THE ROLE OF THE ENTREPRENEUR IN A CAPITALIST ECONOMY

There are few debates more prominent today than the one raging over the “job creators” in the USA.  Who are the real job creators and what is their role in a capitalist economy?

In recent pieces on Business Insider and Bloomberg, Henry Blodget and Nick Hanauer argue that entrepreneurs and investors don’t create jobs.  Instead, they argue that jobs are created by consumers and demand for goods and services which enable entrepreneurs to create corporations, jobs and profits.  Unfortunately, this message gets bogged down in politics which misconstrues the facts and leads to misleading conclusions.

Politics always get in the way of sound thinking

The right wing uses the “job creator” argument to push the position that increasing taxes on the rich will burden job creators and deter from future job creation.  The argument by Blodget and Hanauer opposes this position in an attempt to show that we should increase taxes on the rich and reduce taxes on the real job creators – the consumers.  This is another common case of filtering economics through a political filter in order to validate a preconceived bias.  Let’s see if we can’t filter our economics through an economics filter to arrive at a logical conclusion.

The relationship between the entrepreneur and the consumer

A capitalist economy has, in the extreme aggregate, a theoretical level of infinite demand (stay with me here).  Entrepreneurs and capitalists meet that demand by creating goods and services with the hopes of generating a profit.  Importantly, the consumer and supplier are two sides of the same coin.  One does not exist without the other.  Henry Ford doesn’t exist without demand for automobiles.  Steve Jobs doesn’t exist without demand for tech gadgets.  Clearly, if there is no demand for the goods and services in a capitalist economy then there can be no capitalists and there can be no corporations that employ workers.  So, the argument over “job creators” is a chicken and egg argument.  Clearly, the capitalist needs the consumer and the consumers needs the capitalist.  That’s simply how the trade works.  You buy an iPhone from Apple corporation because the product will serve some role that you demand in your life.  This gives Apple Corporation the potential to generate a profit and leverage their business operation, expand their business, employ more workers and generate higher profits.  Mr. Hanauer succinctly makes this point:

“It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. “

But what role does the entrepreneur serve in the capitalist economy besides meeting demand and generating profits?  Why is the entrepreneur so highly rewarded on an individual basis for his/her accomplishments?   Because entrepreneurs make our lives more efficient by providing us all with the ultimate luxury – time.

Toil and trouble

At this point, we could have all sorts of fascinating discussions here – what is money?  What is wealth?  What is happiness?  I don’t have the time nor the space to cover these important questions, but this subject intertwines all of these topics to some degree.  Some people believe money is wealth and that money will lead to increased happiness.  Of course, this confuses the idea of money.  Money is not wealth and money does not create happiness.  But how does this tie into our discussion above?    Stay with me here….

Adam Smith once said:

“The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

As I mentioned above, there is a theoretical level of infinite demand in a capitalist economy.  What I mean by this is that, in an extreme sense, we can consume all that time will allow.  If you were unconstrained by time you could, in theory, consume all that the entrepreneur can produce.  Theoretically, this chicken and egg story can go on forever.  Of course, the greatest luxury of all is quite finite.  We are always constrained by time.   The entrepreneur offers us the opportunity to take advantage of the ultimate luxury by giving us more time.

How does the entrepreneurial process work to create real wealth?

The best way to envision this idea is to use an example.  Alexander Graham Bell is one of the greatest innovators in American history.  So what did Mr. Bell do exactly?  He created a more efficient way to communicate by inventing the telephone.  Clearly, communication is vital part of human life.  And in theory, there is infinite demand over the long-term to communicate.

At some point in his life, Mr. Bell sat down and probably said something to the extent of – “it would be far more efficient if I could talk to Mr. Smith immediately as opposed to sending him a telegram”.  Clearly, this desire was not unique to him.  And all Mr. Bell did was fill a demand by inventing a product which helped consumers meet this demand.  But the important role that Mr. Bell played in the job creation process is not that he necessarily created jobs independent of his consumers (as we showed above, they are interdependent).  After all, there were plenty of messengers already employed and working before the telephone came into being (Mr. Bell actually destroyed their jobs).

