: What I was saying is that the management function is a vital part of the wealth creation process. We, I think, are agreeing.
Only within a system of divivision of Labour, but yes, its vital, but not valorizing- anotehr way of looking at it is that women's work in the home (traditionally) was vital to teh production process, but was not valorizing.
: I believe I do, except I think we are perceiving different 'parasites' in dynanic and different in number. For instance, I would not place a strategic manager as a parasite simply because of his 'high' level in an organisation. I might place a rich heir (especially a landed gentry) as a parasite, but I do not perceive them to be as dangerous or damaging as you do. Nor can I see how 'bringing down' rich heirs would lend society stability (consider how this would change the behaviour of parents wishing to leacve their children a helpful foot up)
Well, its not a matter of brining them down, so much as redesigning the system so that instead of being geared entiurely towards their needs, it can be geared towards the needs of everyone. The incentive then is to hand down something to society as a whole.
: Except that the profitable firm will be one that is successful in fulfilling consumer demands
:- allocating resource to where those able to participate in the market (i would not pretend that some are excluded) want it. Hardly a sweatyy job, but it is one that requires skill, or you buy the skill via an agent as you would buy a mechanics skill.
Exactly, no work involved, and thus no return is earned- and the skill is negligable often enough, you look for a firm thats making profits and looks steady or reliable. Certainly less skill than a welder.
: They are, assuming the 'vital piece of work' is something requiring no skill then the same work can be offered to any.
Exactly, but he is not getting the value of his produce.
: Someone who has been saving in a private pension and decides to retire and live of the returns, giving him/her the opportunity to pursue other interests.
Only works for a tiny few, but most of that is earned wealth.
: I do think rich heirs got a lucky start, but I dont fidnt hem gulty of being rich, just a little pathetic in their conduct and application of said wealth on occasion - but that can only be my opinion.
Runs somewhat counter to the entrepeurial spirit (some rich folks refuse, famously, I forget who) to give their children money- let them go off make their own way...
: I would be interesting what point a small investor would become suitable for the title of 'capitalist', at what worth it cuts in if the principle intent of the millionaire and thousandaire investor are the same. When does a poor small garage owner who becomes gradually more succesful become a capitalist? Even if his 'employees' are all self employed contractors for instance.
Well, at the point at which he can stop working himself, and at the point where he is no longer investing to meet his own personal expenses (house, food, etc.) but investing to just make more money, and accumulate it.
: That large amounts of inherited wealth can be traced to nasty happenings cannot lay responsibility upon the current generation of inheritors without invoking original sin, nor can money earned honestly by trading value for value and saved over generations be practically seperated as being morally 'ok', even though it is.
No, but what it does show is that the myth of entrenepreuneurial capitalism is largely that, that modern capitalism was not built on quick wits and thrift and acunmen, but rather on sharking and brutality.