunity existed? I'm not sure that the Native Americans and slaves would agree.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

My point was just how do we define opportunity and how can it possible be made equal. Does having 2 dedicated parents who teach you to read from an early age give you different opportunity than someone with a deadbeat dad and drug addict mom? If you are born with an IQ of 150 does that give the same equality of opportunity as someone with an IQ of 70?

I'm not simply asking rhetorical questions, I'm sincerely try to determine what people mean when they say this.

As to the second part, the fact that you meet with HF managers on a regular basis implies a level of opportunity not available to 99% of the world. Do you REALLY want everyone on earth to have the same opportunity as you even if it means lessening your own opportunity substantially?

Imagine how a struggling person in a 3rd world country would feel hearing a (relatively) rich American complain that they don't have enough opportunity to get ahead.

Spencer I get your point. I also understand that life isnt fair, some get ahead others dont. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/

Please lets not compare any American nor I to a third world citizen, that is not apples to apples that is oranges to oranges and not worth the time to debate.

Opportunity for my also implies not doing something I am morally opposed to. For example; yes, I could go and be a real estate agent but knowing what I know about the housing industry and FIRE economy I would never want to be party to saddling an obtuse family with 300k in debt when they don't have the income to support it.

Perhaps I could only sell houses to millionaires who could but who knows?

And as I said Spencer not everyone wants that opportunity so the idea that everyone on earth having the same opportunity as me or anyone else is moot.

Obviously I understand being born in the US as an American citizen you have more opportunity than 90%. The other 10% being born to wealthy individuals worldwide or in Europe etc.

And I dont consider most Americans rich, their so called wealth comes from being debt serfs, at least in most other countries they dont have a debt burden to keep up their standard of living.

When 70% of the American population lives paycheck to paycheck I would say that we have failed as a nation over the past 30 years as productivity has risen many multiples of average annual income.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

I ask again, where is the opportunity for the realist or pragmatist (Mark, many people on these boards know me personally and none would characterize me as a pessimist I believe) for the person who doesnt affiliate with a political organization, ethnicity, religion or major university that is recognized?

Eventually time catches up with all of us and you are "too old" to get that entry level position at an investment bank or hedge fund.

I rate freedom as a higher value than equality. If german-speaking jews at a particular company won't hire anyone but german-speaking jews, that's their choice. I would like to see Americans get a true freedom of association back again, which would include the right to not associate with people in private or business life for whatever reason they want. So if a company only wants to promote synagogue-attending jews or a football league only wants black quarterbacks, that's their choice.

You're assuming the only way to get ahead is by moving up in someone else's organization. If talented people are being ignored for promotion for some reason that has nothing to do with ability, then that company is missing out on an opportunity. The talented person should go elsewhere or start their own business. Personally, I've worked most of my life in my own business and have no interest working as a cog in some corporate machine, though I imagine there are industries where it's difficult to start a new business.

Yes, it is hard to get older and find employment but that's not other people's problem. It is a well-known problem, and I will say I knew of it as a problem when I was in my 20s. That is when you should be planning ahead for the fact that you may not be able to get a job easily when you are 58.

It keeps coming back to two competing ideas about life, pessimistic and optimistic: in one, you are a helpless victim of life who can't solve his own problems or get ahead without the help or permission of other people, who are often ganging up against you. In the other vision, it may be difficult but you are the captain of your own life and 'where there's a will there's a way', and, sometimes, there is no way and then that's just how life is - life isn't fair, but no one owes you anything. I go for the latter, myself.

[Penguin]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Money be damned.

This is a very underestimated notion.

I disagree with Mn_Mark not on the issue of whether one can become rich or famous from scratch but because of a basic misalignment of ~what~ vehicle can get you there versus ~what~ service that is to society at large. We have allowed the system to be skewed to where the highest rewards are granted to those who make their living in the most corrosive way imaginable to the society we inhabit. It is insanity writ large.

Sucking at the teat of the central bank and manufacturing asset bubbles from toxic paper does not a healthy economy make.

You can take all of these financial hallucinations and fever dreams and jam them. A healthy economy has been, and will ever be, composed of a mostly self sufficient nation that rewards those who build and manufacture needed goods. Not only have we lost sight of this, we have allowed a system to develop where vast riches have been accumulated by attacking this self sufficiency and industrial orientation.

