Sadly this did not get more debate or comments. I'm not in his position, and it provides some insight, and yes it can be even compelling. My "against" points

Sadly this did not get more debate or comments. I'm not in his position, and it provides some insight, and yes it can be even compelling. My "against" points would be that: -There is people working as hard as you do to keep afloat. -I'm totally positive on the adequate taxes for the rich. While you cover your base, you don't cover for example why if banks knew mortgage industry were going to go broke they pushed for it. It doesn't cover how wall street were saved by devaluating US dollar and it doesn't cover all the people who were in charge and knew what were going on and how we don't know still who they are or why they are not in jail. They were playing with US economy. You don't cover how IP protects medicines by preventing others from competing. You don't cover how all big IT players foul around the game evading millions in taxes. I'm not against you, I'm against you dropping oil in the sea, destroying china environment because it was cheaper to build there, not pay taxes and when environment is dead you can take all back to your alps house. When I see those images of the future, with beautiful buildings with trees or underwater cities... I wonder if those are rich cities and everything else has been destroyed?