Agreed, I (unfortunately) know many of these people. They simply don't understand the problem, and do not want to empathize with "the other side".

It's worth trying to help others understand why people are angry. People need real help, police need to be held accountable, and we can't just keep shoveling cash into the pockets of the rich.

Not exactly. They know, but don't care. They believe they are disconnected from the consequences.

That may be true, but as someone who has been actually poor before, and have also known many people who were born into money, I don't think rich people really understand what it means to be poor, hopeless, and also discriminated against.

They can sympathize (intellectually) or empathize (having been poor before). The rich are not even sympathizing at this point.

Well, history shows us where that kind of disdain for the poor will eventually lead. It isn't gonna be good for the rich.

The problem is that change can take decades or centuries and the end result may not be better or even worse.

I forget where I saw it, but I appreciate a comment that says: When faced with extreme inequality, you can redistribute wealth through taxation or you can redistribute poverty through revolution.

"by legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution distributing poverty" - Will Durant

Traditionally the ruling class has voted against the first and hoped the second wouldn’t happen in their own lifetime.

Thank you! Hopefully I'll be able to property quote and cite next time now that I know.

... or the poor.

There are 600 billionaires in the US. There are 40 million unemployed Americans. There are about 700k law enforcement officers in the entire country. The math is straightforward.

Indeed, the math is simple: 600 + 700k + 40M = 40,700,600 people who stand to lose if supply chains stop working and the recovery from the downturn is not swift. If you look at the history of insurrections, the poor tend to eat it just as much if not more than the rich. Examples: French revolution, Russian revolution, Chinese revolution...

The rich aren't needed for supply chains to work, and taking their wealth and redistributing it would likely make the recovery quicker. That was basically the entire goal of the New Deal.

Is that really true? The rich mostly put their money in the growth instruments like debt and equities. Someone needs to invest in businesses. Diverting the money presently sitting in investments towards spending would break the current system.

The Federal Government can deficit spend to invest in any necessary infrastructure or supply chains (funded by central bank operations), if the wealthy fail to do so. There is too much capital chasing too few returns, which indicates capital has lost a lot of its value.

Are you suggesting that the federal government start a federal hedge fund, or are you suggesting that they directly operate industries? Neither one sounds very efficient, especially given the government we're talking about here. (How satisfied are you with the current administration? How much more power should they have?)

The Federal Government operates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest mortgage GSEs. The Federal Government operates the largest military in the world. I am suggesting the Federal Government take whatever actions are necessary to ensure and protect a functioning economy, whether that's acting as a consumer or producer of last resort.

I am aware of the devil's arrangement this is with the current administration. This administration, like all administrations, is temporary.

Are Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the military, known for their cost-effectiveness or wise operation?

Note how current "cost effective" supply chains have collapsed significantly [1]. Survival of certain supply chains, distribution networks, and institutions is preferable over a few percentages in cost savings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security ("National security or national defence is the security and defence of a nation state, including its citizens, economy, and institutions, which is regarded as a duty of government.")

Emphasis mine. Conversely, "efficient" businesses like Hertz (who ran at max capital leverage) are realizing the cost of doing so (including Carl Icahn, who lost $1.6 billion in the process). I think it's a bit silly to assume all private businesses are more efficiently operated than government (and does a grave disservice to hard working civil servants), but I'm happy to reply with bankruptcy after bankruptcy to prove my point [2].

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=us+supply+chain+failure+covi... (Google search: US Supply Chain Failure Covid)

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/hanktucker/2020/05/03/coronavir... (Coronavirus Bankruptcy Tracker: These Major Companies Are Failing Amid The Shutdown)

Bankruptcies are evidence that private businesses are more efficient: you can watch as the less-efficient ones are eliminated.

You're moving the goal posts. BKs are a sign of economic dynamism, not organizational efficiency.

They're the mechanism by which it is ensured that only efficient organizations stick around. They're the economic equivalent of a civil servant getting pushed out of their position because an elected official is afraid of losing an election, except they are much more direct.

Most commentators here are the "rich people" in the scheme of American wealth inequality. Sure, not the tippy tippy top but members of the relatively affluent professional class.

Same