The terms "looter" and "moocher" are loose labels. We should be careful if we use them to not throw them around as flippant moral condemnations.

Actually there were very few new technologies added in the 90s, just some new applications of existing technologies and I am not complaining, I am trying to explain the inappropriate anti-Randian sentiment equating the money manipulators with producers. You are conflating things I did not say with other things I did.

First of all, the money manipulators I am speaking of did not create wealth, they simply transferred it to themselves. I am not indicting all traders and brokers nor am I condemning investing. I am saying however, that not a few of them are unscrupulous SOBs preying upon the unwary and creating nothing. I am saying the system is stacked in favor of the largest Wall Street firms and that government regulations and interference are largely responsible. Using the law as a cudgel, the legal team backed by the deepest pockets will almost always win.

I am not saying that investors who lost their shirt are poor innocent victims, I am actually saying they were stupid to expose themselves the way they did. They let greed get the best of them. However, all things being equal, caveat emptor is a great maxim, but when things are not equal, it loses its usefulness. The average US citizen can barely handle eighth grade English, but prospectuses, mortgage agreements and even credit card agreements are written in complex fine print legalese with which even a college graduate would have difficulty. Government regulators have mandated this legalese to protect the consumer.

I will agree that some wealth was created in the 90s, but much of it was illusory. Wealth is context dependent and if money is your unit of measurement, then you are faced with a moving target. Precious metals, art and the like are more predictable, but difficult to use as an immediate medium of exchange.

If wealth is abundance, with all the stuff we have in this consumer society, everybody could be considered wealthy, so maybe this is all a moot point.

To have my comments equated with a Yellow Journalist and socialist were a bit startling, but as noted in another comment, labels are loose and can be applied in several ways and perhaps I should have used another word.

I was using "looting" to describe the taking of something not earned through merit or production, but rather by merely taking advantage of a situation at the expense of others. I would submit that looting can but does not have to involve fraud. "Looting" assets of a company after a take over, patents for example, is perfectly legal.

I was using the dot-com bubble as an example of what happens when "money manipulators" replace producers. I witnessed first hand dozens of public offerings and private placements of the biggest names in technology as well as smaller companies and firms who have now disappeared into the dustbin of obscurity. I am referencing the "gold rush" mentality that swept the country during that time and how that allowed certain opportunists to take advantage of the public frenzy.

I'm not going to argue what caused the bubble, that is still being debated, but it could not have happened without a mass desire to get something for nothing. Investors became gamblers in areas they knew nothing about and abandoned the strategy of buying and holding companies they knew or had experience with. They bought on margin and actually found a way to place more than all their eggs in one basket. The bubble stalled with the US vs. MSFT suit and over the next 12 months as firms burnt through their IPO cash with little to no results, a rout began which became a panic. Even sound companies were sold off.

Billions of dollars of capital "invested" by over exuberant experts (especially technical traders) and amateurs alike evaporated - or did it? Actually the venture capitalists I am aware of did just fine. In fact they made a fortune. Hedge funds made a killing. The brokers and middle men also did just fine. They get paid when you buy and when you sell, regardless of whether you make or lose money on the transaction. Fee based fund managers did fine and the investment banks did just fine. All of this perfectly legal.

You do not have to commit fraud, if you are good at spinning facts or diverting attention. Just witness any politician at work. Many confidence schemes are legal and in any con, the victim is a willing participant, it is a voluntary exchange. Is this looting? Perhaps not, but the money did not evaporate, it just changed hands.