Apparently, when the only justice in the world is accidental, people still praise the accident as a wonderful accident.

Whether you like it or not.

The scenario where nobody should be praising is the one where CEOs buy up tens of thousands of houses, and rig the prices so that hundreds of thousands of people are negatively affected by rent increases. Sometimes they end up on the street. Where they die.

That’s the part that you’re ignoring as you pretend to have a sense of morality.

Do you have any sources on that? I haven’t seen anything that talks about a potential motive yet.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Genuinely, what is your source that he had ‘the wrong floor’?

To have ‘the wrong floor’ implies there was a ‘correct floor’, which implies either a premeditated set person or set of persons as a target, or a known location associated with some kind of organization or something.

If it was a random ‘just hurt people’ type of mass shooting, there cannot really be a ‘wrong floor’, beyond maybe a comparison between overall target rich snd target sparse environments…

Or perhaps it was ‘the wrong floor’ in the sense of ‘the correct floor’ being one that worked with some kind of egress, escape plan?

Seriously, what do you mean by ‘the wrong floor?’

I’ve yet to see any evidence of motive other than the cops just stating this.

I think he truly was targeting the CEO and was copying luigi. They want to avoid more copycats and are trying to spin this as a random act.

Isn’t Vanguard 401ks? Or is that a different Vanguard?

The 3 of them own almost everything

Do they though? They do own a lot but sovereign wealth funds do too plus, unlike those AFAICT, one can easily switch from say a Vanguard ETF to whatever other investment vehicle they want in an instant. So yes they have tremendous power, too much, and they contribute to shaping markets worldwide… but it’s also not their actual money and other economical actors do exist.

So I’d argue “own” and “almost everything” is a big exaggerated.

PS: I’m not an economist so that’s just my candid understanding.

They manage these huge funds. The people who invested in their funds own the stocks in the funds. Though these companies do vote during stockholder meetings on behalf of their clients without the clients inputs. Thus they wield a lot of power over many companies but they don’t own it all. If all their clients decide to drop them and liquidate they lose all that power.

Is it bad I constantly confuse it for blackwater instead? I guess they murder the previous tenants, then buy up the house?

Totally. This is a function of 1) greed, but also 2) our lack of social safety net – which incentivizes us to maximize personal wealth even beyond what we might need, just because without a personal nest egg, there are very few resources you can count on to help you or your family out in emergencies, or during the crashes and other ravages of capitalism.

Or as Thatcher put it: there is no society, there are only individuals and families. That wasn’t always true, but it’s becoming truer ever financial quarter.