> That line of reasoning makes no sense at all because it also implies that workers would also be responsible for all the wealth destroyed by the course of thei

> That line of reasoning makes no sense at all because it also implies that workers would also be responsible for all the wealth destroyed by the course of their work I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this, or how it's relevant to what the person you replied to said. > But somehow egalitarian arguments are never made in regards to any support to share the burden of a financial investment that goes bust, and the focus is on all the envy around how their neighbor profited from an investment they never made themselves. 1. We don't really get a choice in that do we? Most people can't afford to invest precisely because the problems we are telling you about here; and that includes the working and disappearing middle classes that can't even save effectively due to stagnant wages that don't reflect their increased productivity. 2. On the few occasions where 'egalitarianism' as you keep putting it, is actually applied in a 'share the burden' fashion, it appears to be when massive, wealthy companies need a bail out from the tax payer after what amounts to obscenely reckless behaviour. The name of the current capitalist game seems to be to privatise the profits and socialise the losses. I keep hearing people say the econonomy is no zero-sum, without ever explaining it. There is a finite amnount of wealth in the world today. There will be a finite amount of wealth tomorrow, and so on. Each and every day, your share of that daily amount decreases, while owners of capital increase exponentially. Since the financial crash the richest in society have seen massive gains while the working and middle classes have been hit hardest, many even making wages barely competetive with levels in 1970. I'm sure your assertion that there is plenty to go around will make those people feel better as they go yet another year without any real improvement in their income.