This is a good article and I disagree but in subtle and nuanced ways. For example, say that "overproduction of elites" did lead to the Civil War, well we can look to the FDR years and see that a progressive tax -- that successfully taxed the wealthiest at a rate that dissuaded concentration of wealth beyond a certain level -- actually helped: we made libraries and schools and public infrastructure in the US.

So while having too many "elites" (by which I assume "wealthy people" is meant), we have a storm brewing. Whether that storm rains daggers or flowers depends. More "elites" does not always result in more "political instability" or "declining living standards of the general population." Of course, this is often the case in almost every nation especially ones with concentrations of power AND concentrations of wealth.

A beautiful aspect of America is that power and wealth are not so tightly coupled as in other places. When the populous is educated and informed with quality information and ethics, we end up having power that is often at-odds with the aims of the wealthy who aim to preserve their wealth at the expense of the greater good, be it human education, or environmental protection and preservation, and matters of that ilk.

So while I do agree that "overproduction of elites" can be problematic, I do not agree that this is a uniquely American problem or issue. Rather, I contend that America, with our innovative and novel system (in the span of historical political apparati) is in the best position to combat this parasitical relationship the wealthiest of people can have on the majority of citizens. Other systems, such as communist systems or monarchical systems, are not as fortunate.

Also "money number go up" is -- as a sole motivator -- problematic. But this flippant verbiage dropped with much aplomb is not representative of the difficulties in merely surviving and having enough resources to do so. We, in this modern age, still indoctrinate our offspring and ourselves with a scarcity mindset, and while much of this brain power that goes from "physics to quants" would be better spent defeating scarcity, I find it peculiar that you did not offer up your own income or savings to fund such research and therefore offer to sustain those who are seeking sustenance through said career shift. Emblematic of the problem, I suppose.