Some basic points on the thread 1. For wealth to be "handed down", it must be earned or confiscated first. Mao's widow lived quite well during Mao's life and for a while after his death. Also, if there was no direct way to pass wealth on to offspring, it would be consumed or destroyed by the generation which created it. You may not agree with the choice of the original Kennedys and Rockefellers, but limiting that choice is not without consequence - the wealth will still not end up where you want it, and a great amount will be left uncreated. 2. In a socialist society wealth is confiscated at gunpoint. In a capitalist society, I have to provide something that you want more than your wealth in order to obtain it. Bill Gates has lots of money because people buy Windows. They can have Linux for the price of a download or cheap CD. Are the people who choose to give $100 to Bill Gates evil? Why doesn't Bill Gates give me a copy of Windows 95 if I give $100 to Mother Theresa? Is Bill Gates evil? If Bill Gates received nothing for Windows, how would he pay his employees and manufacturers who develop and package it, or should they be content to be charitable slaves and starve as long as Mother Theresa gets the $100? Linux is "better" and free. Maybe we should dissolve Microsoft and take all it's wealth and give it to the poor and tell everyone to use Linux and stop wasting their wealth. Of course people might object, so we need to bring in the guns and tanks, just like Stalin needed to do to the uncharitable Ukranians. 3. If wealth isn't being transferred, it is most likely because Government has created a monopoly or oligopoly. If I have a better idea for a car, I cannot simply just build one, since any modification to the powertrain has to be certified by the EPA. So if I could get 2 Miles/gallon better mileage without a change in emissions for a $50 modification, I still have to spend over $1 Million satisfying the bureaucracy and generating no profit. The existing auto industries have no incentive to change this because these are sunk costs, and they can keep their oligopoly. 4. When you say wealth isn't being transferred, it is also generally untrue. While someone may be controlling it, their control is usually not to leave it under a matress (which would make my wealth comparatively more valuable). Microsoft has lots of money because the foundations and Nth generation wealthy are putting the funds into stocks and bonds of corporations like Microsoft and government debt. The companies are renting the wealth of others. They wouldn't stay wealthy long if all they engaged in was consumption. In this case, economies of scale work with investment - it takes a fixed amount of analysis to guarantee a greater profit, so $100 will not be invested as efficiently as $100 Million. 5. Government is the least efficient means of resolving the problem. The current welfare system is such that simply transferring the budget of all the programs would make every poor person middle class. Confiscating the wealth of the rich would likely be used employ more people generating endless debates about who to give it to, than actual beneficiaries. You can see this with some class action cases (e.g. asbestos) where the lawyers split up big fees, and the injured plaintiffs get only a token amount. 6. No one has given any reason why the dollar following the 10-millionth has less claim of ownership than the first 10-million. You can dislike the situation, but I would like to hear a *consistent* theory of property rights that holds a sliding scale of claim based on volume. Does the grocer with 200 tomatoes need to give away 20 because a store down the street has only 180? What if the situation is reversed the next day? tz@execpc.com finger tz@execpc.com for PGP key