Here again, I am forced to side with Lark. The same dynamic that Carnegie was so worried about is coming true. Initially, Feudalism was a very successful system, as it rose commoners to the level of lords and nobles, sometimes even kings. The likes of William the Conqueror and Edward the Long Shanks were potent, efficient individuals, and those that served them were highly competant. The naturally nepotistic system that subsequently developed, however, was far less efficient. Thus, we have people inheriting position and power in 18th century France that are wholely unsuited to the task of rulership.
So also capitalism. The first wave of businessmen are frequently self-made men, driven and highly intelligent. Their children are something else entirely. This sort of thing is terribly destructive, as the closing of a business enterprise leaves many people out of work, and getting back into the labor force frequently is a nepotistic enterprise in its own right.
This sort of thing is a persistent problem, and although not a reason to abolish capitalism, is certainly an issue that ought to be addressed, rather than simply ignored as a fact too uncomfortable to consider.
Likewise, those who possess great wealth frequently decide to interfere in affairs of state, usually in a bumbling and decidedly amateurish fashion. Thus, Ted Turner dabbles both in yachting and competitive power politics, and Perot makes a spectacle of himself in an attempt to quash NAFTA. Were McDonald's to use lobbyists and campaign funding to influence health regulations, one might be sensible to show just a bit of concern (It has happened - not with McDonald's, but with Tyson Foods. Mr. Tyson was something of a kingmaker in Arkansas, as witness Clinton. A rather nasty grease fire killed scores of Tyson workers, in a plant whose code violations were "overlooked" by a friendly state administration).
Hardly a call to arms. I would prefer some rational responses this time, please.