Where's the scholarship on this? I'd like to see some evidence. Because it's often claimed, and of course there are examples and thousands of anecdotes, but I have a hunch it's complete nonsense -- at least when talking about what we're discussing here, which is the 1%.
It's a lot like talk about voter fraud -- yes, it happens, but so rarely as to be imperceptible. — Xtrix
I wonder if anyone has read or researched extensively who exactly these people are and if there are trends in their philosophies or religious outlooks. — Xtrix
A great site where you see who actually are the 1% top income by profession can be seen here. — ssu
I didn’t assume that just because of that question, but because of the impression I get from your other posts in this thread.
— Pfhorrest
Like what? — Brett
Your general stance of seeming to think that the super-rich got there by meritocratic means would suggest a likelihood that you don’t believe that there are governmental factors systemically favoring the already-rich, and so that you are probably okay with and support the systemic factors that do in fact favor the already-rich, like the enforcement of contracts of rent and interest. — Pfhorrest
You need to show me instead of telling me.
I’m responding to the OP itself, which is who are the 1%? — Brett
1: They’re very hard workers
2: They’re very good a setting an objective and then making a plan to get there
3: They’re very good at projecting into the future
4: They’re very adaptable
5: Many of them are very innovative
6: They’re very good at choosing people to work with, understanding them, motivating them
7: They inspire people within their circle
8: They have a through understanding of the world they’re operating in
9: They’re very good at networking — Brett
A free market is one in which all trades are uncoerced. — Pfhorrest
I consider certain kinds of contract, including those of rent and interest, to be coercive because rather than just agreeing to owe some capital or labor in exchange for some other capital or labor, they require you reflectively agree to agree to owe more, and not even in exchange for anything more, just in "exchange" for the other party allowing you to keep what they've already given you. It's in the same category as selling oneself into slavery: it's giving up not just a first-order liberty (by taking on an obligation) or claim (by transferring property), but a second-order immunity (from having new obligations placed on oneself, or one's property transferred away from oneself). You can't freely give up your freedom like that; and it's not even really a trade at all, which are entirely on a first-order level. — Pfhorrest
A market with no enforcement of contracts at all would be strictly freer, yes. Though I'm not sure it would be strictly better; I think some contracts are morally justifiable. Some narrow limitations on freedom are better than the alternative: I shouldn't be free to punch you in the face, for example, or to burn down your house (even if nobody's in it). — Pfhorrest
And yeah, not only the Islamic world of the middle ages but much of it today, as well as the Catholic world of the middle ages, have/had strict bans on usury, and I think that's great, except that they had a huge gaping hole: they only cared about money-lending, not any other kind of capital-lending. Renting out housing, for example, is perfectly okay by them. So there are convoluted contracts involving a combination of money lent "interest-free", property rental, and insurance, which replicate the effects of money lending at interest, and circumvent the whole ban, making the whole thing pretty toothless. — Pfhorrest
Personal experience would show you. I can assure you, — Count Timothy von Icarus
That the wealthy don't universally, or even predominantly have the positive traits you ascribed to them. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Certainly, they might embody those traits more on average, but it's probably not a huge difference between the upper middle class and the top 1%. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I would say ambition is more a determing factor than conscientiousness. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The OP is about wealth rather than income.
Income is going to be largely meritocratic and deserved you would hope. But wealth goes to being part of the rentier class.
So apples and oranges. — apokrisis
The OP is actually about who these people are. — Brett
Frugality is an underrated virtue, — Bitter Crank
the 1% aren't self-made but inherit their wealth — apokrisis
All I know is their crap smells the same as ours — Outlander
They are societal parasites. — StreetlightX
Wealth and income are closely related, but maybe not inseparable. — Bitter Crank
I would say ambition is more a determing factor than conscientiousness. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.