What is Occupy Wallstreet?

[Jester]

Your are confusing things. Socio-economic status is always relative. Of course we are living better then we lived 100 years ago or 200 years ago on average but that would also have happened with other political systems. And as as side note. I am not sure people in Somalia have a higher quality of life compared to 50, 100 or 200 years ago.

First, we are talking about the American dream, not the Somali dream. The problems in the poorest parts of Africa are legion, but are a very different issue from first-world social mobility.

Second, it is literally impossible to create a system in which everyone gets to be top dog. Everyone cannot be *relatively* wealthy. What the "American dream" promises is two things: one, that the future will be wealthier than the present, and two, that everyone has the opportunity to succeed or fail. The system has done well on the first measure, and okay-ish on the second. Your initial conditions have a strong impact on future performance, but not a binding one (that study above seemed to indicate, about 1/3 of your future income performance is attributable to your parents' income. That leaves 2/3 for other factors.)

I agree much of Europe is better, in many ways, although there is also a social and political elite which is much less permeable. It's worth remembering that, of the last 10 American presidents, the only ones that came from elite political families were the Bushes and JFK.

That is not the point. If he had made several big wrong choices (more) nobody would have known him. Anyway I don't mind giving him the credits.

Failure fails - is this surprising in any way? That should be true in any system. Warren Buffett's skill is in making right choices, so obviously, if he'd made wrong ones, we wouldn't be talking about him, because the only thing that makes him unusual is that exact quality.

I understand the principle of investing and economic growth. But the losers in this case might be the competitors of the companies you mentioned. Or the investors in the competitors. The main driver for economic growth is however still population increase.

This is definitely wrong. Population increase does not drive economic growth, not by a long shot. Otherwise, India would be rich, and Luxembourg poor. Research drives growth. Innovation drives growth. Capital accumulation drives growth. Competition drives growth. Population growth actually decreases economic growth, all else equal - more people fighting over the same resources means less for each.

-Jester