Have we replaced one type of aristocracy with another

[Kozmos]

Regardless, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs weren't born into some aristocracy; they achieved through their own initiative. If that happens, I see no problem with them being massively successful; if they can get there without breaking the law, then more power to them. Changing the law to capitalize off of their success isn't really morally right in my opinion.

The upper crust routinely capitalizes off the work of the underlings. You bust your balls along with 4 other guys to make an application and the guys on top get a ridiculously higher share of the profits and what is worse their jobs could be replaced by a slightly more advanced computer.

Capitalism just transfers power from the government to the corporations who are even less inclined to give two droppings about the people working for it.

 

[NiRv4n4]

The upper crust routinely capitalizes off the work of the underlings. You bust your balls along with 4 other guys to make an application and the guys on top get a ridiculously higher share of the profits and what is worse their jobs could be replaced by a slightly more advanced computer.

At least he had to put in some effort to get his wealth. What more could we realistically ask for?

Capitalism just transfers power from the government to the corporations who are even less inclined to give two droppings about the people working for it.

I disagree; the government can be just as, if not more, ambivalent/antagonistic to the people who make it what it is; see USSR, DDR, and PRC.

 

[carmen510]

The thing is, it is a lot easier for the "commoner" class to become "aristocracy". Which I don't have much of a problem with; if you try your hardest/have some brain power to begin with, you can achieve.

This is true, somewhat. Class mobility has improved greatly, theoretically allowing more "commoners" to become "aristocrats" (or at least richer).

However, I don't think education and public perceptions of hard work and innovation have kept pace. We still see millions of Americans (indeed, in most countries) kept in a state of poverty, because they don't have an equal opportunity to educational facilities. We're also starting to see a reactionary backlash against innovation and concerns about the public good (cuts to science funding; budget cuts to government services like schools), as well as a populist attack against risk taking and certain aspects of capitalism in general (see the anger at banks & millionaires). This creates a situation where the "common people" cannot practically make their way into the "upper echelons" of society. Even those educated in Ivy League universities seem to go into the middle class.

 

[Cheetah]

Capitalism with high inheritance tax.

So those with un-taxable assets, namely good genes (talent and potential, less illnesses, more charismatic, etc.) and good connections (most jobs, especially higher positions, are gotten through networks of friends, family and colleagues) will get off scoot-free?

Though yeah, that would make it more difficult for certain segments of the elites to stay in power.

 

[Cutlass]

Still, people live for a while, and there is always another generation waiting to cut themselves a big slice of the available capital.

Not really any; capitalism is the best way of spreading wealth around and ensuring the government does not become tyrannical.

We can't stop the fact that some people have more power than others. What we can stop is worthless 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ect, generation useless and worthless parasites from running the world.

 

[amadeus]

Capitalism with high inheritance tax.

You can't tax connections and you can't tax the government, so you're only going to hurt people outside the abusive state-business apparatus.

 

[NiRv4n4]

So those with un-taxable assets, namely good genes (talent and potential, less illnesses, more charismatic, etc.) and good connections (most jobs, especially higher positions, are gotten through networks of friends, family and colleagues) will get off scoot-free?

Though yeah, that would make it more difficult for certain segments of the elites to stay in power.

We can't stop the fact that some people have more power than others. What we can stop is worthless 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ect, generation useless and worthless parasites from running the world.

But then we wouldn't have the Rockefelllers or Vanderbilts!

Inheritance tax would seem to be a fitting solution to the problem, though I find it morally questionable. But then again I don't much like government in general, so that is just my bias. So I have no real problem with inheritance tax; however, taking all the person's money away upon death is ridiculous.

 

[Cutlass]

But then we wouldn't have the Rockefelllers or Vanderbilts!

Good.

You can't tax connections and you can't tax the government, so you're only going to hurt people outside the abusive state-business apparatus.

This statement, i have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[amadeus]

But then we wouldn't have the Rockefelllers or Vanderbilts!

Sure, we would! There'd be a new Old Boys club and the cycle would continue.