What Mr. Bell did is give his consumers more time to consume other goods and services.  He reduced the toil and trouble of having to acquire things by providing them with a product that made their lives more efficient and productive.  Just imagine all the ways that the telephone improves our quality of life and makes us more efficient.  The businessman in NYC no longer had to wait for the telegram from his business partner in Chicago to discuss their new business decisions.  Instead, he picked up a telephone and a decision was made in a matter of minutes.  There are innumerable (better) examples of the way that a simple innovation such as Mr. Bell’s helps us to improve productivity, efficiency and ultimately our standard of living.

The key point here is that improvements in our standards of living provide us with the ultimate form of wealth – they give us more time to do the things we think will help us achieve happiness (whatever that might be to any particular person).  This is the ultimate form of wealth.  The entrepreneur gives us more time to consume more goods and services and do the things we want in our lives.  If we look at the modern economy we can see how streamlined this process has become.  For instance, last night at 7 PM I put my laundry in the wash, I put the dishes in the dishwasher, ordered dinner from a local restaurant and went upstairs into my office where I did an hour of work.  At 8 PM my dinner arrived, my laundry was done, I ate dinner on a fresh clean plate and I had done an hour of work in this period.  Imagine trying to do all that 100 years ago?  How long would it take you?  Days?  Perhaps even weeks?  That is a remarkable increase in living standards.  And why are we able to do all these things in such a condensed period of time?  Why am I able to consume so much more than I could have 1o0 years ago?  Because entrepreneurs created a machine that cleans my clothing for me, they created a machine that cleans my dishes for me, they created an oven that cooks my dinner, a car that allows the deliveryman to deliver my dinner, and invented a computer which allows me to efficiently and effectively accomplish work.  We live in a remarkable world.

The point here is not to prove that the consumer is the job creator or that the entrepreneur is the job creator.  Rather, the point is to show that they are two sides of the same coin and that real wealth is the product of increases in our standards of living.  What the entrepreneur does is help to increase the size of the coin by helping to meet demand through innovation which increases our productivity, ultimately allows us to consume more goods and services and results in more employment.   Without the role of the entrepreneur we are merely a society trading wealth amongst each other.  In other words, without the innovative process our real standards of living stagnate.  The true wealth in a capitalist economy is created by the entrepreneurs who allow us all to maximize the ultimate form of wealth – time.

The danger of the current political debate is that we are pitting the 1% against the 99% without understanding that we are the 100%.  Could the 1% afford to pay more in taxes and “redistribute the wealth”?  Probably.  Personally, I have been arguing for a middle class tax cut for a long time.  I am not in favor, however, of raising anyone’s taxes in the midst of a balance sheet recession.  But more importantly, we should not demonize the entrepreneurs who help create goods and services which increase everyone’s standards of living.  We should applaud their efforts and encourage it. What we should demonize is the “entrepreneur” who innovates new and improved ways to gamble in the casino of Wall Street without actually improving the standard of living of his/her customers and instead retires to a far off land playing golf for the rest of his/her life after imploding their company and taking a government bailout.   But let’s not demonize the wealthy who have contributed to improving our standards of living.  In doing so, we only end up reducing the standards of living of us all.

Cullen Roche

Mr. Roche is the Founder of Orcam Financial Group, LLC. Orcam is a financial services firm offering research, private advisory, institutional consulting and educational services.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterLinkedIn

Comments

  1. Cullen, I’d be interested in hearing your opinion on the concentration of wealth (upwards) not seen since 1929. No economy can sustain itself when there is a large disparity between a country’s ability to produce and its ability to consume. Unless of course that consumption is driven by easy credit. The consumer: We’ll go into debt, so you don’t have to. But as we’ve seen that strategy has a short shelf life. The financial collapse brought about memes such as “shared sacrifice” and “we’re broke” without focusing on the real issues. As I’ve always said, THAT is a conversation I’m more than happy to finish. Where exactly did you think this conversation was going to end up? But now it counts all of a sudden because you don’t think it’s fair? Where is the “shared sacrifice” and “we’re broke” with tens of millions under/unemployed and SS/Medicare under constant attack, all the while corporations rake in record profits and sit on trillions in cash, the wealthy doing better than ever (since 1929), and bankers and Wall St. receiving beyond absurd bonuses after getting bailed out at taxpayer expense? Be careful what the politicians ask for because you don’t get to piss on me and tell me it’s just raining right now. And that it will all be okay once we eliminate all regulations and corporate taxes. And balance the budget, solely on the backs of the 99%, that is. Enter stage left, #OWS, changing the conversation one tent at a time. It can be no other way. And it’s about time.

    And as the GOP continues to lock-in the recession (and then some) as best they can, at least they are beginning to realize they need to pivot on their messaging. I just can’t believe they say it out loud:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html

    All in, I’m not worrying that a 1% household may not be able to afford that one extra car next year, I worry that the 99% can’t afford to purchase thousands of them.

    • As Ive learned more and more about MMT I am less interested in taxing the rich. I dont see any reason to do so for financial reasons. The only reason to do so is political reasons and as long as our politics are as they are we need to tax the rich. If we are going to live in a paradigm of balanced budgets then the taxes need to be much higher on the rich. I will work all I can to get us in the correct paradigm but being a pragmatist, we need to work in the paradigm in which we live currently.

      So tax the rich!

      • If you are going to bail out the super rich by money printing, you have to tax them. If they had allowed a financial bust greater than 1929 to take its natural course in 2008-2009, it would have wiped out the very rich. It is nature’s self-correction mechanism to excessive piles of debt. Their big uninsured bank accounts and bonds would have all gone to zero. But the powers that be decided that the consequences of such a bust on the little guy would be too horrible to contemplate. They were probably correct in this determination. For instance, if AIG had gone under, retirees and their heirs would have lost more than a trillion dollars in annuities and life insurance. So they bailed out the financial system. A natural consequence of this bailout is those with oversized cash piles got to keep all their gains. If the losses are going to be socialized through bailouts, then perhaps the rich should be heavily taxed to even out the disparities, or at least get the wealth disparities down below the social boiling point.

        Do I have any confidence that the politicians would actually tax the super rich, even if they said they were doing so? Of course not. The super rich are the only people who make large “campaign investments”. Even the most hardcore socialist Democrat would do just enough to meet appearances and keep the show on the road, while still collecting all that campaign dough.

        • Andrew P – “If you are going to bail out the super rich by money printing, you have to tax them. If they had allowed a financial bust greater than 1929 to take its natural course in 2008-2009, it would have wiped out the very rich. It is nature’s self-correction mechanism to excessive piles of debt. Their big uninsured bank accounts and bonds would have all gone to zero”

          This is one of the most important points that VERY few people have raised. Politicians love to speculate on what terrible consequences the economy and the lower-middle classes would have suffered had it not been for the bail-outs. But it was not the lower and middle classes who stood to lose the most, but the super rich and their giant portfolios they’d been gambling with for almost three decades.

          • Agree 100%. They ate the too high return, without bearing the risk, so tax them more (they will still find ways to pay less than is due anyway.

    • But is it fair to tax a billionaire more than a middle class worker just because he achieved more? No. CR

      Actually, it does IF taxes are required since the rich benefit disproportionally from the government backed/enforced counterfeiting cartel, the banking system.

      Remember, “loans create deposits”. But where does the purchasing power for those new deposits come from? Ans: From the entire population including and especially the poor.

  2. It’s not the entrepreneurs that directly lead to “wealth”. By which I mean a better life. To do this we do things better, or more cheaply (so spend less time acquiring them). Better. Not some repackaging.

    It’s the scientists. Where would Steve Jobs have been without quantum mechanics ? No transistor. No iAnything. Maybe an iBurger ?

    We’ll only get “richer” if we are smarter. Entrepreneurs are simply the transmission mechanism.

    We need to support the basic science, and of course encourage the transmission (without which quantum mechanics could be all about Schrodinger’s cat, which would be a waste).

    Which also means taking a cold look at patent law.

    • How many scientists do you think work at Apple? Entrepreneur, evolution, scientist, smarter…..those are all under the same umbrella to a large degree.

      • I am a physist. I work in IT, it pays 3 times better. I don’t think we reward those who are truly innovative. We reward the middlemen, the marketers, the managers. This is pretty common everywhere, though. That is why nobody wants to go into hard sciences. If not for foreign scientists there would’ve been no innovation in the US.
        In any case, not everyone can be engineer or a scientist. And we are not going to solve our economic problem by overeducating everyone because there is already oversupply of educated people in the world. The only thing that is holding the flood of them into the US is the emmigration laws.

  3. “Which also means taking a cold look at patent law.”

    Patent law creates monopoly rent. OK, until development costs are recovered, but after that, it involves rent due to the action of the state.

    Agree we need to take a closer look at state-created monopoly rent through patents, licensing, and other barriers to competition.

    • with all due respect, i would argue that patent protection has provided us with more economic growth and prosperity than any other factor. ever.

      so get your commie hands off the patent system… haha.

      real commies always want to “reform” patents. compare gdp with knowledge and employment of patents.

      heck, in Germany, the police enforce the patents.

      • If you read carefully what I said, it was not about reforming patent law. What is intended was that state intervention which creates monopoly rents tends to creep, and it should be monitored vigilantly to ensure that it continues to do what it is intended to do, instead of establishing privilege. Privileged position is the basis of the ability to collect economic rent. Gainful earning is based on contribution under competition rather than a privileged position.

  4. And with respect to the OWS movement.

    They are nothing other than DIRTY HIPPIES. come on people. perhaps 1% have a real gripe. I bet over 80% of them don’t even pay federal income taxes.

    OWS is such a joke it is not funny they are given such “serious” attention. Who cares?????

  5. The cult of innovation (and innovators) is one of the biggest hindrances to understanding something pretty fundamental: that we will not invent our way out of our current ecological predicament.

    Linking wealth disparity to innovation in this manner is a dodge, in my view.

    • It’s true that our problems are more structural in nature, but that doesn’t mean we should start throwing grenades at the good guys….I also disagree that prudence, innovation, new thinking, etc won’t get us out of this mess. It might take a long time, but it will happen. I have no doubt that we will experience another great economic boom in my lifetime.

      • Cullen, You are probably young enough to see another boom – when you are an old man. Our problems aren’t just a matter of deleveraging, it is also Peak Oil and other depleting energy supplies. It will get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

          • Not sure about peak oil, but am damn sure that the mining response to the voracious use of commodities by the Chinese and others has not been met by adequate supply. I.e., $4/lb copper is here to stay.

            My opinion is by FCX and other major copper producers. Good luck to all.

      • I’m not sure who, exactly, the “good guys” are in this argument. That said, I haven’t seen any evidence that the Occupiers are critical of any sort of innovation except financial innovation.

        Prudence, innovation, et al – they all have their place. We could certainly use more of the former. And, yes, I think there will probably be another boom in or lifetimes. But unless the boom can somehow be effected without further depleting the biosphere’s underlying resource base, it is only going to hasten a politics of scarcity, i.e., real austerity.

        My point is that Innovation is not going to repeal the laws of thermodynamics, which is what we are really dealing with here.

        And I have yet to see a convincing argument of how we can maintain perpetual growth on a limited resource base that does not depend upon some sort of unspecified technological deus ex machina. This seems neither conservative, nor pragmatic. But if you know of one, I will certainly study on it.

  6. The Fact that this is even being discussed in the USA is an example of how far off the track the USA has become. This country is in more trouble than you have ANY idea! The money and productive people have been leaving this country for decades now. It’s the reason they changed the tax code in 2004, to punish people that leave! The TAX code is used to punish industries and individuals that don’t fall in line. I have personal examples! Try opening a Swiss, Hong Kong or Singapore bank account today! Let me know how that works for ya! They literally put Al Capone out of business, using the tax code, and then took over his ‘business model’ and that is the absolute truth! Where do you think oBama came from? He has literally NEVER had a JOB in his life!!!
    ANYTHING that you tax, you discourage and it is discouraged by the amount that you tax it, plane and simple! Therefore, why in the WORLD do we tax INCOME in the USA? I challenge everyone that reads this to completely read the ‘FAIRTAX’ bill. It’s very short, compared to most bills. Until you have done that, I have nothing else to say on the subject.
    We NEED RON PAUL AND THE FAIRTAX AND WE NEEDED them yesterday! I think it’s actually way too late, but there is still a slim chance that the USA Constitution could survive…. very slim. Maybe around 7% if we have both RON PAUL AND THE FAIRTAX by 2013. But that is the absolute deadline!
    Therefore, you can argue and discuss everything you want until you are blue in the face, but you are on a sinking ship and until we go back to the Constitution that this country was created on, this ship will sink, period!

  7. This debate is simply supply side vs. demand side economics, with an overlay of economic and social justice for those on the left. This debate raged in the 1980s; the left thought Reagan was a warmonger and a supply side crackpot; and his tax cuts ignited a secular boom that lasted for 25 years while he also supervised the winning of the Cold War.

    Walter Mondale in 1984 told America that any family earning over $35,000 per year needed a tax increase. Mondale carried one state in that year’s presidential election; his home state of Minnesota. I hope that Obama follows in Mondale’s path of naifs who think that you can tax your way to prosperity, because he is a disaster who needs to retire from the Presidency. Reagan was certainly an MMTer when it came to tax cutting and deficits.

    In 2011 it is families earning over $250,000 per year that are the “rich” who supposedly need to be taxed. I am acquainted with a private school teacher earning about $30,000 per year who thinks that anyone earning $100,000 per year is “rich” and the government should tax earnings above that level at 100%. Her mind boggles at the $100,000 number. “Rich” simply means someone who earns a lot more than you do. Taxes are punitive, and they destroy demand while constraining supply.

    If you really want to attack income inequality in the USA, reform the Federal Reserve; reinstate Glass Steagall and re-regulate banking and finance; break up the TBTFs; tax the daylights out of unproductive financialization on Wall Street; repeal the payroll tax; and adopt a flatter federal income tax with no deductions and only a few rate brackets. Send all the tax lawyers home. And then start thinking about how to deregulate Main Street, because the federal and state governments are making it very difficult for smaller businesses to function.

  8. Cullen, I have to admit that I stopped for a few minutes at “stay with me here”
    It looks like there is a paradigm shift occurring under our noses.
    The ‘no growth’ economy.
    Reengineering goods to last forever, or near it, may be around the corner and “New” might become a swear word.

      • He’s saying that as resources become increasingly scarce a steady-state economic model will by necessity replace the growth-model we use now. Mass consumption will become to some extent a thing of the past as products are re-engineered for durability rather than planned obsolescence.

        • Couldn’t have said it better myself Ben. Thanks for so eloquently putting it.

          • Perhaps, but I do question that the growth will be possible via making and selling ever greater quantities of physical goods. My personal belief is that growth after resource exhaustion (if it occurs and we don’t mine asteroids or use nanotechnology to turn dirt into steak) will increasingly rely on intangibles like “quality” of life as opposed to material wealth.

  9. how far do we have to deviate from what it meant to be a capitalist society in 1900 or 1950
    versus what we have today… before we create a new and better term than capitalist which
    gives proper weight to the socialist aspects of our economy that our entrepreneurs exist in now?
    what’s his role in a socialistic capitalist economy? maybe capitalist is a relative term like
    best house in a bad neighborhood – and whatever we are doing is therefore the gold standard
    for capitalism…

  10. There’s another thing that needs to be said. Keywords: “”Creative Destruction””. One entrepreneur creates product A and in the slipstream it creates new jobs. But another entrepreneur creates product B that cannabilizes on product A. So, the jobs created by introducing product B destroy jobs created by product A. So, it’s more complicated than one thinks.

  11. The bottom line is that politics is a messy and meandering process. Do the rich have too much influence? Sure they do, but who gave it to them? How do you win elections with 1% of the vote? Are the Republicans bought and paid for by the rich? Of course, but the 99% voted for them for them. The Republicans have outplayed everyone, they have truly been masters for the last 30 years. Now, I don’t think it is awful that the rich found someone to buy, Big Money has and will always do that. They need to be represented just like everyone else. The key in American politics is to sway the more weak minded voters, which means lower and lower middle classes. Like I said, the Republicans have been masters. My guess is everyone- including the rich and Republicans- realize things have gone too far, but it isn’t the Republicans job to give quarter. It’s their job to deliver for their backers. There’s nothing evil here, it’s just politics. So now it’s time for a change. Does anyone really think this will happen in a sensible way? No, it will happen with sound bite BS. “Stick It To The Rich” resonates well with the right people. Needed change will come in a very sloppy and inefficient manner, the same way it always does, and will eventually go too far, just as it always does….. We need more people like CR who try very hard to make sense of the crazy mess that our politicized economy is. People, what this country needs is cooler heads.

    • Lobbying politicians to advance the agenda of the minority against the interest of the voting majority is not simply politics. It is bribing and and a treason and it should be outlawed and prosecuted.

