Whatever personality traits there might be in common between rich people, it’s worth bearing in mind the different potential causal relations there. Does being a certain kind of person make you rich, or does being rich make you a certain kind of person? — Pfhorrest

When discussing concentrations of wealth and power (.001%), there's very probably an interaction. Once you're part of the club, you've had to have internalized certain beliefs and values - mainly about capitalism and politics. That's what the scholarship seems to suggest.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point. — Xtrix

Can you support that statement with evidence? I mean it’s not a fabrication is it?

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point. — Xtrix

It’s odd that someone as smart as you would think the effect is behind the cause.

So someone is given a pile of cash and then they become more extroverted, and then they become conscientious, and then they become emotionally stable, and then they become more self centred.

No wonder you want to give their money to others, look what it achieves.

it’s not being the way that they are that made them rich, but being rich that made them the way that they are. — Pfhorrest

So you disagree with my “supporting evidence”? — Brett

The two bits you posted look like they're suggesting two things:

- one, that entrepreneurs have certain personality traits

- and two, that people who have plenty of money still have motivation to do things for reasons other than to earn more money.

I believe both of those conclusions, without even reading the evidence in detail; they just sound clearly plausible to me.

Other things that need to be accounted for alongside those facts, however (and if you're not disputing these, that's great, I just think they need stating for full context):

- Nowhere close to all entrepreneurs, even those who have those personality traits, go on to become self-made millionaires, and nowhere near all millionaires (never mind the billionaires who are the real topic of the OP) are self-made. Having those personality traits may be a necessary condition of entrepreneurship (at least in our present system), and entrepreneurship may be a necessary condition of being a self-made millionaire (at least in our present system), but being self-made is not a necessary condition of being a millionaire; and even more to the point, having those personality traits is not a sufficient condition for being an entrepreneur, nor is entrepreneurship a sufficient condition for being a self-made (m|b)illionaire.

- All people have motives to do things besides just for money. It's just that for many people, their material needs, which they require money to fulfill, are so threatened that they need to focus largely on that priority. It's having that priority already taken care of that allows the ultra-wealthy to prioritize other things instead. Which is in keeping with my post you're replying to.

So someone is given a pile of cash and then they become more extroverted, and then they become conscientious, and then they become emotionally stable, and then they become more self centred. — Brett

It's not necessarily just giving someone a pile of cash that does this, but having a long history of wealth (especially during early developmental years) that can. It's easier to be emotionally stable when your life is materially stable. It's easier to be conscientious when you're emotionally stable. It's easier to be self-centered when you're at the top of the social pyramid and everyone treats you like you're better than other people. And it's easier to be extroverted when all your interactions with other people are always full of praise like that.

But dumping a pile of cash on someone who's already spent their entire life being jerked around and treated like shit probably isn't going to miraculously make them think and act like someone who grew up wealthy, no.

but being self-made is not a necessary condition of being a millionaire; — Pfhorrest

Quite so. Many people fall along the way, their dreams in ashes. Nor am I suggesting that the wealthy are innocent or that there are people who don’t inherit wealth (however, bear in mind that someone made it from scratch at some time).
What I’m saying is that if you want to change things then you need to know who your up against. It’s no good just saying they’re parasites or sociopaths, demonising them to justify your dislike.

It's easier to be emotionally stable when your life is materially stable. — Pfhorrest

I’d agree with that too. But if you read about the early life of Larry Ellison and Sheldon Adelson for instance you’ll see that’s not always the case. What I’m trying to get across is I don’t think you can generalise about these people.

But dumping a pile of cash on someone who's already spent their entire life being jerked around and treated like shit probably isn't going to miraculously make them think and act like someone who grew up wealthy, no. — Pfhorrest

No it’s not. I would suspect that even though some of these people came from hard backgrounds they came from supportive families. And I know a sharing of wealth could change that. But calling the wealthy parasites and sociopaths, threatening to take their wealth from them and refusing to consider just who they are certainly won’t.

someone made it from scratch at some time — Brett

The people who made it from scratch were the workers. Andrew Carnegie didn't make so much as a pound of steel himself.

Why did workers agree to be employed by Carnegie? Because they needed work in order to earn money to live. Didn't Carnegie create the steel mills? Again, workers built the mills -- not Andrew Carnegie.