This is the root of a lot of dismay about this system for a lot of us. It is not that it is not fair or equitable or allows upward mobility on a large scale. It doesn't but that is not the point. It isn't that it is wrong it is that it is wrong headed! Its elite do not get to be elite by making the largest contribution to the nation and society. The most base and unprincipled are rewarded. That is the problem.

Will

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Lets flip this around - what inequalities and barriers actually exist for those that do want to put in the hardwork and "boot-strap"? I am quite interested in your perspective.

I don't know any hedge fund managers but the bankers I know taking down 7 figure compensations (as I assume most hedge fund managers are) are some of the smartest AND most aggressive people I know which in my opinion is what it takes to succeed in the industry that you seem to be quite familiar with. For example one of my good friends can do 3 digit / 3 digit division in his head, give you all the remainders and once went over to punch a director of a major investment bank in the head for screwing up his deal (and didn't get fired for it). And yes he makes mid 7 figures.

Along with intelligence and aggressiveness you're certainly right in your previous post however that good relationship are needed to succeed - in other words you need to be good with people... We are social animals after all and a few people I know struggle to get ahead in financial services industry because they rub people the wrong way despite their extensive array of skillsets. But to say that you need "pedigree" to work in financial services is pretty off base - I know more than a few bankers with very mediocre educational backgrounds who pushed their way into fairly high level positions.

From my experience those with aggressiveness (and intelligence) create their own opportunities.

First these bankers you speak of, how old are they? When did these people of mediocre educational backgrounds make it into banking? For example back in 1980 most of the traders on wall street had just a high school education and most had working class parents.

That ship has sailed. Before 2008 if goldman has 10 I banking positions to fill they would hire 8 Ivy kids, 1 state school kid and 1 kid "with connections." Now after 2008 since there arent 10 I banking jobs to go around there are only 8 then all 8 jobs go to Ivy kids.

It is like Google, google only hires from 8 schools and if your CV doesnt come from those schools then you have a very low percentage of ever being hired.

I know many I bankers, HF analysts and HF managers, none I would consider more intelligent than me on a wide arrange of subjects. Yes some people can do 3 digit/ 3 digit division in his head but guess what, that does not mean they have a knack for financial risk taking so I dont see how that matters.

If you are a recruiter at a large hedge fund and you hire a kid from Harvard and he sucks and they have to fire him well its not your fault I mean the kid went to Harvard right? Its called Career Risk. Now if you hire a state school kid from WVU and he sucks and fails then guess who also is getting fired?

The same is true in the consultant/allocater business. If you allocate capital to Elliott management and in two years they blow up and you lose money well you can use the defense that "everyone has money with Elliott" but if you allocate capital to a 50 million dollar small hedge fund and they blow up then you will get fired from your job.

And obviously a few people do get in to Investment Banking now with state school degrees but usually they are around the NYC area and can network. If you dont live in NYC good luck.

Along with intelligence and aggressiveness you're certainly right in your previous post however that good relationship are needed to succeed - in other words you need to be good with people... We are social animals after all and a few people I know struggle to get ahead in financial services industry because they rub people the wrong way despite their extensive array of skillsets

Yes good relationships are needed to get in because you cant just apply online and hope to get selected for an interview but the rest isnt true.

Some of the HF managers I know are complete a-holes and treat people as sub human and "rub people the wrong way" yet they are managing 100s of millions to billions of dollars. Some of the most famous investors treat everyone like crap and rub everyone the wrong way so I dont think that should be looked at.

Lets flip this around - what inequalities and barriers actually exist for those that do want to put in the hardwork and "boot-strap"? I am quite interested in your perspective.

I have listed these extensively throughout the thread.

[vinoveri]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

This is a very underestimated notion.

I disagree with Mn_Mark not on the issue of whether one can become rich or famous from scratch but because of a basic misalignment of ~what~ vehicle can get you there versus ~what~ service that is to society at large. We have allowed the system to be skewed to where the highest rewards are granted to those who make their living in the most corrosive way imaginable to the society we inhabit. It is insanity writ large.

Sucking at the teat of the central bank and manufacturing asset bubbles from toxic paper does not a healthy economy make.

You can take all of these financial hallucinations and fever dreams and jam them. A healthy economy has been, and will ever be, composed of a mostly self sufficient nation that rewards those who build and manufacture needed goods. Not only have we lost sight of this, we have allowed a system to develop where vast riches have been accumulated by attacking this self sufficiency and industrial orientation.

