Wealth as value

An earlier post mentioned the old saw about how 'smart' needs to be rich to prove itself. Well, 'is that so?' is a retort alluding to various topics related to truth that we'll have to address, eventually.

A recent weekend article in the Wall Street Journal describe the work of the rich man's Moore (as in Michael and, namely Jamie Johnson). Johnson uses 'aristocrat' to describe a growing class of the 'silver-spooned' which one could argue is the result of a meritocracy (assuming no malfeasance or barely legal gaming) rewarding aptitude and attitude yet one keeps going back to those who claim 'divine right' and more.

Johnson's work looks not only at inter-generational wealth but at the growing gap between the upper 1% (actually, it's a much smaller number) and the rest; these issues are very much part of discussions about sustainability.

One can argue that aptitude has value due to its potential to fruit; some attitudes have value (many don't); yet, somehow we need to grapple with the notion of things-in-themselves where even intrinsics might come into play.

Remarks:

10/13/2011 -- It is our economy.

01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.

08/01/2008 -- Actually, we have the perfect domain for discussing this issue which covers a gamut in its roles and is of phenomenal importance, namely money and what it can represent, as well as how it ought to do its representation. Especially is this so in that the modern financial realm has been engineered to the max with outcomes that are obviously apparent in their undesirability.

06/12/2008 -- It's interesting to turn this around.

Modified: 10/13/2011