What Carnegie did was negotiate with investors and bankers to raise the capital to buy raw material. He directed the company on the macro-scale; more of his employees did the micro-managing of day-to-day production.

The pay the workers received for the millions of tons of steel they manufactured was significantly less than Carnegie's expenses. Carnegie walked away with the difference (an enormous fortune).

What goes on in a capitalist economy is exploitation and extraction of surplus value (the difference between the cost of the workers labor and the profit derived from the workers labor), It's not accidental; capitalism, and the legal systems of capitalist countries, is designed to enforce that system.

What goes on in a capitalist economy is exploitation and extraction of surplus value (the difference between the cost of the workers labor and the profit derived from the workers labor), It's not accidental; capitalism, and the legal systems of capitalist countries, is designed to enforce that system. — Bitter Crank

I’m aware of this. But the builders did not make it from scratch. Carnegie took the risk of borrowing to begin his venture. There was nothing before that, no steel, no jobs. Of course the workers built the mills and made the steel, and of course he paid them the minimum he could. Who’s denying this? Once again I’m not saying these people are right, I’m trying to determine who they are. I don’t know why this is so difficult.

Regardless of how the money was made, that which might be inherited by a lucky member of the elite was created from scratch by someone before him/her.

When discussing concentrations of wealth and power (.001%), there's very probably an interaction. Once you're part of the club, you've had to have internalized certain beliefs and values - mainly about capitalism and politics. That's what the scholarship seems to suggest.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point. — Xtrix

Lets see the scholarship then. I'd be interested.

$100MM net worth seems a fair cut off level here. At this level you have people from entertainment, some professional athletes, but I'd imagine the majority comes from business. While I wouldn't expect them to be Marxists, I would still expect a decent chunk of them to be Democrats, but who knows - lets bring in the studies if you have them.

As a general rule I'd expect the elite of any society to be on balance a little more interested in preserving the status quo. There are still a number of individuals at this level of wealth who'd be described as Democrats. But yeah, obviously not too many of them are talking about "abolishing billionaires" but you do see supporters of higher taxes, stronger safety nets and strong environmental regulation.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point.
— Xtrix

Can you support that statement with evidence? I mean it’s not a fabrication is it? — Brett

Rather than being sarcastic, you might have simply asked for the scholarship I was referring to in the preceding sentence, which you politely left out:

That's what the scholarship seems to suggest. — Xtrix

Incidentally, I fail to remember you referring to anything of the sort in your initial contribution to this thread. And yes, until you have checked my sources and been convinced by it yourself, you might consider an assertions of mine with the appropriate skepticism.

So someone is given a pile of cash and then they become more extroverted, and then they become conscientious, and then they become emotionally stable, and then they become more self centred. — Brett

Who are you arguing against? Certainly not I; I said none of those things.

- Nowhere close to all entrepreneurs, even those who have those personality traits, go on to become self-made millionaires, and nowhere near all millionaires (never mind the billionaires who are the real topic of the OP) are self-made. Having those personality traits may be a necessary condition of entrepreneurship (at least in our present system), and entrepreneurship may be a necessary condition of being a self-made millionaire (at least in our present system), but being self-made is not a necessary condition of being a millionaire; and even more to the point, having those personality traits is not a sufficient condition for being an entrepreneur, nor is entrepreneurship a sufficient condition for being a self-made (m|b)illionaire. — Pfhorrest

Well done. Logic at it's finest.

It's having that priority already taken care of that allows the ultra-wealthy to prioritize other things instead. — Pfhorrest

A very important point.

What goes on in a capitalist economy is exploitation and extraction of surplus value (the difference between the cost of the workers labor and the profit derived from the workers labor), It's not accidental; capitalism, and the legal systems of capitalist countries, is designed to enforce that system. — Bitter Crank

This goes to the heart of it.

So circling back to rephrase my original question: what are the people like who have benefited most from such a system?

Immortal Technique defined them in lyrical form.

