Many parts of the article uses a device what I'd call "journalistic pseudo-contrast": When discussing the super-rich, many bring up family dynasties such as th

Many parts of the article uses a device what I'd call "journalistic pseudo-contrast": When discussing the super-rich, many bring up family dynasties such as the Waltons of Wal-Mart, or the Rockefellers and Koch brothers of energy fortunes...But who is actually in the 0.01 percent?... Smith, Yagan, Zidar, and Zwick find that the 1 percent’s income is being driven by owner-managers, mostly of small and medium-sized companies..." You may think the rich are traditional capitalists - ie, wealthy business owners. But after a lot of guff, we'll say they are exactly that. And a lot of rhetoric of the article involves the kind of balancing act found in policy papers aimed at the wealth - use euphemisms that are technically truthful but make wealthy sound much more creativity, benevolent, dynamic, etc than they are.