> invest some of it in the real world, not leave it in the bank. The richer you get, the more likely you are to engage in wealth management. This necessarily m

> invest some of it in the real world, not leave it in the bank. The richer you get, the more likely you are to engage in wealth management. This necessarily means investment. No one who's rich has that much liquidity or money just laying around. This is as stupid as hiding cash in your mattress. The question is which are genuine investments or scams. And this cannot be emphasized enough: either money is made from value-generating labor, or you are in the business of theft. There is no middle ground or third option. This is why I think one key element of restoring sanity to economies is the categorical criminalization of usury. Compound interest is theft, and it boggles the mind how easily people are intimidated into going along with the rationalizations purporting to explain that it is not (all that nonsense about opportunity cost, as if that is the borrower's problem or responsibility). Banks are important, but they are not productive per se. The only ways a bank can legitimately make money is through service fees and investments (and real investments, where there is a kind of partnership and proportionate skin in the game, not magic bailout money or some kind of weird accounting magic). Once we destroy the superstitious idea that money can be bred, stop using euphemisms for theft, and acknowledge labor as the basis of all economic value, we will see a healthy economic shift and more distributive justice. Housing markets will improve, too. The change is deep cutting. The whole discussion about inequality or taxing the rich or inheritance is confused and frankly a distraction from real problems, and I suspect at times a purposeful distraction, because it preserves perverse economic norms (making the tax simply the cost of doing business) instead of correcting them, which is the real threat.