thoughts on elites

[Dan '82]

I'm working on more thoughts about but I wanted to get this tweet out; I've been thinking a lot about different types elites and the competition between them and how it effects politics.

It’s late but I had trouble sleeping I’m sure there are uncorrected typos and I apologize for them.


By elites I’m referring to not just the top 1% but probably more like the 25-35%, I’m actually talking about what could be referred to as both the elites and the gentry.

In Boomer dominated America (meaning post 1980 and especially post 1990) the divide central divide in American politics has been between the bureaucratic and cultural/creative elites on the Democratic side and the economic elites on the Republican side.  The petite bourgeoisie has been overwhelmingly republican while people who identify culturally with the creative elites have been overwhelmingly Democratic* racial minorities have been democratic leaning to strongly democrat regardless.  Non elite whites outside of petite bourgeoisie have been split, since many whites identify with the petite bourgeoisie (especially the working class portions) and the petite bourgeoisie has a less condescending attitude towards the working can than the elites many have ended up voting Republican, those who work for the government or those in the few private sector unions that remain vote Democratic.  In the south party as determined on an entirely racial basis.

In this election Trump's support came from the petite bourgeoisie and working class republicans who revolted against the economic elites who supported establishment candidate.  On the Democratic Sanders got support from the working class white Democrats as well as millennial elite aspirants who have been shut out while Clinton got support democratic elites and blacks.
 
*For example faculty at community colleges are not part of elite but none the less fell a cultural bond with those at more prestigious universities.

[Eric the Green]

The only ones that really count and are holding back the people are #5, and those politicians that support and enable #5.

[radind]

(06-28-2016, 01:34 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The only ones that really count and are holding back the people are #5, and those politicians that support and enable #5.

I am also concerned about the super wealthy( top  0.1%) that are in the insider power broker club.

[Mikebert]

(06-28-2016, 12:03 AM)Dan Wrote: 1. In Boomer dominated America (meaning post 1980 and especially post 1990) the divide central divide in American politics has been between the bureaucratic and cultural/creative elites on the Democratic side and the economic elites on the Republican side. 


2. The petite bourgeoisie has been overwhelmingly republican while people who identify culturally with the creative elites have been overwhelmingly Democratic* racial minorities have been democratic leaning to strongly democrat regardless.  Non elite whites outside of petite bourgeoisie have been split, since many whites identify with the petite bourgeoisie (especially the working class portions) and the petite bourgeoisie has a less condescending attitude towards the working class than the elites many have ended up voting Republican, those who work for the government or those in the few private sector unions that remain vote Democratic.  In the south party as determined on an entirely racial basis.

3. In this election Trump's support came from the petite bourgeoisie and working class republicans who revolted against the economic elites who supported establishment candidate.  On the Democratic Sanders got support from the working class white Democrats as well as millennial elite aspirants who have been shut out while Clinton got support democratic elites and blacks.

I am quite interesting it this topic, as if plays into the structural democratic theory, secular cycles and similar things. A few comments:
 
I would define modern politico-economic elites to economic elites (CEOs, corporate executives, business owners, financiers and the investor class), political elites (national legislators, government executives at state and federal and a few large cities, political professionals such as lobbyists and campaign professionals) and leaders of major interest groups such as churches, unions and advocacy groups, NRA, NAACP, Greenpeace, etc.), media elites (top broadcast & cable personalities, newspaper columnists/editors, talk show hosts, including comedians with their own shows like Steven Colbert, elite bloggers/internet celebrities etc.).    

Less developed in my thinking are cultural elites e.g. artists, academics, think-tankers, etc. who I think fall into a different age category as the first kind.
 
1. I use the average of the mean ages of Congressmen, Senators, Governors and Supreme Court Justices as a proxy for the sociopolitical elite or "ruling class". This figure was about age 57 in 2000, meaning the average member of this groups was a Boomer and the ruling class could be said to be "occupied" by the Boomer generation.   Boomers hardly dominated anything in 1990, (their average age was 39, in comparison GenX is 45 today).

2. The working class is split between parties.  About half of the working class is not white and most of these people voted Democratic.  It is only among the white working class that Republicans have a strong supporters.  I suspect this split is what made the rising economic inequality of the past 40 years possibly.  Remember it was a unified working class  (equivalent to a combination of white, Latino, Asian and Muslims today) all unified by their common identity of being "not black" that made the New Deal politically possible (most blacks at that time were a legal underclass who were denied many political rights including suffrage).  With the elimination of Jim Crow, a working class split developed, and this split made neoliberalism politically possible.  Classic divide and conquer.