 

[Kozmos]

At least he had to put in some effort to get his wealth. What more could we realistically ask for?

What? Effort? No...the morons upstairs can't solve a differential equation and spends his days ordering a macchiato with a chocolate croissant. There is a lot more we could ask for and worker co-op enterprises would insure a lot more effective distribution of wealth.

Management is a job yes, but it is overvalued greatly and can be managed in many different ways.

 

[kiwitt]

Rockefellers

His quotes

• Competition is a sin.
• Do you know the only thing that gives me pleasure? It's to see my dividends coming in.
• I would rather earn 1% off a 100 people's efforts than 100% of my own efforts.

Sounds like a nice guy

 

[amadeus]

This statement, i have no idea what you are trying to say.

All these people would still be able to weasel into power through their families even if you taxed inheritances at 100%.

 

[NiRv4n4]

His quotes

• Competition is a sin.
• Do you know the only thing that gives me pleasure? It's to see my dividends coming in.
• I would rather earn 1% off a 100 people's efforts than 100% of my own efforts.

Sounds like a nice guy

Well, he knew how to run a business, that's for sure. And in the end, that is what is important; the person most capable is the one who deserves to take the cake. Am I wrong in this belief?

 

[Kozmos]

I disagree; the government can be just as, if not more, ambivalent/antagonistic to the people who make it what it is; see USSR, DDR, and PRC.

True, but the way things are going I'd much prefer a stronger government than a stronger business. Even if you put it that way a government is much more likely to work for the benefit of the people under its care. A business will always look to the profits first. Always.

 

[Cutlass]

All these people would still be able to weasel into power through their families even if you taxed inheritances at 100%.

No, they wouldn't. The primary source of power in the US is wealth. Connections are not a guarantee of wealth and power. Wealth is a guarantee of power and connections. Limit the inheritance of wealth, and the children of wealth couldn't afford to be useless. GW Bush was worthless because he never once in his life before becoming president had to lift a finger to be anything other than worthless. What would he have been had he ever had to hold a job?

 

[Ajidica]

Am I wrong in this belief?

Capability in one area does not mean you should get control over another, entirely different area.
Most people agree that Mao was a very capable guerilla leader, but that doesn't mean he should be a leader of anything else. The same goes for the Rockefellers or Vanderbilts. They may have been very good at getting ten ounces of blood from a one ounce stone (yes I know I'm comparing two separate metrics), but that doesn't mean I want him in charge of an organization that has responsibilities far in excess of 'How rich can I get?"?

 

[Silurian]

From The London School of Economics - my high light

Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Steve Machin found that social mobility in Britain - the way in which someone's adult outcomes are related to their circumstances as a child - is lower than in Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. And while the gap in opportunities between the rich and poor is similar in Britain and the US, in the US it is at least static, while in Britain it is getting wider.

A careful comparison reveals that the USA and Britain are at the bottom with the lowest social mobility. Norway has the greatest social mobility, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Germany is around the middle of the two extremes, and Canada was found to be much more mobile than the UK

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.aspx

 

[amadeus]

No, they wouldn't. The primary source of power in the US is wealth. Connections are not a guarantee of wealth and power. Wealth is a guarantee of power and connections. Limit the inheritance of wealth, and the children of wealth couldn't afford to be useless. GW Bush was worthless because he never once in his life before becoming president had to lift a finger to be anything other than worthless. What would he have been had he ever had to hold a job?

Thanks for proving my point - was H.W. dead when W. got to all those places?

 

[Cutlass]

Thanks for proving my point - was H.W. dead when W. got to all those places?

The point is that neither of them would have gotten where they did without inherited wealth. So you missed the point.

 

[Silurian]

From Princetown

Almost half of the cohort born in the 1930s was upwardly mobile; only one-fourth of that cohort was downwardly mobile. Since then, fewer men have been upwardly mobile and more have been downwardly mobile. Among men born in the 1960s and 1970s, downward mobility is almost as prevalent as upward mobility. Immobility rose across cohorts from one-fourth to one-third.

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofch...x.xml?journalid=35&articleid=85&sectionid=514