This is the root of a lot of dismay about this system for a lot of us. It is not that it is not fair or equitable or allows upward mobility on a large scale. It doesn't but that is not the point. It isn't that it is wrong it is that it is wrong headed! Its elite do not get to be elite by making the largest contribution to the nation and society. The most base and unprincipled are rewarded. That is the problem.

Will

+1.
The culture has been devolving and is degrading; our whole economic system is based on promoting consumption, which naturally encourages the vices of envy and greed. IMO there is a connection between the evolving secular worldview and the economic system; people can preach secular humanism ad nauseaum, but social darwinsim is the natural outcome ultimately of this line of thought; when the personal ego becomes the ultimate judge of right and wrong which is where we are pretty much, self-interest which means self-enrichment and dog-eat-dog rules the day.

Judeo-Christian worldview teaches that all men are brothers (under the fatherhood of God), and that's the answer. Do we want to be treated like brothers and sisters by our fellows and are we willing to view each other as members of the same family, and share pains, joys, etc and recognize the meaning and importance of the "common good", or do we want to do battle with each other in a chaotic and finite world where the yuppie bumper sticker "whoever dies with the most toys wins" is the song celeb? The choice should be an easy one.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

What it means is that if the law says you need 20/20 vision to drive, then everyone needs 20/20 vision to drive. Regardless of whether you are white, black, Mormon, Jewish, etc.

That is what it means to you and it is not any sound moral principle by any tradition I have observed except for perhaps oppressive, legalistic societies. However "equality under the law" is junk social philosophy that begs the question and my proofs were already presented.

If the bridge toll is $1 then it can't be $5 for people of Irish descent. I don't claim that it's a panacea or the only ingredient necessary for a good society. It doesn't make every law just and wise. Seriously, are you really arguing that you want to go back to a system where a race of people can be singled out to have different laws applied to them?

I already debunked it. All one has to do to oppress the Irish is to fund research showing that boiling in big open pots is dangerous, and then move to pass the law using a largely disinterested majority that hardly knows the difference. There goes the traditional boiled dinner. But its all "equal under the law". Raw milk is illegal for everyone. Since I am one of the few that makes his own cheese, and would like to control my own pasteurization, the law only really falls on me. However since most of the people like you see "equality under the law", whats the harm in forcing ultra pasteurized on everyone? Why not do this with eggs ? Shouldn't we have pre cooked eggs and pre cooked chickens equally?

Repeatedly stating that you don't understand why it's not clear is not a compelling argument. I can't follow what you are saying regarding the founding of the US. Is that an example of when equality of opportunity existed? I'm not sure that the Native Americans and slaves would agree.

Well didn't Jefferson say that all men were created equal? Therefore there was "equality under the law." The solution was to regard slaves as not being a full man or citizen. On the flip side we may see animals have "equality under the law" . Who knows, we may one day give civil rights to vermin. It would be "equality under the law".

You are the one who did not make a convincing argument . You have not successfully defended your statement that "equality under the law" is a convincing principle with a well established premise. Its a slogan with no real meaning.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

Lets flip this around - what inequalities and barriers actually exist for those that do want to put in the hardwork and "boot-strap"? I am quite interested in your perspective.

You will describe them below. What is the difference between hard work and a hard working parasite? Parasites are part of the barrier.

I don't know any hedge fund managers but the bankers I know taking down 7 figure compensations (as I assume most hedge fund managers are) are some of the smartest AND most aggressive people I know which in my opinion is what it takes to succeed in the industry that you seem to be quite familiar with. For example one of my good friends can do 3 digit / 3 digit division in his head, give you all the remainders and once went over to punch a director of a major investment bank in the head for screwing up his deal (and didn't get fired for it). And yes he makes mid 7 figures.

Good bank robbers have a similar skill set. Carl Gugasian, The Friday Night bank robber was likely more than a match. He had intelligence and agression.
My question is what good does it do me to let him rob banks?

Along with intelligence and aggressiveness you're certainly right in your previous post however that good relationship are needed to succeed - in other words you need to be good with people... We are social animals after all and a few people I know struggle to get ahead in financial services industry because they rub people the wrong way despite their extensive array of skillsets. But to say that you need "pedigree" to work in financial services is pretty off base - I know more than a few bankers with very mediocre educational backgrounds who pushed their way into fairly high level positions.

