[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Once again, in your response you address an entirely different point than the one being made.

Baloney! You must keep your (for want of a better word) mind on the other side of the looking glass, where words mean just what you want them to.

No one said that opportunity was lacking in America or that no one but the rich could become rich.

Yes, you did. Quoting, of course, but in such a way as to make the reader suppose that you agreed with the idea quoted.

BTW, since you disagree, consider that there is no way the rich will become richer in a non-capitalist economy.

Certainly there is. Give financial support to those in power, and be rewarded for it.

All true, but not the point of the statement, at all. The point is that it is easier for someone who is already rich to become richer with less effort than for someone who is starting out with few(er) assets.

Then why do we not see Rockefellers, Fords, and other scions of the 19th to early 20th century "robber barons" heading the list of the currently wealthy? (The first Rockefeller or similar name on that list is down around #150, below such children of inherited wealth as Oprah Winfrey & Steven Spielberg.) Because those who inherit wealth generally invest it conservatively (or have it invested for them by their trust funds), and so make relatively modest gains, which tend to be spent or divided among children & grandchildren.

Also, regarding the poor, they will become poorer if they have no assets to invest...

So they need to acquire assets, by getting an education, saving, etc. They will become richer if their expenditures are less than income, adjusted for inflation. Plenty of poor people eventually become prosperous, even modestly wealthy. And on the flip side, it's not entirely unknown for some of the wealthy to become poor through carelessness. See for instance quite a few Madoff investors.

So the original statement is basically a socio-politically motivated crock.