> I shouldn't have to say this, but the current state of affairs is not primarily due to rich people and is far more complicated. They display a third-grade level of it economics and are even more cynical than the people he chides.

Use more rigorous language and provide a rationale for your argument. “[C]urrent state of affairs” is vague and inoperative, and you point to an understanding of “far more complicated” issues but do not substantiate it.

However, your comment does serve to express your superiority over the following:

* the author, Douglas Rushkoff

* third-grade economists

* marxists

* contemporary journalists

* the guardian

All of which can be true, but it is lacking for want of certain things like evidence, synthesis, or nuance.