> The existence of billionaires clearly undermines the core principles of democracy which is that all people have essentially the same political power.
I'm very pro-democracy; but that isn't a principle that has ever shown to have massive success at scale. There are a lot of fools out there.
Notably, some of the most successful experiments in democracy (British, American & Indian traditions) all have pretty clear principles of not having people with equal political power. Eg, a judge simply has more political power than an ordinary person. Britain and India have appointed members of their upper houses and the US has several safeguards to stop power defaulting to a majority.
Democracy hasn't achieved success due to some rosy concept of equality, it achieves success because the insufferable can't hold power and it provides an excellent method for different interest groups to negotiate and play mock-battle to work out who is stronger. There is plenty of evidence that dictatorship would be a better model if there were some magic method of keeping the dictator focused on good results - and indeed the US political system has tendencies in that direction. The creation of billionaires as replaceable aristocracy is a potential strength.
Plus most of the top US billionaires are self-created. It isn't really comparable to aristocracy either.
> Plus most of the top US billionaires are self-created. It isn't really comparable to aristocracy either.
That's just a function of accretion. The pearl has just begun to be produced. Do you think that the kids of the current top billionaires will not be at least middling billionaires? The US has lower social mobility than most European countries. Considering the fact that Europe is part of the "Old World", that's a worrying fact in my opinion.
> The pearl has just begun to be produced. Do you think that the kids of the current top billionaires will not be at least middling billionaires? ... The US has lower social mobility than most European countries. Considering the fact that Europe is part of the "Old World", that's a worrying fact in my opinion.
I'm not sure that this is actually true, wrt. "old" wealth. Mostly, because Europe's high income taxes and broadly business-hostile environment makes it very hard for new wealth to compete with old wealth, and especially unattractive for "old" wealth to get involved in riskier, more innovative ventures of their own as opposed to just kicking the can down the generational road.
Broke aristocrats are a trope. Broke billionaires are an oxymoron.
Just looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth I don't see a lot of hereditary names. There is the Mars family I suppose. I don't see names like Getty, Bruce, Mellon, Carnegie, Rockefeller or Vanderblit. There is a Hunt.
The wealth doesn't look like it accretes faster than family growth divides it at that level.
All but 5 of those families have less wealth than MacKenzie Scott; whose claim to fame is marrying the son of a bike shop owner.
The odds of breaking in to that list are something like 1 / 300,000,000 but evidence is anyone can do it. MacKenzie is also my subtle counterargument to "Look at the Waltons". Breaking up the wealth ain't always voluntary.
*grandson of one of the first nuclear engineers and nephew of one of the most successful musicians of the 20th century, whose parents had nearly a million (2020) dollars to spare to help him get in on the dotcom boom. But anyway.
Those are about the same odds as breaking in to the House of Lords.
Would the explanation that "while it is statistically impossible, it is strictly speaking plausible for an extremely devoted and lucky regular person to join the club" be a good enough excuse for re-introducing a landed aristocracy to American government, in your estimation?
I just remember when I was school in the 60's there were a lot of games played where one person out of 30 would 'win'. Very much like professional sports. Talked to my dad whose much older. He said they didn't do that when he was a kid. I think schools don't do that shit as much because they realize that one kid has a very temporary positive experience and 29 kids have a negative one.
Seems to me where the system is fair is unimportant, first we know it's not. Second is it designed to create disparities and a negative experience for most people. From a societal point of view that probably bad. And as I like say, the needs and wants of a couple of super wealthy people shouldn't be anything society cares about.
Yes and what happened every time in between? Significant civil unrest or wars. The first and second world wars actually acted as great equalizers (as did the civil war, the French revolution etc.) everytime after a new "aristocracy" develops and tries to keep keep the wealth to themselves. So I guess we need another upheaval, is that the argument?
Leaving aside George Spencer-Churchill, Marquess of Blandford, and a few other aristocrats, the latest-born of the descendants of Cornelius Vanderbilt is James Vanderbilt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Vanderbilt), currently worth by somebody's estimate $20M. The family also includes Anderson Cooper, a fair stock of earls and such, and a number of artists.
Money is a poor form of meritocracy because once you have it you can tilt the board towards you and yours forever regardless of future merit.
Worse the portion of wealth from true merit is cover for just how much is graft, rent, and corruption.
The end point of any system whereby power gives one the ability to further consolidate power needs to be balanced with redistribution else all power naturally concentrates in a shrinking few.
No man is self made. Billionaires are generally the children of lesser wealth.
Professional meritocracies where groups of professionals judge the efficacy of fellow practitioners? Licensing boards. Colleges, testing, professional memberships, peer review.
We can also acknowledge that we are incapable of making such systems optimal and take from all to give to all in terms of public works, education, health.
This insures that even if capitalism doesn't properly reward all participants aptly for their contributions to society all get a chance to live and contribute. If you look at true believers in capitalism one would suppose that the market is the only guide to worth and how we should allocate capital. Neither is true.
And there are multiple members of the Rockefeller family that have net worths in the billions. There is substantial swaths of land in this country that have been held by the same families since the 1700s.
I'm very pro-democracy; but that isn't a principle that has ever shown to have massive success at scale. There are a lot of fools out there.
Notably, some of the most successful experiments in democracy (British, American & Indian traditions) all have pretty clear principles of not having people with equal political power. Eg, a judge simply has more political power than an ordinary person. Britain and India have appointed members of their upper houses and the US has several safeguards to stop power defaulting to a majority.
Democracy hasn't achieved success due to some rosy concept of equality, it achieves success because the insufferable can't hold power and it provides an excellent method for different interest groups to negotiate and play mock-battle to work out who is stronger. There is plenty of evidence that dictatorship would be a better model if there were some magic method of keeping the dictator focused on good results - and indeed the US political system has tendencies in that direction. The creation of billionaires as replaceable aristocracy is a potential strength.
Plus most of the top US billionaires are self-created. It isn't really comparable to aristocracy either.
reply