related_tweet: @rrasgorshek @david19531501 @squeakydog1 @kid_alabama @dw2essex @gazza41 @daclementmusic @veuvek @roblev0 @robertcecil1608 @shaneja16905901 @mindedmusically @jrwyke @mac_paddy54 @begentle50 @beowulfschaefer @cathyby @andycarp18 @davidgsmith18 @davidmetroland @irisheurophile @jamesbl04750891 @brianbloop2 @edele_bear @susan04071 @johnrya13591294 @chrisgregson123 @the_leaver @butlerrichard2 @viv_cooper @triplegggx @sir_tom_tucker @jag11814459 @carlsbadcharlie @cheesenbranston @foxinwolfs @macid3000 @clareadams @afewpoints @ptp335 @resiguru @david_vaporium @giles7452 @mattadkin @rosebudorson @daftrucker1 @the_speartip @creativ61543336 @reactionaryian @markwh2001 no. if there were none, and their money was more evenly distributed, there would still be companies and jobs created from investment via shares and the banks using other people's savings. they hold too much power and influence and are more of a threat than an asset