"I got a job and house and a bank account
When I'm out, I doubt that's something you could say
And if not then I fake death like Kenneth Lay
Make money every day the world burns on its axis
While y'all struggling to pay taxes
I'm getting my money the fastest
Memos and faxes shredded-up documents
Slush funds through the corrupt continents

But they don't want me indicted
'Cause they don't want my dirty laundry aired when I fight it
Don't get my lawyers excited
'Cause what good is a law if you can't rewrite it

I got CIA traders, dictators
So fuck y'all whistle blowers and haters

I'll invest money from Al Qaeda
In the bank 911 widows go to later
Capitalism's who I pray to
Fuck the state of the world
Money talks so what the fuck I need to say to ya girl."

https://youtu.be/Pc985fd3uLE

If we think of the capitalist system as a game, then all of us are playing this game without knowing always knowing its structure and rules. We see it all around us; we live in it. But as in any power system, political or economic or whatever, those in particular who are not in power should oblige themselves to ask at least two questions:

a) What is the nature and rules of this system? (How does it work.)
b) Is it a just system? (Is it legitimate.)

I think you'll often find that those who benefit from system x will be much more likely, on average, to defend x and more often have the intellectual ability to do so; after all, those of privilege and power have access to higher quality educators (recall Aristotle and Alexander) and generally are in close alliance with other noble ranks, like the clergy and the intelligentsia.

In other words, they know very well the answers to the first question. Since they're also beneficiaries, they find sophistical, complicated ways of answering b) in the affirmative. All the while professing enlightenment or Christian ideals.

These apologetics have always been fairly successful, but it's truly amazing that in today's society you'll find millions of little apologists all around you, even and especially amongst the lowest income levels. This shows just how effective the propaganda has been, almost to 1984 levels.

Even better, the academics who justify the system are caught in an even more hyper competitive loop than the general populace. Publish or perish. I had dinner with a professor who specialized in terrorism research, mostly game theory modeling, and he explained to me how the pay and prestige for academics most closely reflects street gangs. Lots of adjuncts living near the poverty line, a very few people at the top getting prestige and huge economic benefits.

I had the occasion to test this theory asking an adjunct while working at Duke, which is one of the 10 most selective schools in the US. The salary for a full teaching load worked out to $18 an hour. You basically gambled on the name getting you future work.

I loved teaching college courses, but the grind is why a PhD never interested me.

I figure depending on whether or not I stay in my field, I could still teach in retirement. Practical experience is counting more for instructors. One of the best professors I ever had only had a BA, but had been a city manager for larger cities for decades and had a wealth of knowledge.

Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are.

The 1% is not the “masters of the universe” because they do not possess the monopoly on violence. They are private citizens and are beholden to the same laws and penalties. You are more likely to lose your property or be thrown in jail by some mediocre bureaucrat than Elon Musk.

An important point to be sure. It explains why some elites prefer extractive systems. More open markets and political systems tend to produce wealthier economies. You can grow the pie, rather than taking a bigger piece. However, those at the top benefit from systems that allow them to take a larger piece, even if they stunt their nations' economies.

Take for example Gaddafi. When he died, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates were the "richest men on Earth," with around $40B. Gaddafi's personal wealth was estimated at over $200B. It pays to loot a nation. Bill Gates can't have people who displease him imprisoned or killed. He can't notice a cute girl on the street and send her an invitation she can't refuse to join him on a date. So, there is an incentive for leadership to undermine systems that promote fairness and more wealth overall.

What Thomas Piketty and others have shown, is that this move towards consolidation of privileges happens pretty inexorably in modern societies unless violence forces concessions.

Billionaires can't have you killed in the US, but there are myriad examples of them financially ruining people with law suits.

Child sex crimes are considered pretty much the most heinous thing you can do in our culture and Jeffery Epstein was allowed to make a plea covering many cases and be sent to "prison," where he was allowed to leave every day, only had to sleep there, and had his own meals sent to him. Of that's not an indictment, IDK what is.

Regardless of how the money was made, that which might be inherited by a lucky member of the elite was created from scratch by someone before him/her. — Brett

I read somewhere that most of the gold that was ever mined -- going back 3000 years -- is still in circulation. I don't know whether that is true, but it illustrates an important point: Wealth is cumulative.

