> That summary jumps seamlessly from a literal use of "the richest 1%" to "A global network of tax havens" without any indication that they've suddenly begun ta

> That summary jumps seamlessly from a literal use of "the richest 1%" to "A global network of tax havens" without any indication that they've suddenly begun talking about a much smaller set of people. Hint: It's because they haven't suddenly begun talking about a much smaller set of people. None of the links you posted are talking about the literal 1% as the problem. They'll reference statistics about the literal 1%, but only because the literal 1% includes the figurative 1%. > It's a rare political term that actually has a pretty clear meaning. It's a bit vague in that it could refer to income or net worth, and nationally or worldwide, but it's way better than stuff like "liberal" or "conservative" or "terrorist." Using such a precise term as a lazy synonym for "the ultra rich" is ridiculous. I totally agree with you, and personally I try not to use the term because I think using it shows poor communication skills: I think it's exemplary of everything that made the occupy movement largely unsuccessful. But it also shows poor communication skills to derail a discussion just to enforce the usage of your terminology, even if your terminology is more accurate. There is no movement to overthrow doctors. Stop defending people who aren't under attack.