4 ms·

Then you're blind. The far majority of the superrich inherited their wealth. This is called nepotism and it's bad for meritocracy. The far majority of corporat

Then you're blind. The far majority of the superrich inherited their wealth. This is called nepotism and it's bad for meritocracy. The far majority of corporate and government leaders are there through cronyism. This is corrupt. Mega corporations like halliburton enrich themselves with no bid contracts which they get by bribing officials. This is bribery. Cellular networks and ISPs form oligopolies instead of competing with each other. The medical industry does this causing death and poverty. The wealth of the superrich was inordinately acquired by combining monopoly, oligopoly, cronyism, bribery, and nepotism into one big ball of corrupt selfishness. This wealth is not earned legitimately through production and competition, it is stolen by distorting the market and corrupting the government both of which are fundamentally immoral. Criminals must be stripped of their loot and sent to prison. Start with Lloyd Blankfein who scammed his own clients and made his riches by exploiting the trust inherent in the client-professional relationship that is a pillar of civilized society.

learc83 15y ago
>The far majority of the superrich inherited their wealth. Not true at all. 69% of US billionaires earned their fortunes. http://moneytipcentral.com/self-made-vs-inherited-billionaire-fortunes http://moneytipcentral.com/self-made-vs-inherited-billionair... The numbers are similar for US millionaires.
- forensic 15y ago
  It's bullshit. They were born into connected families and simply built on the advantages they already had. It's not meritocracy when one person goes to an inner city ghetto school and another goes to an elite private school. It's not meritocracy when the children of aristocrats are given bank loans while the working class get nothing. Meritocracy and social mobility is the way to move society forward. Inherited opportunity, aristocracy, nepotism leads to stagnation. Equal opportunity is not just an ideal, it is essential to economic growth.
  - tsotha 15y ago
    >Equal opportunity is not just an ideal, it is essential to economic growth. Again, assertion without evidence.
    - forensic 15y ago
      This is hacker news not Nature. You provide no evidence either you hypocrit.
    - tsotha 15y ago
      Well, I don't mean evidence in the sense of a scientific cite. But this is just an assertion - at least you can back it up with some argument as to why you think it might be true.
  - learc83 15y ago
    Just a quick history on some of America's wealthiest people Larry Ellison--born to unwed mother, raised middle class George Soros--poor immigrant to England, worked as a porter and waiter through college Sheldon Adelson--son of a cab driver and immigrant Michael Bloomberg--worked as a parking lot attendant to pay his college tuition Carl Icahn--father was a cantor, mother was a schoolteacher Leonard Blavatnik--Soviet Immigrant Harold Simmons--parents were teachers Harold Hamm--worked his way up from pumping gas and car repair Andrew Beal--worked through high school fixing televisions Ray Dialo--son of a jazz musician Charlie Ergen--started out as a door-to-door salesman Eli Broad--father was a housepainter, mother was a dressmaker These are just the people who come from the middle classes and below. Most of the rest had parents who were only doctors or lawyers, or small businessmen (not what I'd call well connected power brokers), and most of them where only 2 generations away from lower class families.
    - forensic 15y ago
      Anecdotes are intellectually dishonest. Statistics show that social mobility in the USA is low and in sharp decline. Your selection of 13 out of 50 indicates that 75% of even your sample inherited their privilege. So my statement about the "majority" stands. In addition, the list you select from includes only public wealth. Inherited wealth is usually private, and the privilege associated with private wealth is rarely public. Privilege itself is a private phenomenon. The top 50 is a paltry analysis. The top 400 is even too paltry, though it is instructive. Look at real statistics that include the entire population not cherry picked media darlings who are used as anecdotes to distort the real statistics. "Census data show that 81.6 percent of those families who were in the bottom quintile of the income distribution in 1985 were still in that bottom quintile the next year; for the top quintile the fraction was 76.3 percent." The media promotes visibility of that minority who worked their way up. They don't report on statistics though. As the social safety net and human rights are further eroded, social mobility will decline more quickly. Don't let a few cherry picked anecdotes fool you. " A 2007 study (by Kopczuk, Saez and Song) found social/economic mobility in America at top income levels "very stable" and "not mitigated the dramatic increase in annual earnings concentration since the 1970s."[17] Economist Paul Krugman, argues that despite their "great ferocity in presenting its case and attacking its opponents", conservatives have resorted to "extraordinary series of attempts at statistical distortion". While in any given year, some of the people with low incomes will be "workers on temporary layoff, small businessmen taking writeoffs, farmers hit by bad weather" -- the rise in their income in succeeding years is not the same 'mobility' as poor people rising to middle class or middle income rising to wealth. It's the mobility of "the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early thirties." How is social mobility among inner city blacks? It's a disgrace. The attitude of libertarians toward inner city blacks is deeply immoral and racist. "Just let them rot! No talented Ted Turners could ever come from the ghetto!" The most meritocratic individuals in our society are not entrepreneur billionaires like the shallow and selfish Larry Ellison. They are unsung intellectuals in ivory towers whose genius is not recognized by CNN because CNN is junk TV for idiots. We don't live in a meritocracy. People like Larry Ellison are not meritorious. If the superich had any caring for the unfortunate the wealth gap would not be trending the way it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Intergenerational_mobility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_...

