“Wealth has to be re-earned generation after generation. “Luck” only gets you so far.”
Thomas Stanley, in his book, “The Millionaire Next Door” posits that wealth rarely transfers past the 3rd generation. This is why 80% of millionaires are consistently 1st generation.
The first generation that earned wealth had a healthy respect of what it took to earn that wealth. The 2nd generation does not, but at least were parented with the values of those that did. The 3rd generation are twice removed from the respect of what it takes to earn wealth, and so, IF their parents leave them anything, it evaporates.
Hard work is necessary to create or maintain wealth. I was just agreeing with your point - and the point in the book.
More to the point: there is a consistent fabrication of the left - that wealth is static, that there is a “wealthy class”. There is not. Wealth is dynamic. People become wealthy - all the time. People become un-wealthy - all the time. That dynamic quality of wealth - as a function of hard work and effort - is what makes America great. So, OF COURSE, the left would adamantly deny it.
I think my main issue with AS is that it assumes that socialism would be so far entrenched that the only way to “beat it” is by letting its consequences take root.
It concedes to the failure of Conservatism to win in the arena of ideas. I understand that the left is handing out money like candy and that money can trump ideology.
Still. I’m not quite ready to subscribe to the idea that the message of Conservatism is a lost cause. I intend to continue to spar in the arena of ideas. If that is too D. Taggert or H. Reardon of me, so be it.
I understand the point: socialism can only survive off the back of capitalism, looters and moochers off of producers. What if the producers shrug? Fair enough.
What if, instead, the producers sell a better idea to so-called ‘middle people’? I still believe this to be a center-right nation. President Obama’s chief economic message was one of tax cuts, combined with a claim of a more responsible government. See my tag line.
Both Clinton and Obama won by sounding more Conservative than their opposition. McCain learned what we all knew: you can’t out-liberal a liberal. But. The reverse is also true. You can’t out-Conservative a true Conservative. Neither Clinton nor Obama could have out-flanked a true Conservative. When true Conservatives come to the table, the message still sells.
Before I shrug, I darn sure want to make darn sure that I sold the message of true compassion - and THAT is Conservatism. In the true sense of the words, “compassionate Conservatism” is an oxymoron. If you have to point out that YOUR brand of Conservatism is “compassionate”, you’ve already lost the battle.
Witness the recent automatic assumption that Caroline Kennedy should be anointed to being Senator of NY.
Many of them would be perfectly content being in the court of Louis VIX.
They have the right of enlightenment and status to rule over the rest of us.
Their real goal isn't equality but feudalism.
Thus the point that d'Anconias are expected to increase the family fortune. It is interesting that Francisco then goes on a seemingly wanton indulgence spree. We will see his point later.