The problem with that approach is a bunch of smart and interesting non-oligarchs also get the chop during the ensuing Reign of Terror. Then after a while, Napoleon steps in to fill the power vacuum.
The lives of the poor are of equal value to the lives of the rich. So the calculation must include the suffering throngs created by privileged and selfish nepotists and cronies.
Literal guillotines are unnecessary. Just take away their money, prosecute the criminals, and hold meritocratic elections free from the media circus.
Creating a better world is common sense. Tie the hands of the psychopaths among the superrich, discredit the mentally ill Christian fascists, and use scientific reasoning to fix the government and economy.
There is no shortage of resources when you recognize that the vast wealth of the superrich is unearned and won throug bribery, cronyism, nepotism, monopoly, and oligopoly. Wealth amassed through those methods is illegitimate.
>There is no shortage of resources when you recognize that the vast wealth of the superrich is unearned and won throug bribery, cronyism, nepotism, monopoly, and oligopoly.
I don't see any evidence this is true as a general rule. In some cases, yes, but not the general case.
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.
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.
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.
Those 13 people I listed represent 13 out of the top 50 richest people in the US. Not cherry picked anecdotes. They represent 25% of the top 50 wealthiest Americans.
I'm not arguing about social mobility amongst the bottom quartile or the top 1% or anything else. I am refuting your claim that the all of the "super rich" inherited their wealth.
You said this:
>The far majority of the superrich inherited their wealth.
When I provided statistics that showed only 31% of billionaires inherited their wealth. You said this:
>It's bullshit. They were born into connected families and simply built on the advantages they already had.
You stated a fact without evidence, I provided evidence to refute your claim (also why do you care about evidence--you said earlier this isn't Nature).
At least 25% of the 50 richest Americans started out with no fortune or family connections whatsoever.
Even more of them were only upper middle class, but I didn't include them.
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.
When 51% of the population decides that taking the money is legitimate and a good idea, it will happen. The poorer people get the more people hop on board.
The current ruling elite are flaming the fans of theocracy. They are responsible for pushing the slave morality of evangelical Christianity on the pathetic and miserable masses.
If we don't disrupt the growing master/slave relationship occurring between the superrich and the Christian fascists, we WILL see the majority voting for theocracy and they will get it.
The solution is to promote reason and science as tools of social improvement - meritocracy - not fatalistic laissez-faire capitalism which is nothing more than plutocracy.