3. I am not sure how useful the term petite bourgeoisie is anymore. 

In my thinking I have lumped the creative elites in with academics, and Federal government officials as the "manadarins" who were a new kind of elite created by the New Deal.

[Dan '82]

Michael Albert calls corporate and government bureaucrats the coordinator class. In practice Marxism and many other left wing movements end up empowering the coordinator/bureaucratic class as much if not more than the working class.  The modern left seems to be dominated by the bureaucratic, intellectual and creative classes and not the working class.

I think the petite bourgeoisie, particularly single person firms is still an important element in part because it is what the working class aspires to be and it is a strong influence on the working class due to mutual affinity, the  petite bourgeoisie or less likely to look down on the working class than other upper classes.

Here's an essay on the petite bourgeoisie

[Mikebert]

(06-28-2016, 03:11 PM)Dan Wrote: Michael Albert calls corporate and government bureaucrats the coordinator class. In practice Marxism and many other left wing movements end up empowering the coordinator/bureaucratic class as much if not more than the working class.  The modern left seems to be dominated by the bureaucratic, intellectual and creative classes and not the working class.

I think the petite bourgeoisie, particularly single person firms is still an important element in part because it is what the working class aspires to be and it is a strong influence on the working class due to mutual affinity, the  petite bourgeoisie or less likely to look down on the working class than other upper classes.

Here's an essay on the petite bourgeoisie

I was thinking solely in the context of the United States.  Rag pickers or scrappers as they are called locally do not correspond to the classical concept petit bourgeoisie as "small capitalists" as they derive most of their livelihood from government welfare programs.*  Also "small independent professionals" largely do not exist in the US anymore because it is more financially rewarding to be part of as partnership.  They more closely resemble junior corporate executives in terms of their income and lifestyle.  My old college roommate is an MD in such a partnership, earns 300-400K and he lives in a palatial home.  I think the modern term "small business" connotes the relevant social class better.

My favorite term for petit bourgeoisie is also an old one: "middle classes" (note the plural).  It, of course, has been appropriated by the completely meaningless (deliberately so) concept of the "Middle Class".

*I also do not ascribe to the idea that small mom and pop businesses are capitalist, or that what they do is capitalism.

[TnT]

(06-29-2016, 09:38 AM)Mikebert Wrote: *I also do not ascribe to the idea that small mom and pop businesses are capitalist, or that what they do is capitalism.

I think you're right about this.  I like to think about this in terms of "free enterprise" vs. captialism.

Free enterprise can be any sort of cottage industry on up to the point where the business transcends some arbitrary size and/or influence.  Maybe that line in the sand would be the point at which the original entrepreneur can no longer manage his enterprise through one layer of employees? (Or some such concept.)

Some of my ultra-left friends detest almost anything related to "business."  And yet, economic exchange among individuals HAS to take place.  And that exchange is the basis of enhancing one's life through the exchange of surplus resources.

[TnT]

Another thought to challenge "us liberals!"

Someone once said something like, "The summation of individual ignorance does not lead to collective wisdom."

And there it is: Phenomena like the Trump revolution suggests that democracy itself suffers from a terrible weakness. That weakness is that without a fair amount of discipline on the part of a democratic society to make sure that its citizens are well-educated, it can devolve into this simplistic, boorish braying of bumper-stickers that is taken by a very large and very dangerous fraction of the society to be "wisdom." Or "common sense" as they call it.

"Elites" seem to me to be inevitable. Some folks are just more talented in one area or another. Some are simply smarter in one area or another. Some of these areas can be very destructive. Others can be extremely valuable and yet have little in the way of power over influencing the structure of society.

Yet, some of my "liberal" friends seem to be pretty fanatic about the benefits of what they think of as "democracy."

In the absence of certain boundaries or control systems, i don't have much confidence in "democracy." Especially the bigger it gets. I'd rather have smart, thoughtful people in charge, than impulsive ignoramuses who just "do shit."

[Eric the Green]

(06-28-2016, 03:11 PM)Dan 82 Wrote: Michael Albert calls corporate and government bureaucrats the coordinator class. In practice Marxism and many other left wing movements end up empowering the coordinator/bureaucratic class as much if not more than the working class.  The modern left seems to be dominated by the bureaucratic, intellectual and creative classes and not the working class.

