There are a couple things about this perspective that don't sit right with me. It's heavy on detail but low on facts. And most of it is an attempt to pidgeonhol

There are a couple things about this perspective that don't sit right with me. It's heavy on detail but low on facts. And most of it is an attempt to pidgeonhole massive quantities of people into 13 groups "based on what [the author has] seen, and [the author's] limited understanding of the macroeconomics of income in the United States." The bit that made me kind of boggle my eyes was this: >These are the very rich, powerful, and deeply uncultured barbarians from all over the world who start wars in the Middle East for sport, make asses of themselves in American casinos, rape ski bunnies at Davos, and run the world It's harmful to describe the behavior of ~60,000 people (or ~60,000 of anything really) so specifically. Globally, the struggle for power is a free-for-all even at the highest levels of play. Even in America, super-wealth does not automatically make someone the bastard spawn of hitler and skeletor. The Rockefeller Family Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund have both divested from fossil fuels, and the family as a whole (even John Sr.) has made massive contributions to conserving America's wilderness. I don't see what this article adds to the discussion of how power works and how it can be harnessed to produce socially optimal outcomes.