Are Investors Functionalists?

Ok, so before I get started on this post, I have a question for all readers (with an opinion) of this blog--I am currently trying to decide the manner in which to write posts. I have, in the past, written in a way such that any intelligent reader can understand. However, there are times when I have wanted to post on things which are more specific to contemporary analytic philosophy, things which I have not the space to give background. Here is my question: Should I write this blog to the general reader, or should I assume a good background of philosophical knowledge? Your opinion would be appreciated.
On to the post!

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part."
Put very simply, and in a way functionalists would quibble with, functionalists define mental states by their functional/dispositional role. For example, a functionalist would define pain as "a disposition to wince, to take aspirin if offered, etc. etc."
There are a lot of objections to functionalism, and its not as popular as it once was about 20-30 years ago. But its still a pretty popular theory of mind--it can be construed materially, so no problems with immaterial substances. But it also allows for multiple realizability, which seems pretty plausible.
I'm not concerned with those objections here. But I am interested to see if functionalists have thought about accepting a real life China-brain example.
Is the creature, "Carl", being referred to in the following quotes an intelligent being capable of reacting to world events just as we are?
"Carl's reaction to the 'going concern' news was somewhat strange given that it was not a surprise at all."
"The president's words did little to inspire Carl, however."
Headlines: "Unrepentant Carl" "Is Obama Responsible for Carl's Meltdown?" (a little tabloid, that one.)
"He appeared to win the confidence of some leaders, according to CNNMoney.com. But the story was different on the home front, where Carl is all but comfortable with the plan."

Who is this powerful "Carl"? Some political nerd? A powerful, but emotionally unstable, member of Obama's cabinet? He certainly reacts to world events in a swift and calculated way.

Well, you've probably figured it out. But if you haven't, "Carl" is Wall Street. So is Wall Street a conscious, intelligent creature? Don't give me that incredulous stare (philosophers will get that)! What is the difference between a human being and Wall Street that makes you believe that we are conscious and Wall Street not? Both are highly organized systems, made up of smaller systems (cells on the one hand, and human beings and computers on the other), react to stimulation in somewhat though not totally predictive ways, etc.
If you aren't a dualist, what is it that makes humans different from other organized systems?
I've been learning philosophy of mind for about 5 years now; everything seems more confusing the more I learn. So before you dismiss the idea of something like Wall Street being conscious, try to find, in your own introspection, some definitive line or qualifying idea as to what the necessary and sufficient conditions are to be a conscious being.

And before you say, "hey, functionalism is just stupid. Problem solved." Trust me, every position in Phil of Mind has something bizarre going on. That's why Philosophy of Mind is such a hot field, and why views are still so divided.

A most likely bad solution to "Old Money"

We all see spoiled little children running around, doing whatever they want. And we all see spoiled young adults running around doing whatever they want.
A conversation about class inequality during my visit to UNL got me thinking. Most people believe, along with the statistics, that its much more difficult than capitalism's founders planned it to change classes. If you are born in the lower middle class, you are most likely going to die in the lower middle class. If you are born in the upper class, you are most likely going to die in the upper class. Sorry idealistic republicans, but it just didn't turn out the way Adam Smith planned it.
Our races and genders determine to a certain extent (hopefully a decreasing extent) how easy we are going to have it in life. Unfortunately, this is a very tough thing to change. We can't feasibly erase certain fundamental physical characteristics, and I don't even think we would want to.
However, the class we are born into has arguably as much if not a larger effect on how easy we are going to have it in life as well. But this, like race and gender, does not seem to be quite as tough of a problem to solve.
Capitalism is founded on the idea that those who work harder get richer. And society attempts to make this more so the case by offering education funding to lower classes and minorities. We want everyone to have an equal shot, because that is what capitalism is supposed to be founded upon.
So why do we allow for disgustingly gigantic inheritances? I put forward the radical proposition that upon a person's death their money goes to the government. Repeal the death tax? No. Make it 100%. This could allow us to lower other taxes--a pro-capitalism move. It would make every adult (sure there would still be spoiled children) have to work for their own money--another pro-capitalism move.
Why not do it?
Objection 1: The whole reason a lot of these people want to get rich is to ensure their children have a good shot at having it made, not having to work as hard as they did, etc.
Response: Well, then this has the added bonus of stopping the drive of so many people to get ridiculously rich (which, logic dictates, causes others to get poorer), thus shrinking the rich to poor gap that has been growing for a couple hundred years.
Objection 2: Parents will just give large monetary sums to their children before they die, which will not stop the problem.
Response 2: Yeah, that is an issue, but I'm sure there could be certain restrictions that would ease this kind of issue.

Alright, I haven't thought about this through completely, but it did cross my mind and I see no immediate HUGE problems. But, maybe I am missing something.