First, I'd like to thank you for posting such a long comment. I will try to engage in constructive dialogue. My first qualm with your post is that it appeals t

First, I'd like to thank you for posting such a long comment. I will try to engage in constructive dialogue. My first qualm with your post is that it appeals to the emotions of the masses instead of addressing core issues. It also fails to place blame on anything actionable. For instance, you refer to both "bankers and financiers" but also "do they deserve to get paid 300x, 400x, 1000x more than the people actually making the things?" While finance does have elevated pay, the people with those type of multiples can also be found in regular companies, for instance, Elon Musk. This is just the nature of the American system and the root of income inequality. If your issue is with CEOs getting paid millions, this just simply isn't part of the discussion about the role of finance in society. I also counter that 2008 did not affect the finance industry. It almost bankrupted Citadel who did not make performance fees again until the start of 2012. The operations was paid for by Ken Griffith out of pocket. Many people would have lost their jobs like those who worked at Bear Sterns. You shouldn't feel sympathetic as most of these people would have had nest eggs larger than most Americans, but I am sure many had to downsize houses and forego any yacht purchases. Comparing this situation to those who make a low-paid job is again a complaint about wealth inequality and not the financial system. I don't know where you got 5% risk free in the past 2 centuries. The Great Depression happened in the US less than a century ago and WWII happened in Europe. I think one could argue that Germany has good wealth equality because their currency was hyper inflated to pay their debts. So any rich Germans were wiped out in the process which kind of served as a reset button. Now, getting to your points that actually address the financial system, I disagree with most of your stance. Again, statements like: > They "loan" out money that THEY DO NOT OWN! Make it seem they are doing something bad if you don't think about it. It's entirely akin to saying "Governments are so bad, they created this thing called "currency", that has no value, and THEY PAY US WITH IT!". The reason why banks are able to issue loans and create credit in this manner is precisely to counteract the access to wealth problem you then go on to complain about. If only the central bank could do that, then they would only bother with rich people with large sums of money because the central bank is not interested in being a commercial bank. Thus, commercial banks are given the responsibility to give everyone access to wealth by being given the power to create loans. The idea being that the banks will compete with each other and provide loans in a much more efficient process than the central bank. Your core complaint here seems to be that you don't like that lower income individuals have a harder time of being approved for a loan. You also point out the cause in an earlier statement. > any person with no savings that takes a low-paid unprotected job is risking infinitely more If you genuinely agree with that statement, why would a bank ever take a risk on the small guy? Of course, the government does step in for specific situations like buying your first house and guaranteeing the loan. But that was also a non-negligible cause of the 2008 crisis. I also don't like that you say that ~200 control over 40t in assets. Again, it is the type of statement that riles up the masses without understanding what it means. It means millions of Americans have their 401k at one of 5 companies. Those 5 companies each have ~40 people represent their bundle of money. That is not neofeudalism. That's responsible investing on a large part of society. As a capitalist, I take issue with this current phenomena because if all companies are owned by the same set of individuals (or at least represented by a few people) then there are antitrust concerns. In particular, why would you tell United Airlines to try to capture American Airlines' business if you own both? In summary, I think your main issue is that of wealth inequality. Not the financial system. However, you've picked the financial system as the target of your frustration as they are an easy target due to their wealth level. You then construct your own narratives pushing your view but fail to see the logical contradictions in your own statements.