I totally agree that the ambiguity you described is an issue. It's unfortunate that common political parlance isn't in a habit of defining its terms as a step 1a before proceeding in a discussion.
old money
| Was the wealth created?
nouveau riche
| Or was it taken at the expense of others?
plutocrat/oligarch
No, it doesn't. Justifying the choice is good after it turns out good as some sort of moral strategy. The choice (of how to use absurd wealth) is now subject to not-society. So any benefit is accidental, at best. It can easily be lit on fire and that is just as bad because society gets no say in it.
From my reading of [1], the Polio Vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinese-philanthro...
>Take a look at the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. About half the people on the list are entrepreneurs whose companies did very well (thanks to hard work as well as a lot of luck). Contrary to Piketty’s rentier hypothesis, I don’t see anyone on the list whose ancestors bought a great parcel of land in 1780 and have been accumulating family wealth by collecting rents ever since. In America, that old money is long gone—through instability, inflation, taxes, philanthropy, and spending.
This is exactly why I don't buy the "rentier class" argument. Even the mega-wealthy families of the robber-baron era are not that well represented in these lists.
The other take on the wealth that is rarely discussed is the incentive that the ability to secure the lives of ones offspring provides - it is a very powerful drive. I suspect a large number of very talented individuals would accelerate their retirement if they were not able to pass their wealth on to their kids.
While I heavily rely on my skills/labor for income, even I would make very different choices if I had no hope of passing on at least something. Fair or not, it's a pretty primal instinct.
I in fact personally know a family that still owns land they somehow acquired in the 1700s. But they're not the billionaires or hundred millionaires that roam todays capitalistic system.
They're.. well off? I would call it FU money, but given they (sort of) have to pass it down the generations for forever, they definitely spend a lot less of it and enjoy it less.
May be because bulk of that wealth is locked in Trusts. And passed on through Trusts.
The Bezos, Zuckerberg's and Gates will leave behind Trusts which their descendants will inherit. You won't find their names in the richest person list in the next few decades. Their descendants will almost be as rich as the richest guy of their times. They will just be rich through a proxy.
I've actually had "you probably have a trust fund" thrown at me in college because I drove a sports car, but I worked 3 jobs to afford it and pay for education/rent/etc, so apologies if I'm overly skeptical about the trust fund claim.
Just of the top of my head for frozen water that falls from the sky: snow, sleet, powder, crusty, ice, slush, hail, wet, thick, dusting, etc...
And for wealth : cash, money, asset, value, income, revenue, etc