Why are people who have a lot of money, and people who are very poor?

Oh I'm Pretty sure it's the other way around.... Do you think it's an accident that a lot of unpleasant, morally ambiguous people are poor? Or that rich capitalists are by far more generous with their money (charity) than rich Statists?

"Do you think it's an accident that a lot of unpleasant, morally ambiguous people are poor?" Not at all. I imagine it has something to do with the fact that the vast, vast majority of the world's population is "poor". So, naturally, there will be a significant overlap between "c*nts" and "poor people". I maintain that the overlap is far greater, in percentage terms for the wealthy. As for your claims about charity, are you aware that the poor contribute a far higher percentage of their wealth to charity than the rich? Obviously, if you're going to look at headline numbers, then the Gates foundation (substitute whichever egotistical philanthropic institution you like) is going to top the few quid slung in a collection bucket by the old dear who has a little spare change one week... The real situation, as ever, is more complex.

Whilst I agree that people will always spend money in different ways, on different things, I don't think it necessarily follows that a lack of wealth is due to a "lack of breaks". The study you quote is quite meaningless. It doesn't really matter whether everyone has $1,000,000 or $1 - what matters is what that money can purchase, and how you go about getting any more of it when it runs out. What matters is the relationship between individuals and the means of production. Take a Monopoly board. Give me all the properties (plus hotels), railway stations and utilities; give me $100 and take $100000 for yourself. Who's going to win, every single time? "Getting down", "getting on with it" and "working hard" (for the man, man) can deliver a high quality of living - if you happen to be born in the Western world and get a few "breaks" (such as a wealthy family, good public school, etc.). This is due to the global structure of capitalism: abberations such as representative democracy and trade unions in the West have won certain "freedoms", with the result that the worst exploitation is exported abroad. There are no sweat shops employing workers for $0.03 / hour to make $100 Nike trainers in England; nor are there any in America (to my knowledge). "Getting down", "getting on with it" and "working hard" (for the man, man) cannot make you rich if you happen to be born anywhere else. Apart from the one-in-a-million (literally) who gets "the break" and is then held up as some sort of twisted role model for all the other drones slaving away in the factory. Do you really believe that the structure of society has no bearing whatsoever on whether an individual can make a "success" of him or herself?