In fact - this is something I hope for - to make a reasoned philosophical case - to provide a hypothesis that other individuals can test for themselves and see if they find it to be true (as I have). This is contrast to the feel good nonsense most believe, despite no evidence, and no personal verification.
I'm not sure what concrete connection you require. What is it you want? Names, places?
Perhaps you should take a look at my submission and comment history - I do sometimes go into more detail.
I want what you mention here:
> This is contrast to the feel good nonsense most believe, despite no evidence, and no personal verification.
Evidence. As I said: Giving examples is a rather basic expository technique.
Trends in wealth inequality - https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
Rich kids stay rich, poor kids stay poor - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rich-kids-stay-rich-poo...
How rent seeking is at the heart of America’s economic troubles - https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/something-nothing-how-growin...
I could go on there’s about a million articles about this. I’m sure you’ll find something to criticize but at this point it’s like denying climate change.
You probably believe in gravity, why? Are alternative explanations possible?
You probably believe in evolution, why? Or perhaps you believe in some religious texts, again why? Did you verify anything?
You probably believe in h2o, why? Have you put hydrogen and oxygen gases together to make water?
You probably don't believe in the aliens we saw in the film 'Independence Day', why? Is it because you were told it is fiction?
You probably do believe the world is getting warmer, and that we are in danger of a mass extinction event, why? How was this proven to you? If one scientist says something, is that proof? If 100 say the same thing, is that better proof?
Etc.
What measure do you use to filter the truth from noise, lies and reality? Is it just what you are told - do you doubt your lying eyes? Or is there internal discernment and primary experience is the gold standard?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that if someone agrees with your comment, it is because they already know what you're talking about in the context of the world we live in. For those who do not know what you're talking about, your comment does not enlighten in the least.
Put another way, I can agree with everything you said in the abstract, and still not see what it has to do with reality. I can set up all kinds of hypotheticals involving islands, and have them all be logically correct, and yet have nothing to do with how the world really is.
Giving examples is a rather basic expository technique. I'm not here to philosophize.