The big challenge of this new decade will be coping with the emergence of a global plutocracy - the hyper-educated, internationally minded meritocrats who have been the chief beneficiaries of globalisation and the technological revolution. <...> Rightwing intellectuals, who before the crisis tended to deny that income inequality was increasing or argue that it did not matter, are beginning to pay more explicit attention to the issue, too. Jim Manzi, a software entrepreneur and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, worries in a new essay that "if we let inequality and its underlying causes grow unchecked, we will hollow out the middle class - threatening social cohesion and eventually surrendering our international position". One of Mr Manzi's fears is that income inequality has created a social and cultural gap between the highly educated, hard-working elite and everyone else. He compares the personal and family customs of America's new super-rich with those of the old Wasp ascendancy. The genius of that elite was its ability to bring the American dream within reach of nearly everyone. If it hopes to emulate the longevity of America's Wasps, and, more importantly, the political system they created, today's global plutocracy must figure out how to do the same. The writer is the FT's US managing editor
The big challenge of this new decade will be coping with the emergence of a global plutocracy - the hyper-educated, internationally minded meritocrats who have been the chief beneficiaries of globalisation and the technological revolution.
<...>
Rightwing intellectuals, who before the crisis tended to deny that income inequality was increasing or argue that it did not matter, are beginning to pay more explicit attention to the issue, too. Jim Manzi, a software entrepreneur and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, worries in a new essay that "if we let inequality and its underlying causes grow unchecked, we will hollow out the middle class - threatening social cohesion and eventually surrendering our international position".
One of Mr Manzi's fears is that income inequality has created a social and cultural gap between the highly educated, hard-working elite and everyone else. He compares the personal and family customs of America's new super-rich with those of the old Wasp ascendancy. The genius of that elite was its ability to bring the American dream within reach of nearly everyone. If it hopes to emulate the longevity of America's Wasps, and, more importantly, the political system they created, today's global plutocracy must figure out how to do the same.
The writer is the FT's US managing editor
global plutocracy - the hyper-educated, internationally minded meritocrats who have been the chief beneficiaries of globalisation and the technological revolution
This slimeball is trying to deflect anger at the plutocrats towards the educated middle class.
Yup. Just doing his job. It's why they pay him. Beats working for a living. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
"Meritocrat" neither implies "educated" nor "middle class". The meritocratic plutocrats she is talking about are John Paulson, Oprah Winfrey, and "rags-to-riches stories ... from the software centres of Bangalore and the oil fields of Siberia". These are not the "educated middle class"; they are the "super-rich" that she contraposes against "the rest of us":
... between 1997 and 2001, the top 10 per cent of US earners received 49 per cent of the growth in aggregate real wages and salaries, while the top 1 per cent received an astonishing 24 per cent. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 per cent received under 13 per cent, just over half of what went to the top 1 per cent.
This slimeball media hack couldn't be clearer about this distinction when she writes:
We live in an age of unprecedented openness - of ideas, of people, of trade. But for the middle class, these opportunities have been largely theoretical: in America, social mobility has actually declined.
In short, to work at all, your identity --
The Meritocrats are actually Plutocrats?
-- should be reversed:
The Plutocrats are actually Meritocrats? La Chine dorme. Laisse la dormir. Quand la Chine s'éveillera, le monde tremblera.
highly educated, hard-working elite and everyone else
so nobody else is highly educated or hard-working ? This is that puritan "God only rewards the deserving" work ethic thing again, isn't it ? keep to the Fen Causeway
Not quite. First of all, she distinguishes between old wealth -- "Older, established institutions - ranging from the music business to traditional media and Detroit carmakers" and "corporate armies" -- and an emerging "global plutocracy", i.e. a new breed of super-rich. Second, your phrasing implies that business school alumni are not hard-working or self-made, which is false. Finally, I am pretty sure that she would include wealthy heirs in the "Older, established institutions" group rather than the emerging global plutocrats. La Chine dorme. Laisse la dormir. Quand la Chine s'éveillera, le monde tremblera.
Which is a patently absurd distinction, and just the deflection of blame thematised upthread. On one hand, you can't even nicely separate those two: afte all, music business to traditional media and Detroit carmakers took part in the casino capitalism of the last two decades big-time, just think of GE and GM's foray into banking. On the other hand, and more importantly, the "global plutocracy" is mostly players on the financial markets -- and most investment banks are held by the old financial elite. And that elite owned the capital, even if it was young hyper-educated upstart brokers and analysts who did the footwork. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
...and requested, inspired, or even drafted the rule changes and relaxation of oversight... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
It was meant to imply that they are not hyper-educated. A business school certificate is enough to become a CEO. (On the other hand, analysts with background in natural sciences or real university-level economics may well be hyper-educated.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Nope. It is the claim that "the chief beneficiaries of globalisation and the technological revolution" tend to be highly educated and hard-working. But it doesn't mean that others are not highly educated or hard-working.
Furthermore, she criticizes the winner-takes-all trend that is often decried around here as well:
Globalisation and its enabling technologies have had a winner-takes-all effect: the gap between Oprah Winfrey and Chicago's third or fourth best talk show host is far greater than it would have been 40 years ago. Both globalisation and technology have had a punishing impact on those without the intellect, luck, or chutzpah to profit from them: median wages have stagnated as machines and developing world workers have pushed down the value of low-skilled labour in the west.
Both globalisation and technology have had a punishing impact on those without the intellect, luck, or chutzpah to profit from them
Some might call this looting. But that word is SO perjorative. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
