Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (1597)	6/10/2007 8:48:04 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Well, we do completely disagree. I see the major problem with the "2'nd son" being a winner take all issue. It is completely irrelevant how the winner is selected. The problem is that the loser is shut out. The "2'nd son" problem disappears if both are allowed to achieve. If both are allowed to compete evenly, then both may succeed - perhaps at somebody else's expense - or both may fail. It's not a winner-take-all competition for their father's patrimony. The more important question is do they think it was their own fault if they don't succeed (the American response) or do they have a class to scapegoat? Given the rise of fortunes in the tech age, which are mostly new fortunes, it is hard to believe that anyone would doubt mobility. I guess you haven't read any NYT editorials for the last twenty-five years or so. They never admit the possibility of mobility. Certainly a winner-take-all marketplace taken to extremes would create a bunch of problems. But we haven't got that.