The undifferentiated wealth sloshing around in the trough in 2020 has a history. You can trace the development of wealth backwards to sometime in the medieval period, probably not much before then. There are, for instance, a few companies in the world that have been in continuous existence since 1200. Some of the wealth in England goes back to grants that William the Conqueror (aka William the Bastard) made after he won the battle of Hastings in 1066. Some of the valuable land in New York City is owned by descendants of Dutch settlers before New Amsterdam became New York. Land is the original wealth. From land one can extract rent, food and fiber (like wheat and wool). England accumulated a wad of wealth by exporting fine wool to manufacturers on the continent. Later, it was coal and iron. The reason the British claimed North America was to have the land from which to extract wealth. The Germans wanted Lebensraum, and came close to getting most of Europe. Land is wealth. Nations are willing to go way out of their way to get it.

Over time, starting in the late 1700s the first industrial revolution starting up, and more wealth was created. Families who owned industrial works of various kinds became rich; their wealth was passed on in the form of investments and inheritances. Of course, sometimes big piles of wealth were lost -- someone took the land away from you; the factory burned down; one's valuable ship sank; one died without heirs, war ruined the country, and so on. But a lot of wealth moved on to other people.

The secrets of technology are another source of wealth. The British tried to hold on to the secrets of manufacturing, but as luck would have it, they failed. Americans swiped several important secrets and started up manufacturing in New England -- the beginning of the American textile fortunes.

The southern economy was devastated by the Civil War, and it took roughly a century for the southern states to recover fully. The north was enriched by the same war, and the fortunes earned (by banks, mills, railroads, farms, etc.) established a springboard to greater wealth. Metal and railroads were the leading industries after the Civil War. Andrew Carnegie was started working in 1848 at the age of 13--no huge credit to AC. Children usually were put to work early on.

Carnegie's first good job was with the Pennsylvania Railroad. He made enough money to invest in various industries and accumulated his first fortune. He started his investing about the time the civil war started. This was a period of huge growth in northern industries, and his (probably small) investments paid off hugely.

Carnegie had some money at just the right time. Had he first tried to invest shortly before the 'long depression' of 1873 which lasted 5 to 20 years, depending how one measures economic activity, he might have lost his nest egg and had difficulty recouping. Similarly, many of the people who lost a lost of wealth in 1929 didn't recover until WWII spurred huge government spending.

I’m trying to determine who they are. I don’t know why this is so difficult. — Brett

The reason you are having so much difficulty answering the "who they are" question is that you are asking the question on a philosophy forum. What you will have to do is read history. Fortunately, that is not a dreary task. There are numerous interesting books which specifically or generally cover the question of HOW and WHO accumulated wealth from the getgo down to the present.

I am confident that you greatly exceed the necessary capacity to locate good, interesting, and economically oriented histories and read them. THEN you will know who it was that got rich and how.

The 1% is not the “masters of the universe” because they do not possess the monopoly on violence. They are private citizens and are beholden to the same laws and penalties. — NOS4A2

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. To say they're subjected to the "same laws and penalties" as anyone else is naive. Yes, according to cypto-neoliberals like you, "government is the problem," and so it's no surprise that you want to divert the focus to "bureaucrats." Very typical.

The reason you are having so much difficulty answering the "who they are" question is that you are asking the question on a philosophy forum. What you will have to do is read history. — Bitter Crank

I’m asking the same question Xtrix asked.

I think it's often forgotten that behind major corporations there are real people making the major decisions, with real thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and values. Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

I am confident that you greatly exceed the necessary capacity to locate good, interesting, and economically oriented histories and read them. THEN you will know who it was that got rich and how. — Bitter Crank

And that is not the question.

And yes, until you have checked my sources and been convinced by it yourself, you might consider an assertions of mine with the appropriate skepticism. — Xtrix

You haven’t supplied any.

o someone is given a pile of cash and then they become more extroverted, and then they become conscientious, and then they become emotionally stable, and then they become more self centred.
— Brett

Who are you arguing against? Certainly not I; I said none of those things. — Xtrix

Purposely obtuse. That was in relation to my thoughts that you were putting the effect before the cause, that money makes these people what they are instead of the other way around.

That's what the scholarship seems to suggest.
— Xtrix

Incidentally, I fail to remember you referring to anything of the sort in your initial contribution to this thread. — Xtrix

I have now. Care to respond?

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. T — Xtrix

Care to back that up, or is “essentially” your get out of jail card?

That was in relation to my thoughts that you were putting the effect before the cause, that money makes these people what they are instead of the other way around. — Brett

You earlier seemed to agree with my elaboration upon that thought: that it's growing up with wealth that shapes people's personalities, even if dumping wealth suddenly on an adult won't suddenly change their personality. And with my response about necessity and sufficiency regarding the entrepreneurial personality and actually attaining wealth from poverty.

Those two things together are pretty much the same point Xtrix is making. Wealthy people are the kinds of people they are because having (a history of) wealth makes people like that; while being like that is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being wealthy.

I’m trying to determine who they are — Brett

And that is not the question. — Brett

OK, then what is your question? Who are the "who" you want to identify?

Who are the "who" you want to identify? — Bitter Crank

I don’t know. Ask Xtrix, it was his question.

You earlier seemed to agree with my elaboration upon that thought: — Pfhorrest

This all beginning to get a bit messy so I’ll need to go back over our posts.

it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

Brett denies being interested in the question "who they are"; he says it is your question. I've attempted to address what I thought was Brett's question, either who they are or how one could find out.

Here's my last attempt to explain it:

I read somewhere that most of the gold that was ever mined -- going back 3000 years -- is still in circulation. I don't know whether that is true, but it illustrates an important point: Wealth is cumulative.

The undifferentiated wealth sloshing around in the trough in 2020 has a history. You can trace the development of wealth backwards to sometime in the medieval period, probably not much before then. There are, for instance, a few companies in the world that have been in continuous existence since 1200. Some of the wealth in England goes back to grants that William the Conqueror (aka William the Bastard) made after he won the battle of Hastings in 1066. Some of the valuable land in New York City is owned by descendants of Dutch settlers before New Amsterdam became New York. Land is the original wealth. From land one can extract rent, food and fiber (like wheat and wool). England accumulated a wad of wealth by exporting fine wool to manufacturers on the continent. Later, it was coal and iron. The reason the British claimed North America was to have the land from which to extract wealth. The Germans wanted Lebensraum, and came close to getting most of Europe. Land is wealth. Nations are willing to go way out of their way to get it.

Over time, starting in the late 1700s the first industrial revolution starting up, and more wealth was created. Families who owned industrial works of various kinds became rich; their wealth was passed on in the form of investments and inheritances. Of course, sometimes big piles of wealth were lost -- someone took the land away from you; the factory burned down; one's valuable ship sank; one died without heirs, war ruined the country, and so on. But a lot of wealth moved on to other people.

The secrets of technology are another source of wealth. The British tried to hold on to the secrets of manufacturing, but as luck would have it, they failed. Americans swiped several important secrets and started up manufacturing in New England -- the beginning of the American textile fortunes.

The southern economy was devastated by the Civil War, and it took roughly a century for the southern states to recover fully. The north was enriched by the same war, and the fortunes earned (by banks, mills, railroads, farms, etc.) established a springboard to greater wealth. Metal and railroads were the leading industries after the Civil War. Andrew Carnegie was started working in 1848 at the age of 13--no huge credit to AC. Children usually were put to work early on.

Carnegie's first good job was with the Pennsylvania Railroad. He made enough money to invest in various industries and accumulated his first fortune. He started his investing about the time the civil war started. This was a period of huge growth in northern industries, and his (probably small) investments paid off hugely.

Carnegie had some money at just the right time. Had he first tried to invest shortly before the 'long depression' of 1873 which lasted 5 to 20 years, depending how one measures economic activity, he might have lost his nest egg and had difficulty recouping. Similarly, many of the people who lost a lost of wealth in 1929 didn't recover until WWII spurred huge government spending.

I’m trying to determine who they are. I don’t know why this is so difficult.
— Brett

The reason you are having so much difficulty answering the "who they are" question is that you are asking the question on a philosophy forum. What you will have to do is read history. Fortunately, that is not a dreary task. There are numerous interesting books which specifically or generally cover the question of HOW and WHO accumulated wealth from the getgo down to the present.

I am confident that you greatly exceed the necessary capacity to locate good, interesting, and economically oriented histories and read them. THEN you will know who it was that got rich and how.