The Best and Worst of The “One Percent”

Main point: Money is not a measure of a man in that wealth is neither an indication of productive genius nor morally flawed character.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is born out of the frustration at the growing income inequality in America.

More than anything else, in my mind, this is a reflection of our society’s relationship with money. The “market” values a CEO much more than it did 30 years ago. Big banks have gained power not because they somehow went against the values of the masses, but because they went with them.

I think the arguments on both sides have been trivialized to the point of absurdity. To me, the top 1% of income earner is no better or worse than the 99%. I respect productive genius. Some individuals that represent that are in the 1%. Some are in the 99%. Money is one of many possible indicators of greatness. A wealthy person is one who has often excelled in a business venture. That is admirable, but no more admirable than someone who has excelled in a scientific field, an olympic sport, or in the arts, all of which are quite likely to produce little income unless the person is also able to make a business of their skills and achievements.

Our society has great men and women: the real 1% (of which I’m not one). That 1% should be admired, respected, striven for, and never confused with the top 1% of income earners.

So I don’t mind the OWS protests when they are solely about money, and not about putting down the best that our civilization of proud ants has to offer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *