The rich look at recessions a lot different than the poor and the middle class.

For the rich, they are not worried about a job or losing their home or their retirement. Nope, this is when they go shopping for new homes-knowing their middle class owners must sell at a lower price or go bankrupt. This is the time to hire the help cheaper too-and the time to fire the ones who make too much and replace them with cheaper help.

Speculation loves recession and the rich are not in survival mode-they are in growth mode.

Did you honestly think they cared about the rest of us?

While you are worried about feeding your family, they are saying "let them eat cake".

Yeah! Those filthy rich!

What a load of crap.

Housing example: why would 'the rich' (who are they in the first place) want to move into a 'middle class' house? Perhaps because they, too, are forced to move out of their 'rich house'?

The rich are in many cases also employed. Their wages are higher, but still they too can and will lose their jobs in a recession (see the Wall Street bloodshed for examples). The entrepreneurs (employers) have no use in a recession either: their customers disappear. Why otherwise does a recession mean so many more bankruptcies?

Growth mode? Bull, no one is. 'The rich' are perhaps more perceptive about what is going on (why else would they be rich - inheritees not included but they usually don't profit in recessions either, see the stock market) and therefore can cover their behinds more effectively.

And since when do the rich have the obligation to care about the rest of us? Don't they in many cases indirectly do so already by employing us, paying the highest taxes (ok, not always since they can afford help to avoid them), etc? And you obviously don't care for the rich, why should they care for you? Dog eat dog, top dog eat caviar, not cake.

Stop being defeatist - generally 'the rich' work the hardest, are the brightest and also contribute the most to society. That they are therefore rewarded does not make them evil. In fact, your stigmatising view of them is much worse and a display of miscomprehension.

The writer of the article does not understand that capital follows profit, period. There is no "will" in the capitalist class as a whole, even the NAM cannot control them! Government can force capital to do things, go places, with incentives backed by law, but that is the ONLY mediating force, the only balancing force at all, state power, and all the state can do is arbitrate differences within this most powerful class.

When push comes to shove, even the state cannot avoid a crisis of monumental proportions, a civil war, a meltdown.

As for the last post, generally, the rich do not work harder and are not smarter; the rich are mainly trust fund babies who only work traveling to high fashion shows, parties and charity events! Sheesh, are you just dumb or are you a lier?

And take a look at your keys, for God's sake, and if you are not really stupid, you might note that miners take the metals out of the ground for your KEYS, jerk, and some work furnaces to make the metals functional, and some rolling mill workers in a fabrication plant somewhere roll the metal just so PRECIOUS you can have your stinking keys to your rolls royce, you greedy, willfully stupid narcissistic idiot.

New wealth, like Bill Gates, works hard, because they are passionate and motivated. Old wealth is the vast majority of US wealth.

Clearly you just dont get REAL capitalism if you dont understand speculation and why the rich go shopping when recession hits. Why you defend them with such zeal is funny if you're not rich-I find many wannabe rich people think if they defend the rich or act like a snotty rich kid it may make them rich-trust me it wont, but lets address your points:

"Housing example: why would 'the rich' (who are they in the first place) want to move into a 'middle class' house? Perhaps because they, too, are forced to move out of their 'rich house'?"

Again--you are not thinking like a rich person. You dont buy the home to live in it-you buy the home for as little as possible and then you sit on it until the housing market comes back and then you sell it. If you buy a home to live in, you cant write off home improvements, etc-but if you buy it as an investment, you turn it into a rental home or even just sit on it while you make it worth more with improvements-you can afford to wait out the recession while you do it-then you sell it for a significant profit. The average middle class person doesnt have the cash flow to wait out the recession-most are one or two paychecks away from joining the poor if they lose their job.

------------------------------­------------------------------­------------------------------­-----

"The rich are in many cases also employed. Their wages are higher, but still they too can and will lose their jobs in a recession (see the Wall Street bloodshed for examples). The entrepreneurs (employers) have no use in a recession either: their customers disappear. Why otherwise does a recession mean so many more bankruptcies?"

Again you arent thinking here. Donald Trump has gone bankrupt plenty of times-its all part of his business strategy-his creditors are the ones who lose when he goes bankrupt, he has already put lots of cash away to live on while he looks for that next big deal. As for working rich (rare as they are) the CEO or other exec making lots of money via a high paycheck is also investing heavily in solid investments (like real estate as I explained above). Most rich people have multiple income streams and can afford to live off their savings for a lot longer while they look for a new job-most even have money coming in from other investments too-and if they are rich they know when you have cash the recession is opportunity.

------------------------------­------------------------------­---------------------

"Growth mode? Bull, no one is. 'The rich' are perhaps more perceptive about what is going on (why else would they be rich - inheritees not included but they usually don't profit in recessions either, see the stock market) and therefore can cover their behinds more effectively."

As I said, when you buy low, hold through the hard times and then sell high, that is called profit. Most of us work for a living-the rich invest for a living because it makes a lot more money than working-but you need to have capital (aka cash) and you need to be able to wait until something can sell for a higher price then what you buy at. Stocks are one example, but hardly the only one, and control makes real estate and other unique investments a lot more reliable than stocks-stocks are the casino-only insiders are able to make money there effectively.

------------------------------­------------------------------­------------------------------­------------------------------

"And since when do the rich have the obligation to care about the rest of us? Don't they in many cases indirectly do so already by employing us, paying the highest taxes (ok, not always since they can afford help to avoid them), etc? And you obviously don't care for the rich, why should they care for you? Dog eat dog, top dog eat caviar, not cake."

Ethics and obligations are of course a tough thing to consider when no one can make you care about others. Of course the law of the jungle applies, but by the same token, that is why the French and Russian revolutions were class warfare at their finest, and many a rich person would have gladly traded the extra money they made for their lives. As Marx explained, the capitalist thinking is pay as little as possible-so they only pay what they need to pay-and ask anyone if minimum wage will pay for food and shelter-it wont. So what is the answer? You pay enough that workers are happy to work-their bills are being paid, they have food and shelter for their families, etc. If not, no one works for you and your business will fail. But when times get desperate, people can and do work for whatever they can make, and many rich people are happy to employ people at substandard wages because they can. Ethical? You be the judge.

------------------------------­------------------------------­------------------------------­----------------

"Stop being defeatist - generally 'the rich' work the hardest, are the brightest and also contribute the most to society."

Did you go to Harvard or something? The rich hardly work-and if they do they dont work hard. As to intelligence, Einstein couldnt be rich and he was a lot smarter than JP Morgan, but guess who had the capital? Dont be so naive. The rich contribute nothing that isnt contributing their bottom line. No rich person has personally cured a disease or saved the planet-in fact, the profit mentality is often in contradiction to what is best for society, hence we have the working poor, environmental disasters, etc because money was put ahead of safety or a fair wage.

------------------------------­------------------------------­------------------------------­-------------------

" That they are therefore rewarded does not make them evil. In fact, your stigmatising view of them is much worse and a display of miscomprehension."

Really? So when we go to war to secure oil rather than spending a fraction of the money to develop alternative power, all to save an existing multibillion dollar oil industry, I am supposed to see this as not evil? Thousands are dead to support a business-it was never about terrorism. And that is hardly the only example. Every time profit was put ahead of our environment or our health, what is it if not evil? Pollution alone is killing thousands slowly with cancer and other issues-all because it was more expensive to do it green or clean. And that isnt evil? The fact that you can separate the profit motive from the ethics says something about comprehension-and it isnt stigmatising to be able to add two and two.

------------------------------­------------------------------­------------------------------­------------------