I think the petite bourgeoisie, particularly single person firms is still an important element in part because it is what the working class aspires to be and it is a strong influence on the working class due to mutual affinity, the  petite bourgeoisie or less likely to look down on the working class than other upper classes.

I agree, but it also appears that the working class is largely becoming obsolete. Automation is replacing the working class with robots. Those who have jobs, increasingly must be smart, or else good at working with people one on one. The rest are out of luck without social services, guaranteed income, welfare, etc. Or, a better education available and capable of bringing out the intelligence and creativity of virtually everyone. Even then, there's not enough jobs even for creative people. So automation implies the end of Reaganomics in all its aspects.

[Eric the Green]

(07-01-2016, 12:35 PM)TnT Wrote: Another thought to challenge "us liberals!"

Someone once said something like, "The summation of individual ignorance does not lead to collective wisdom."

And there it is: Phenomena like the Trump revolution suggests that democracy itself suffers from a terrible weakness. That weakness is that without a fair amount of discipline on the part of a democratic society to make sure that its citizens are well-educated, it can devolve into this simplistic, boorish braying of bumper-stickers that is taken by a very large and very dangerous fraction of the society to be "wisdom." Or "common sense" as they call it.

There is no democracy unless it's assumed that the people are smart and must be well-educated. The problem with democracy, is that it depends on the people to make it work. These days, our system is so spat upon that this has become difficult. Also, the reason why Trump can almost poll evenly with Clinton is that our society is polarized. Republicans and their voters can say, well, Trump will appoint a conservative justice. That will keep gays in their place, abortion illegal, business able to do its will without interference, etc. Trump will keep guns legal and available and "protect the 2nd amendment." He will lower my taxes and regulations. He will fight the enemies of America and keep the fereners out. He will even promise to keep them from taking my job. So, for these members of the red tribe, it doesn't matter if Trump is not ideal, or if he's an incompetent, hypocritical, egotistic fool. He is their guy this time around, so, he gets their vote. Simple as that.

And simple as that for their leaders:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/2...gly-stupid

Quote:"Elites" seem to me to be inevitable. Some folks are just more talented in one area or another. Some are simply smarter in one area or another. Some of these areas can be very destructive. Others can be extremely valuable and yet have little in the way of power over influencing the structure of society.

Yet, some of my "liberal" friends seem to be pretty fanatic about the benefits of what they think of as "democracy."

In the absence of certain boundaries or control systems, i don't have much confidence in "democracy." Especially the bigger it gets. I'd rather have smart, thoughtful people in charge, than impulsive ignoramuses who just "do shit."

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Who is to choose these smart, thoughtful people? Who decides who is smart and thoughtful? And how? An IQ test?

Plato advocated rule by the best people. That implied an upper class that were well-educated and philosophical, with the philosopher-king at the top. A philosopher would govern in the best interests of all the people, each doing their proper role according to their natural abilities. Now, the problem is, what if the philosophy is faulty? What if it does not curb appetites and greed, as it's supposed to? What if the best people rule in their own interest and not in the interests of the people and the state as a whole? Since philosophers are rare among aristocrats, so far in history rule by the best has been mostly rule in the interest of the best people themselves, and not the people.

Aristocrats have mainly been the military leaders and fighters who were able to usurp power, and then pass it on to their descendants, who became the nobles.

[Mikebert]

(07-01-2016, 12:24 PM)TnT Wrote:

(06-29-2016, 09:38 AM)Mikebert Wrote: *I also do not ascribe to the idea that small mom and pop businesses are capitalist, or that what they do is capitalism.

I think you're right about this.  I like to think about this in terms of "free enterprise" vs. captialism.

Free enterprise can be any sort of cottage industry on up to the point where the business transcends some arbitrary size and/or influence.  Maybe that line in the sand would be the point at which the original entrepreneur can no longer manage his enterprise through one layer of employees? (Or some such concept.)

Some of my ultra-left friends detest almost anything related to "business."  And yet, economic exchange among individuals HAS to take place.  And that exchange is the basis of enhancing one's life through the exchange of surplus resources.

I think capitalism is a subset of free enterprise.  Capitalist involves a "growth ethic".  The capitalistic strives to make his pot of capital grow.  Non-capitalist businessmen, like 15th century Venetian traders, do not seek to expand their business beyond was what is necessary to secure a very good living for themselves and their family.

Bill Gates is said to have expressed amazement with how many of his early employees stayed on the job after the initial stock issue had many them millionaires.  Think about it, you are like 32 years old and suddenly hold stock worth $10 million.  Why not sell the stock, and live on the several hundred thousand dollars income it generates for the rest of your life while you see what life has to offer?

