Super elites have two ways to survive

"The lesson of history is that, in the long run, super-elites have two ways to survive: by suppressing dissent or by sharing their wealth."

Fascinating article on the new global elite, rising inequality, meritocracy and philanthropy, with something to like (and something to hate) for everyone whether left, right, or libertarian.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343

 

You sound like Jackie Chiles, Too many words in a row ending in Y, i couldnt read the article out of fear i might end up crazY

j/k it was a good article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ifgj8WXp8w&feature=related

 

Complete nonsense on part of it.
There will be suppressing and oppressing, there will never be sharing.
This ain't Russia 1917, the last time the people got something back .

 

Seems like they already are sharing or planning to do so:

http://givingpledge.org/

 

Seems to be some conflict here or I'm lost.

What of the super elite who run for public office, they encourage the underdogs to speak out, they are outspoken on what is wrong with the system, use their money to influence and empower the little people. Hardly an expression of supressing dissent.

You think Forbes or Ross Perot or Bloomberg, Buffett, Trump among others, past and present, sit around eating cake bitching about Joe the Plumber stealing their wealth? I think the weathly are more concerned that other wealthy peers may steal their wealth.

Is it possible to include professional high net worth athletes, entertainers, etc, as super elite suppressing dissent?

Supressing dissent is the gov'ts job, maybe industry as a runner up but only because the gov't motivates industry actions through regulation and legislation and pins it on the CEO.

Like I said though, I may be lost on this one.

 

This article has many truths, but it did not highlight enough that almost all of us who are born in the western world can become elite granted proper schools or some great idea implementation.

Aristocracy meant that you had to be born into it.

The revolutions happen when lower class has no options and greatly suffers. Out society, so far, has many of safety nets (ss, unemployment, etc.)

From the article...I
heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he’s nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world,” he told me. “So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.” ....

Hm, I find his reasoning weird since costs of living, education, medical, etc constantly go up. How much does it cost to go to a doctor in India? This is just one of the example where his logic break.

 

1. His point would be he does not care about the cost of living... he cares about the value he receives for what he pays.

2. The ____________ point of view is that this society gave him the opportunity so he should be paying it back to this society.

3. My point of view is leave me alone if I leave your alone, don't tax the crap out of me and I am willing to fend for myself in this society. I like here and I want it to stay that way.

But, what I don't want is a bunch rich guys like buffet buying off the politicians and implementing socialist ideas and taxes thereby making it harder for me to make a ton of money and pick off some the rich guys wealth through competition.

If buffet does not feel his taxes are fair, he should pay more not me.