Fw: Furtther observation and questions about the FORBES 400

While "rober baron" is a handy label for the financial elite, there appears
to be a more pressing question:  What do these people contribute and/or
detract from the globalizing  world system?

This is a multi-dimensional question that regards economic and social
benefits or harm of their activities, not so much in the framework of the
short-term capitalists pragmatics, but rather in the sustainable altruistic
long-term outcomes.  Another way to ask is:  How fit are these people to be
super-wealthy in terms of the larger social good?

Possibly it is being done already, but I think it would be of value to
publish a response to the various Forbes listings that document the harm
and/or good of this elite club that controls so much wealth and thus social
process.  While the assumption might be that the "rober barons" can only
create bad social outcomes, I think it would be edifying understand the deep
structure systemic implications, which are likely to reveal more mixed
findings.

Further, I think the Forbes organization and the NY Times should be publicly
flogged for the annual propaganda exercise of uncritically listing these
groups; as it is really an act of social status quo conditioning to "just
accept some people are super rich for whatever reason (off late the
explanations are genetic)."  The mere listing, without an outcome analysis
is journalistically irresponsible and lazy.

Finally, the article stated that a significant percentage of the list did
not have college education.  What are the implications of this?  Ignorance
and narrow knowledge are two of the civilization's oldest problems.
Further, it is predictable that many of the techno-barons have education
that is largely irrelevant to their careers.  What are the implications, for
example, when a non-science degree CEO operates a  high-polluting or
bio-tech business in the developing world?

The favor of your replies is greatly appreciated.

Long live I.F. Stone, who knew the devil was in the details.

Randall Burton



-----Original Message-----
From: Elson E. Boles <facbolese@usao.edu>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 1:16 PM


>The Washington Post article by Phil Galewitz, "Forbes 400 Net Worth Tops $1
>Trillion," is indicative of the robber-baron era, or financial Golden Age
>(see Arrighi, 1995) in which we live.  But for my students reading this
>information, I question the misleading statement that:
>
>"Nearly 40 percent of the list, or 149 members, got rich the easy way: They
>inherited some or all of their wealth. Their average net worth was $2.5
>billion. The 251 members who made it rich on their own had an average net
>worth of $2.7 billion."
>
>This seems to suggest that the 251 who allegedly got rich "on their own"
>started off as poor, or middle class.  I bet further inquiry would show
>that they came from at least upper middle class households, some with
>parents who are alumni of a prestigious university, and that their college
>years were paid by their parents or someone else -- that is, they didn't
>work their way through college.
>
>And maybe it's so elementary it need not be mentioned, but no one accumu
>lates wealth "on their own."  The norms of modern ideology persist.
>
>I think it would be useful to contrast the wealth of the Forbes 400 (and
>the Fortune 500) as a percentage of the world-economy.  This exercise would
>suggest that "core" is becoming less of "place" than a diaspora (though, on
>the other hand, it still holds true that the cadres (labor aristocracy) are
>still concentrated in certain states as a result of the truncation of the
>labor market.)
>
>elson
>
>Elson E. Boles
>Assistant Professor, (historical) Sociology
>University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma
>(405) 224-6717 ex. 243
>facbolese@usao.edu
>elson@azu-boles.net
>
>