> I much prefer the model where the mode of competition is economic benefit rather than "ability to be born in a good position” Great! I also support economic

> I much prefer the model where the mode of competition is economic benefit rather than "ability to be born in a good position” Great! I also support economic competition as well as leveling the playing field by limiting the unfair advantages of being born in a good position. Of course, as you probably know, social mobility is at historic lows in the US. This means people born into wealthy families are most likely to remain wealthy, and people born into poor families are most likely to remain poor. By your own argument, that is a problem because it shifts competition to “ability to be born in a good position”. Therefore it seems that we agree after all! Unless of course you’re not being intellectually honest and are using big words like “economic competition” only when it supports your pre-existing ideology.