3 ms·
Yes that may be the cause of marginal inequality in a meritocracy which most everyone would argue is better than oligarchy. But extreme inequality is where thos
by alanwatts 11y ago
Yes that may be the cause of marginal inequality in a meritocracy which most everyone would argue is better than oligarchy. But extreme inequality is where those with the most money (the "super admin" user group) produce negligible real wealth.
- ktRolster 11y agoAt least half of the Forbes 10 richest got wealthy by starting their own companies, so I'm not sure your analysis is correct.
- alanwatts 11y agoThose in the top 10 as ranked by Forbes are not super admins as much as they are highly privileged users. Bloomberg might be considered an admin of sorts due to his fortune being made on financial software. The real super admins are people like the current US Treasury Secretary who has the highest voting power on the board of governors of the IMF. This particular super admin made a fortune at Citi by betting on the global economic collapse of 2008 while hoarding cash in British tax havens like the Cayman Islands and was then promoted to his current administrative post.[1] This is a (sub) prime example of a super admin purposefully crashing the system in order to gain more power; greatly increasing global inequality in the process. This is a cyclical use case which has been occurring for hundreds of years in the global paper-based markets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lew#Between_Clinton_and_Obama_tenures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lew#Between_Clinton_and_O...