I don't know many people in Silicon Valley but I know a lot of rich people. They definitely have a lack of compunction and some use confidence games to scam and exploit people.
I am not suggesting they are all bad but 90% act like my friends who live in trailers in the Midwest on welfare.
Human nature doesn't care about privilege. I believe education fails to teach critical thinking and tools to face adversity. And this creates situations where rich people lie, or honest investment bankers launder drug money. Or doctors overprescribe drugs, surgeons do unnecessary surgies and rich men exploit young girls. But they all self-rationalize their decisions and never think they are part of the problem. Arrogance, incompetence, greed, stupidity, etc.
There are a ton of successful incompetent people.
In general, I agree with you that it is the individual's job to transcend these challenges but it is ignorant politicians and lazy wealthy and influential people who sustain a system that has so much friction, so much chaos and so many challenges to overcome to get a fraction of what the alleged "elite" get.
My point is, for the most part there is nothing elite about the 1%. There is no secret group controlling the world. If we want to change things, we can.
This was the original point of the game, originally named "The landlords game" and later renamed "Monopoly".
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-h...
The alternative game to ur-Monopoly, that is "Prosperity", had all rents split up when a player landed on a square. The property owner got a rent payment that reflected the value of the houses/hotels, whereas the rent on the land itself was paid to a common fund.[1]
[1] http://landlordsgame.info/games/lgp-1932/lgp-1932_rules.html
What a silly saying. Of course, if you redistribute all the MONEY to everyone, but leave all the means of production in the hands of a few, it's easy to predict that those few would be the ones rich again in 2 or 3 years.
I don't understand what it means 'to take advantage of someone else' in the context of this thread.
Is Starbucks taking advantage of me when I want a coffee by selling me a coffee?
Is Elton John taking advantage of my desire to see him play live at my party and the fact that there is only one of him by charging me a million dollars to appear?
Are the bus companies taking advantage of my need to get to work when they sell me a ticket?
I don't get where normal economic transactions and supply and demand becoming 'taking advantage' or 'exploitation'.
Some transactions leave one side even worse off, but they execute due to ignorance, stupidity, or force. Those are obviously exploitative.
The most obvious form comes from the good old (bs) saying that 'the real price is what the buyer is ready to pay' (feel free to correct me here as to actual form of that).
Hiking up price to a drug (the shkreli story) would be an exploitation and not a 'normal economic transaction'.
So would be buying time of some poor workers in China for a dime. And then selling what they make on a 10x margin and pocketing it. There's nothing economic about that, its plain old theft (or deceit, whatever you want to call it).
There are more subtle forms, like apple spreading bs about their products being 'the best' and them having a 'vision' and then some uninformed fella buying stuff they make when its sometimes twice the price for objectively comparative product. Like always the devil is in the details.
This is all highly endorsed by the 'greed is good' model and it won't stop until we denounce it. No amount of government regulations can change it, snakes will always find a way. It's all in people's heads.
The real problem are systems where rich people doen't have to buy so much taxes of automated productions or property.
People tend to get seriously up in arms about renting, when in reality it's not nearly as bad a deal as they make it out to be. A lot of times it can be a better financial choice than owning.
Some food for thought: http://jlcollinsnh.com/2012/02/23/rent-v-owning-your-home-op...
Yes, knowledge of social class issues (who you know and how to act to get people with money to trust you) can itself be used to make money, in the right environment.
It doesn't mean that educating everyone to behave like the upper classes makes sense. Those skills may not actually work for people who don't look the part or don't have the connections. To the extent that they're adaptive rather than arbitrary class indicators, they might actually be dangerous for someone living in a different environment.
If you dropped them in Africa, yes they would have a harder time. But as a whole, probably get rich again.
Take Edison, for example. He made himself a fortune by figuring out how to take a glass bottle and add a bamboo filament, and sell a light bulb.
http://www.amazon.com/Edison-Biography-Matthew-Josephson/dp/...
You'll be astonished. There's never been anyone else remotely as prolific an inventor.
He pretty much invented the electric power industry. The value of that is almost incalculable. It's hard to see how that is "extractive".
Could you name who you consider a real inventor?