From my experience those with aggressiveness (and intelligence) create their own opportunities.

But not necessarily any thing that could be considered progress.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

+1.
The culture has been devolving and is degrading; our whole economic system is based on promoting consumption, which naturally encourages the vices of envy and greed. IMO there is a connection between the evolving secular worldview and the economic system; people can preach secular humanism ad nauseaum, but social darwinsim is the natural outcome ultimately of this line of thought; when the personal ego becomes the ultimate judge of right and wrong which is where we are pretty much, self-interest which means self-enrichment and dog-eat-dog rules the day.

Judeo-Christian worldview teaches that all men are brothers (under the fatherhood of God), and that's the answer. Do we want to be treated like brothers and sisters by our fellows and are we willing to view each other as members of the same family, and share pains, joys, etc and recognize the meaning and importance of the "common good", or do we want to do battle with each other in a chaotic and finite world where the yuppie bumper sticker "whoever dies with the most toys wins" is the song celeb? The choice should be an easy one.

+1 for you too. I too see this connection. For some the abstract concept of a marketplace has replaced God entirely. The cult of Mammon looms large. The Social Gospel is all but dead as an idea and a movement. In its place are a bunch of atheistic novellas about childless worlds with lead characters that are heroic insofar as they practice a perverse form of satanism. Social Darwinism is neither a Christian, nor an American ideal. And it pains me to see otherwise patriotic folk walking down that dark path and publicly preaching it.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

What it means is that if the law says you need 20/20 vision to drive, then everyone needs 20/20 vision to drive. Regardless of whether you are white, black, Mormon, Jewish, etc. If the bridge toll is $1 then it can't be $5 for people of Irish descent. I don't claim that it's a panacea or the only ingredient necessary for a good society. It doesn't make every law just and wise. Seriously, are you really arguing that you want to go back to a system where a race of people can be singled out to have different laws applied to them?



Repeatedly stating that you don't understand why it's not clear is not a compelling argument. I can't follow what you are saying regarding the founding of the US. Is that an example of when equality of opportunity existed? I'm not sure that the Native Americans and slaves would agree.

Our current system can be used to legislate an entire group of people for anything. Could the government or a "populist" president get 50% of the national vote and the congress to say that anyone of middle eastern descent must be rounded up and deported? Yes they could.

They could also enact an environmental law saying that families are only allowed 1 child for "environmental reasons."

To think that our current system couldnt do this is a bit naive. What it has actually done is get the majority of people to think that the rich shouldnt pay higher taxes and be taxed "equally" as someone making 50k a year, it is all clouded in smoke and mirrors. For reference I am not a democrat or left wing.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Inequality much worse than most think

life isn't fair, but no one owes you anything.

We live in society. It's just a fact. The universe might not owe you anything. But the social contract means something. You even believe that the nation owes you protections for rights to private property. A radical Marxist believes that private property should not exist and it's their right to take it. Unless you believe that God grants you the right to private property, as he granted man Dominion over the Earth, you cannot believe in natural rights the way Locke did. And you don't strike me as the God-fearing type.

But that aside, let me ask you this: Who or what gives you the right to private property? I don't believe there is any way to answer that question without seeing that everyone owes everyone else something.

And once we establish there's a social contract, then it's all about negotiating who gets what when. This is why we vote. Jamie Dimon gets billions at the discount window. In your view, that's just "his." In my view, it's perverse. These are not things on which we will agree. But keep in mind, that what you call "freedom" is not really freedom in the sense of the word. Life, liberty, and property are three different things. You are conflating liberty and property. There is no intrinsic freedom in "stuff."

Let me ask another question: Are you in favor of changing laws to take teacher's pensions away? My guess is probably so. But that's a form of property right too, in an ostensibly voluntarily negotiated employment contract. So you may not even be in favor of protecting all private property rights. Just certain ones. And when it gets right down to it, what people try to make apolitical is actually fundamentally political. It doesn't mean we have to agree. But it does mean there is a debate to be had. And during that debate, we can discuss what fairness means, or how fair or unfair we ought to make life in our country be. That's the beauty of living in a free country. And I wouldn't give it up for Benjamin Franklins stacked 30 meters high.