In our society, Sam Walton was lauded for going to work every day and driving his own truck when he was worth $2 billion.  People think the McDonald bros were fools for selling our for millions, when they could (later) have had billions.  Yet later they were dead, whereas when they did sell they were still able to enjoy the money.

There is a real social norm that those with money should invest it rather than spend it (we make tax law such to favor investment income). 

This collection of beliefs is what I call the growth ethic.

[pbrower2a]

(07-01-2016, 12:35 PM)TnT Wrote: Another thought to challenge "us liberals!"

Someone once said something like, "The summation of individual ignorance does not lead to collective wisdom."

Fifty idiots do not have the wisdom of one genius. There is no such thing as collective wisdom. Wisdom is individual or it is non-existent.

Quote:And there it is:   Phenomena like the Trump revolution suggests that democracy itself suffers from a terrible weakness.  That weakness is that without a fair amount of discipline on the part of a democratic society to make sure that its citizens are well-educated, it can devolve into this simplistic, boorish braying of bumper-stickers that is taken by a very large and very dangerous fraction of the society to be "wisdom."  Or "common sense" as they call it.

Terrible or terminal? Even if Donald Trump loses we are have a chance to find someone just as demagogic but far slicker. The next Republican nominee could promise economic growth  if only we give all power to the Master Class.

We have badly debased education into training. We have given up on teaching the critical thought necessary for discerning truth from falsehood. We think education successful if it gets one a job in a fast-food place or a box store, places in which rigid obedience matters far more than does problem-solving. We prepare people to be the working poor, satisfied with watching mindless television after doing mindless work, such being all that one can do.

Quote:"Elites" seem to me to be inevitable.  Some folks are just more talented in one area or another.  Some are simply smarter in one area or another.  Some of these areas can be very destructive.  Others can be extremely valuable and yet have little in the way of power over influencing the structure of society.

The competent who get a chance will always do better than the incompetent who get a chance. There is no conspiracy about that even if some see the mirage of conspiracy.

Quote:Yet, some of my "liberal" friends seem to be pretty fanatic about the benefits of what they think of as "democracy."

Democracy can fail catastrophically to ruthless people who exploit the seams. It has happened before and it can happen when political stresses overpower the constraints against anarchy and despotism. Just think of American government by lobbyists.

Quote:In the absence of certain boundaries or control systems, i don't have much confidence in "democracy."  Especially the bigger it gets.  I'd rather have smart, thoughtful people in charge, than impulsive ignoramuses who just "do shit."

[/quote]

Maybe we need to see democracy come close to failing. (Excuse me -- it may have in America due to our effective government by lobbyists). We may need to see disgrace that compels us to close some of the seams within our system.

[Odin]

(07-01-2016, 12:35 PM)TnT Wrote: Another thought to challenge "us liberals!"

Someone once said something like, "The summation of individual ignorance does not lead to collective wisdom."

And there it is:   Phenomena like the Trump revolution suggests that democracy itself suffers from a terrible weakness.  That weakness is that without a fair amount of discipline on the part of a democratic society to make sure that its citizens are well-educated, it can devolve into this simplistic, boorish braying of bumper-stickers that is taken by a very large and very dangerous fraction of the society to be "wisdom."  Or "common sense" as they call it.

"Elites" seem to me to be inevitable.  Some folks are just more talented in one area or another.  Some are simply smarter in one area or another.  Some of these areas can be very destructive.  Others can be extremely valuable and yet have little in the way of power over influencing the structure of society.

Yet, some of my "liberal" friends seem to be pretty fanatic about the benefits of what they think of as "democracy."

In the absence of certain boundaries or control systems, i don't have much confidence in "democracy."  Especially the bigger it gets.  I'd rather have smart, thoughtful people in charge, than impulsive ignoramuses who just "do shit."

Yeah, IMO accountability of elected officials and civil servants is more important for a functioning liberal-democratic government than some populist ideal of strict majoritarianism and direct democracy.

[Odin]

(07-01-2016, 03:43 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-01-2016, 12:24 PM)TnT Wrote:

(06-29-2016, 09:38 AM)Mikebert Wrote: *I also do not ascribe to the idea that small mom and pop businesses are capitalist, or that what they do is capitalism.

I think you're right about this.  I like to think about this in terms of "free enterprise" vs. captialism.

Free enterprise can be any sort of cottage industry on up to the point where the business transcends some arbitrary size and/or influence.  Maybe that line in the sand would be the point at which the original entrepreneur can no longer manage his enterprise through one layer of employees? (Or some such concept.)

