Skip to comments.The New Upper Class and the Real Reason We Dislike Them
Posted on 02/07/2012 12:08:27 PM PST by mojito
click here to read article
I’m jut guessing - but I’ll bet neither you nor any members of your family attended an “elite” university.
Not trying to be rude - but to me - it looks like you have little idea of the topic. Not introverted fantasy idea - I mean - real data, real experience.
How close am I?
Is Northwestern or Stanford elite in your book? They’re not Ivy. Guess you’re right.
World citizens, visualizing world peace, diversity, thinking globally and acting locally and all that B.S.
“and you may tell yourself this is not my house, this is not my beautiful wife....”
Darn it! Now I have to go on You Tube and watch the video. I haven’t seen it in years.
Very unlikely based on his previous work.
I give you two clues in support of my post:
(1) "Murray draws heavily from social-science datadescribed in multiple appendices that span nearly 100 pages" [note: text marking is my own] -- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/08/charles-murray-s-coming-apart-and-the-culture-myth.html
(2) Murray doesn't summarize his statistics in the article -- his summarizes his wishful conclusions in prejudicial, simplistic roll-ups and cartoon-like examples.
Not having the time to pursue this further, I'd bet he mischaracterized the very statistical data he references in that fulsome appendix.
Thanks. You gave me new vocabulary to describe the grant-grubbing academics I so despise.
I noticed years ago that there is a trash line in the energy industry. By and large, line managements are made up of people with technical or land-management degrees, and CPA/MBA people among the financial support ranks.
But the people in New York who vet the companies' policy and portfolio choices are all financial pukes from liberal-arts or elite Ivy colleges, and never the twain do meet, except when the financial people are telling the energy outfits' boards to slash head counts, or "get big or get out", or whatever the financial pukes' flavor of the year is.
In the early 90's Chevron bucked the financial pukes and refused to slaughter their upstream staff -- and Value Line's analysts promptly tore them down for "hoarding staff" when they could have improved their per-share ROE by a few decimal points by throwing hundreds, thousands of talented professionals out the window. Chevron and Exxon were big enough to ignore the financial analysts, and prospered.
Ten years later it was all the other way around, and the financial types in the Street were telling financial-news outfits that the reason that energy-company project portfolios were so thin was that line managements hadn't done a good job of driving their staffs. Which was self-serving BS: the reason inventories were thin, was that they'd been slashed at the insistence of the geniuses in the Street, and the firms themselves had been skeletonized.
However, there are a bunch of guys who wrote the code that Zuckerburg used to launch facebook.
The filmic version attributes the idea for Facebook to a pair of Harvard rowing-team members (Brahmin brothers and legacies) and a lot of the elbow grease, as you say, to others whom Zuckerberg self-dealt out of the payoff, all of whom wound up suing Zuckerberg after their shares were diluted by his repeated financial refreshments of the original investment.
Or so the film version has it. Interesting the faces the filmmakers put in the picture, though.
As you point out, this is a co-optation move, an attempt to stay in front of the dissemination of powerful ideas and technologies, to co-opt the leaderships of the societies that will grow in power and capability and prosperity by adopting them. They want to make sure the clerisy populations in other countries and in outgroup communities within the United States all have influential ringknockers they can go to, to pull a string when needed.
I don't think it's guilt that drives them -- it's insecurity.
They realize that there are people in the middle class who are much smarter than them. So how do they make their positions (and their kids positions) more secure against competition from middle-class kids who may try to displace or supplant them?
Step one is to cripple the public school system, so that the smartest kids are never really educated to their full potential.
Step two is to create a maze of rules and regulations, so that it is harder to become wealthy if you are not connected into the network of people who understand the complexities, know all the loopholes, and have long-term relationships with the politicians who have the power to create exemptions to the rules, in exchange for a return favor at a later date.
Step three is affirmative action -- create a class of people dependent on the continuation of the big-government system that the upper class controls so well.
The new upper class are the people who deposited all of our tax dollars via the bailout into their bank accounts. That’s why we are angry at them. “Hank” didn’t get millions of dollars in bailout money. That’s the difference. Hank isn’t a self-entitled, manipulative, greedy a$$hole.
The people I despise are government bureaucrats who are living like kings off their fellow citizens.
I suspect that many of the rioting "anarchist" young people are the children of government bureaucrats who are still dependent upon their parents and had ideas of joining the governmental ruling elite. They are now VERY upset at the idea of having to reduce government spending (and thus government power).