learc83 15y ago

>The far majority of the superrich inherited their wealth. Not true at all. 69% of US billionaires earned their fortunes. http://moneytipcentral.com/self-made-vs-inherited-billionaire-fortunes http://moneytipcentral.com/self-made-vs-inherited-billionair... The numbers are similar for US millionaires.

forensic 15y ago
It's bullshit. They were born into connected families and simply built on the advantages they already had. It's not meritocracy when one person goes to an inner city ghetto school and another goes to an elite private school. It's not meritocracy when the children of aristocrats are given bank loans while the working class get nothing. Meritocracy and social mobility is the way to move society forward. Inherited opportunity, aristocracy, nepotism leads to stagnation. Equal opportunity is not just an ideal, it is essential to economic growth.
- tsotha 15y ago
  >Equal opportunity is not just an ideal, it is essential to economic growth. Again, assertion without evidence.
  - forensic 15y ago
    This is hacker news not Nature. You provide no evidence either you hypocrit.
  - tsotha 15y ago
    Well, I don't mean evidence in the sense of a scientific cite. But this is just an assertion - at least you can back it up with some argument as to why you think it might be true.
- learc83 15y ago
  Just a quick history on some of America's wealthiest people Larry Ellison--born to unwed mother, raised middle class George Soros--poor immigrant to England, worked as a porter and waiter through college Sheldon Adelson--son of a cab driver and immigrant Michael Bloomberg--worked as a parking lot attendant to pay his college tuition Carl Icahn--father was a cantor, mother was a schoolteacher Leonard Blavatnik--Soviet Immigrant Harold Simmons--parents were teachers Harold Hamm--worked his way up from pumping gas and car repair Andrew Beal--worked through high school fixing televisions Ray Dialo--son of a jazz musician Charlie Ergen--started out as a door-to-door salesman Eli Broad--father was a housepainter, mother was a dressmaker These are just the people who come from the middle classes and below. Most of the rest had parents who were only doctors or lawyers, or small businessmen (not what I'd call well connected power brokers), and most of them where only 2 generations away from lower class families.
  - forensic 15y ago
    Anecdotes are intellectually dishonest. Statistics show that social mobility in the USA is low and in sharp decline. Your selection of 13 out of 50 indicates that 75% of even your sample inherited their privilege. So my statement about the "majority" stands. In addition, the list you select from includes only public wealth. Inherited wealth is usually private, and the privilege associated with private wealth is rarely public. Privilege itself is a private phenomenon. The top 50 is a paltry analysis. The top 400 is even too paltry, though it is instructive. Look at real statistics that include the entire population not cherry picked media darlings who are used as anecdotes to distort the real statistics. "Census data show that 81.6 percent of those families who were in the bottom quintile of the income distribution in 1985 were still in that bottom quintile the next year; for the top quintile the fraction was 76.3 percent." The media promotes visibility of that minority who worked their way up. They don't report on statistics though. As the social safety net and human rights are further eroded, social mobility will decline more quickly. Don't let a few cherry picked anecdotes fool you. " A 2007 study (by Kopczuk, Saez and Song) found social/economic mobility in America at top income levels "very stable" and "not mitigated the dramatic increase in annual earnings concentration since the 1970s."[17] Economist Paul Krugman, argues that despite their "great ferocity in presenting its case and attacking its opponents", conservatives have resorted to "extraordinary series of attempts at statistical distortion". While in any given year, some of the people with low incomes will be "workers on temporary layoff, small businessmen taking writeoffs, farmers hit by bad weather" -- the rise in their income in succeeding years is not the same 'mobility' as poor people rising to middle class or middle income rising to wealth. It's the mobility of "the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early thirties." How is social mobility among inner city blacks? It's a disgrace. The attitude of libertarians toward inner city blacks is deeply immoral and racist. "Just let them rot! No talented Ted Turners could ever come from the ghetto!" The most meritocratic individuals in our society are not entrepreneur billionaires like the shallow and selfish Larry Ellison. They are unsung intellectuals in ivory towers whose genius is not recognized by CNN because CNN is junk TV for idiots. We don't live in a meritocracy. People like Larry Ellison are not meritorious. If the superich had any caring for the unfortunate the wealth gap would not be trending the way it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Intergenerational_mobility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_...