I could be wrong, of course, but to me it seems they differ as to assignment of responsibility for the situation.
If so, then I misinterpreted your meaning.
► Because the wealthy create jobs, and they're always short of cash
I only said "trolls", not "well-organised trolls".
I've read the first hundred or so comments. What I'm seeing is mostly lots of junior-high-male immaturity (their handles, e.g. "SurferDude", are often a tipoff), quite a few trolls (e.g., "RichieRich"), some right-wingers who are wrong ("Cameron", who might really be a higher-class troll), and a small number ("Robert") who seem to take a more realistic view based on the old adage "if you owe $100 and can't pay, you're in trouble, but if you owe $100M and can't pay, your creditors are in trouble". In other words, something like a mirror image of CD.
In cases of conflict, yes, but not in everyday life.
How wealthy does one have to be to create jobs?
► Wealthy enough to advertise, and fund tax free think tanks
How about small businesses? Although they don't fund tax free think tanks, aren't they wealthy enough to create jobs?
I too thought that might be the case, which is why I added the "possibly".
Well put! Right on the money!
[quote="Endgame, post:5, topic:10334"]
I can't think of the word in Nature where one animal benefits another by "working together" for the good of BOTH.
The word is "symbiosis."
Right. They only want their fair share: all of it.
You're probably being mordant, but it's been demonstrated experimentally that the rich believe that they really do deserve "most of it" even when they've done nothing at all to deserve any part of it.