Is inheritance breaking capitalism?
The main selling point for capitalists is that "the best will rise to the top in a free market" but that's not really true, because the vast majority of money and assets is in the hands of a few families and will be inherited down forever. So essentially rich kids are the "winners" in "capitalism" without ever having to do a days work in their life if they don't feel like it. There's capitalism for us workers who are essentially fighting over the scraps, but why is just accepted without complaint that these useless rich kids get everything without ever having to really compete? And can then use that money and gains they did no work for to have a massively disproportionate influence on society.
If you think like this, we're really still living in monarchies, it's just now the "King" is a class and not an individual, and the power of this class comes from birth right and not having any actual talent, just like a king.
- of Me of HimLv 64 weeks ago
Yes, yes, Inheritance is here as a honeycomb and if One good He will rule.
"Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” 5 And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”" Genesis 15
- 4 weeks ago
Capitalists believe in equality of opportunities, not results. So the result of an inheritance creates a level playing field-speaking strictly about capital—with others who have the same amount of it.
No one can or should create equality of results because capitalism requires brains and some people just don’t have enough to compete like that.
The remedy is redistribution of income. It’s form is socialism or communism, and can be administered by democrats or fascists or any petty tyrant, but not by a government instituted to protect the rights of human beings.
- Josh AlfredLv 54 weeks ago
You post a critical judgment of the "privileged ," marking it as a problem for capitalism. Yet, you do not suggest any alternative or a solution. I don't have one myself. It looks to go on indefinitely until a new system gains unanimity and stability is fostered. We value the consequences of such a system or else we wouldn't have Trump as president. So, there aren't many working towards a contrary.
- j153eLv 74 weeks ago
As another answerer gave, the feckless tend to dissipate within 3 generations.
A more relevant metric re that which lessens genuine merit-based free marketry is elasticity between father and son, both concurrently earning. When the nepotism of a J. Biden and a H. Biden is so evidently corrupt (H receiving a billion $ consulting contract never given by PRC to genuine expert firms such as Goldman Sachs), that is a clear example of inelasticity. Similar and worse examples among the oligarchs of Russia, and the founding revolutionaries of Communist China, who've amassed billions and act as a criminal "mafia."
The lack of transparency is more of an issue, worldwide. If the people of any system knew better, they'd do better. However, the network cover-up is widespread, and the world as a system governed by competing/interlocking corrupt elites is not tolerant of incapable family psychopaths (inheritors), and bases by default its leadership upon the effective sociopaths.
The false hypothesis of marxism is a discredited shtick which even its namesake later described as "this Communist sh*t".
Free markets work inasmuch as they are transparent, produce goods that are sought, etc. However, the ruling elites co-opt such greater successes, and in between themselves and those larger, corrupted corporations present virtue-signaling politicians to create the mass illusion, particularly in democracies, that the people's will is represented, right or left.
A couple of recent, well-researched books re economic injustice in the real world: "The Less You Know, the Better You Sleep: Russia's Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin," and "Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends."
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- RWPossumLv 74 weeks ago
Different states have different inheritance taxes. The rich are the least-studied group. They don't answer surveys. Certainly a lot of rich kids are useless or worse. We have one in the White House. But then some good presidents have been rich kids. e.g., Jefferson. Kennedy, both Roosevelts. Capitalism's big problem is diminishing resources with population growth. Conservatives have always said, "OK, the poor have a small piece of the pie, but scientific progress and the free market keep making a bigger pie."
- L. E. GantLv 74 weeks ago
You are right in that the social classes towards the top of the hierarchies in capitalism do have a tendency to stay there, generation after generation. The newer generations don't have to "fight" as hard to rise to the upper reaches, and that does mean there are a large number towards the top who are more drones than producers. And they do influence the societal hierarchy disproportionately.
However, the system is such that the lower echelons can rise on merit and ability. They can become "kings" within the system. It does take them a lot more effort and a lot more ability and a lot of talent to get up even a single level than it does for those born towards the top.
More, those towards the top, even if talentless, get the better education, better training, better food, etc. as if they were really Alphas, while the deltas and gammas only very occasionally manage to get noticed as being competent.
But then maybe that's the power of money -- it can work to generate more of itself...
(BTW, I do think that capitalism, like communism, has passed its "Use By" date. Just can't think of how, without a complete collapse of the current economic/social systems, it can be replaced, except through massive blood shedding that will make the French Reign of Terror (and the Communist one) look like a peaceful picnic.
- EdwenaLv 74 weeks ago
The kids typically can't do much, and it gets divided up. If they don't do something with what they got, they typically lose it. For example, take some famous and rich person. After 3 generations or so, they are bums and living amongst everyone else. They never do a "where are they now" program, probably because it would be so intrusive. But wouldn't you like to know where all the descendants of some famous person are and are they different from the rest of us. Like where are all of descendants of T. Jefferson or how about Elizabeth Taylor.