Did you read my essay on the ant, in response to RL’s Space Science post on 3-d nanoprinting? We can’t come close to matching the biochemistry of insect physiology, but our social structures are as complex, and Hayes is one of the few people who can navigate with any confidence in that psychic space.

Thanks again.

And when their parents die, they inherit the family diamond mine, and (if they had their way) pay no taxes on it.

Sure, getting all the breaks up front doesn’t guarantee you’ll come out on top at the end, and starting out in the hole doesn’t mean you can’t claw your way out of it with sheer grit and determination. But a head start is a head start, isn’t it? Statistically, its better that daddy had good genes than you do.

In the real world, cream rises until it sours.

The whole article’s worth reading for its analysis of how The Iron Law of Meritocracy produces institutionalized inequality as those at the top become most adept at consolidating their position at the top. And that of their families:

 At the broader social level, we hope that the talented children of the poor will ascend to positions of power and prestige while the mediocre sons of the wealthy will not be charged with life-and-death decisions. Over time, in other words, society will have mechanisms that act as a sort of pump, constantly ensuring that the talented and hard-working are propelled upward, while the mediocre trickle downward.

Excellent example there of how laissez faire meritocracy enshrines inequality: A major factor that once encouraged the unworthy offspring of the wealthy to “trickle down” was the inheritance tax. No wonder killing it’s been a prime focus of the ultrawealthy through their Republic lackeys these last few decades. Sure it’s a “death tax”, if by death you mean the end of a dynastic lineage of parasites. When the inheritance tax goes down, inequality goes up.

Chris Hayes on TV comes across as a bit of a twit, but his words minus the personality are insightful. The guy’s got it right.