  12. Some of the comments here are just baffling. People who demonize the 1% and say they “raped” the economy are making massive and inaccurate generalizations. It’s true that select people/institutions who were involved in handing out worthless mortgages, and securitizing them etc. certainly bear much of the blame for the financial crisis. But that has nothing to do with the doctors, lawyers, upper managers, traders, rentiers etc that comprise the rest of the 1%.

    Also people can argue about what makes them happy, or what is worthwhile, but that is all subjective. To keep the debate as objective as possible, remember that real per capita GPD growth is just another term for productivity growth. Therefore, policies that aim to increase productivity growth should be the core focus of govt policy. This could include tax policies that end the bias againt saving and investment, increasing funding for science and health research, and promoting a culture of real research in our schools. And the arguement about supply siders vs demand siders is quite dumb. Firms generally meet any demand that arises, while you also can’t deny that firms create their own demand when they create new products that people want.

  13. In modern economy of ours I think taxes and spending does not matter that much. They are just tools used to adjust the economy so that it functions properly. The main problem is that govt did not regulate the banking and the financial system. People should go to jail if they committed a fraud. This is very important to maintain confidence in the capital markets. Banks are destroying capitalism by financializing the economy. Banks are not suppose to make huge profits. Govt gives them a task to distribute capital (loans, etc.) and in return they should just receive a fee. Banks should operate like a utility in a capitalist system. Capitalism is about entrepreneurs, consumers, and workers. Banks just provide liquidity to the system. Govt must remain as a neutral entity and see that confidence in the markets stays high.

    I think this debate about high taxes and spending is a distraction created by Wall Street elites so that public do not pay attention to the real problem which is banks lobbying in congress to deregulate the financial system so that they can make millions in bonuses.

  14. i would have loved a bit more development using the proper economic filtering line around the wealth (in the sense of money) distribution, its massive misalloction and the impact on capitalism efficiency. In the midst of such a recession, taking buffet a few billions would be a way to spent its money in consumer pockets and a nice message from the govt along the theme: “let’s keep value and faith in our currency/we are here to minimise certain type of misallocation”

  15. The “wealthy” and “entrepreneurs” aren’t synonomous. And I think most supporters of OWS realize the “wealthy” aren’t the problem… but rather the system that is set up to funnel ever greater percentages of wealth to the wealthy. Lastly, real “job creators” are most often not those who started out wealthy. Henry Ford was an innovator raised by a farmer. Should his grandkids get massive tax breaks? Is Ford still “creating jobs”? What wealthy person is “creating jobs”? Seriously, I’m curious? And how does reducing their taxes make them want to work harder?

    Look, as a newbie to MMT I also no longer feel the need to “tax the rich”. Or that we have to “pay for” a jobs program. But since no one outside of the MMT crowd understands that, how can you blame those who are told their grandkids are being saddled with debt that the rich should keep getting ever-lower tax rates?

    I also don’t believe OWS is “demonizing the wealthy”. First, OWS is a brand and “we are the 99%” is a catchy sound-bite. If you take it exactly literally you’re missing the point.

    If “Occupy Wall Street” hadn’t been a catchy name, and a timely one, it would not have caught on. Same too with “we are the 99%”. That just happens to be far more eloquent and catchy than “we are the 99.9% and some of those in the 0.1% are OK with us”. We supporters of OWS realize that most of the top 1% aren’t the problem. We don’t take “we are the 99%” as hatred for the top 1% just like we don’t take “Nike” literally and think that their shoes will make you a goddess? Or make you faster or stronger? We realize it is just a very clever name for an athletic shoe or clothing, and we either like and buy their stuff, or we don’t.

    If you don’t get the OWS brand, I think it’s your confirmation bias. You don’t want to like it, so you find what’s wrong with it. And yes, I’m guilty the opposite way – I want to like it because I know we have serious social, political and financial problems in our country, and I am thankful that some “dirty hippies” are willing to camp on City streets in driving rain and pepper spray to start a badly needed national discussion….. like the one we’ve all been having throughout this thread.

    • That’s a very good point: wealthy people may have become wealthy due to enrepreneurship and “creating jobs”, but once they become wealthy, they stop “creating jobs” and become most of the time rentiers (“blood suckers”), who buy their privilege to stand above the law. That is the issue OWS tries to address. If you (whoever reads this) do not see it, you must be (willfully) blind.