Some of my ultra-left friends detest almost anything related to "business."  And yet, economic exchange among individuals HAS to take place.  And that exchange is the basis of enhancing one's life through the exchange of surplus resources.

I think capitalism is a subset of free enterprise.  Capitalist involves a "growth ethic".  The capitalistic strives to make his pot of capital grow.  Non-capitalist businessmen, like 15th century Venetian traders, do not seek to expand their business beyond was what is necessary to secure a very good living for themselves and their family.

Bill Gates is said to have expressed amazement with how many of his early employees stayed on the job after the initial stock issue had many them millionaires.  Think about it, you are like 32 years old and suddenly hold stock worth $10 million.  Why not sell the stock, and live on the several hundred thousand dollars income it generates for the rest of your life while you see what life has to offer?

In our society, Sam Walton was lauded for going to work every day and driving his own truck when he was worth $2 billion.  People think the McDonald bros were fools for selling our for millions, when they could (later) have had billions.  Yet later they were dead, whereas when they did sell they were still able to enjoy the money.

There is a real social norm that those with money should invest it rather than spend it (we make tax law such to favor investment income). 

This collection of beliefs is what I call the growth ethic.

This goes back to the Early Modern Period and the emergence of Calvinist Protestantism and related strains in Counter-Reformation Catholicism (like Jansenism) that encouraged hard work over leisure. Though this itself goes back to ascetic tendencies in early and high medieval western monasticism that worked to break down the contempt for labor the elites of the Classical world had.

[pbrower2a]

(07-01-2016, 03:43 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-01-2016, 12:24 PM)TnT Wrote:

(06-29-2016, 09:38 AM)Mikebert Wrote: *I also do not ascribe to the idea that small mom and pop businesses are capitalist, or that what they do is capitalism.

I think you're right about this.  I like to think about this in terms of "free enterprise" vs. captialism.

Free enterprise can be any sort of cottage industry on up to the point where the business transcends some arbitrary size and/or influence.  Maybe that line in the sand would be the point at which the original entrepreneur can no longer manage his enterprise through one layer of employees? (Or some such concept.)

Some of my ultra-left friends detest almost anything related to "business."  And yet, economic exchange among individuals HAS to take place.  And that exchange is the basis of enhancing one's life through the exchange of surplus resources.

I think capitalism is a subset of free enterprise.  Capitalist involves a "growth ethic".  The capitalistic strives to make his pot of capital grow.  Non-capitalist businessmen, like 15th century Venetian traders, do not seek to expand their business beyond was what is necessary to secure a very good living for themselves and their family.Bill Gates is said to have expressed amazement with how many of his early employees stayed on the job after the initial stock issue had many them millionaires.  Think about it, you are like 32 years old and suddenly hold stock worth $10 million.  Why not sell the stock, and live on the several hundred thousand dollars income it generates for the rest of your life while you see what life has to offer?


In our society, Sam Walton was lauded for going to work every day and driving his own truck when he was worth $2 billion.  People think the McDonald bros were fools for selling our for millions, when they could (later) have had billions.  Yet later they were dead, whereas when they did sell they were still able to enjoy the money.

There is a real social norm that those with money should invest it rather than spend it (we make tax law such to favor investment income).

This collection of beliefs is what I call the growth ethic.

The Venetian traders were not industrialists. They operated the definitive service activity of trading, taking goods that someone already produced in northern Italy or neighboring countries (Austria? Bavaria? Switzerland?) to countries in the eastern Mediterranean basin for trade goods made elsewhere. The Venetians were trading with Turkey, Persia, Egypt, and Arab states of the Levant. They were not making things (typically textiles) as were the early capitalists  of Florence and Flanders, whose wares they were selling for luxuries of the Near and Far East.

The model of the Venetian trader somewhat fits modern-day professionals in law, health care, and accounting, or creative people doing well. (OK, works of art are tangible objects, but a really-good artist can take canvases from mass marketers and turn those into objects of great value). So it is with well-paid civil servants.


Wealth is simply wealth. It's good for buying stuff if one has no idea of how to invest it for growth. Being on the team of Microsoft is identity. By the time that one has $10 million in stock, the dividends become an excellent supplement even to slight pay. Simply having the money and no identity as part of something bigger, as I would associate with a lazy person living on a trust fund or a lottery winner, is not a very good life. You'd be surprised how quickly such people (let alone their kids) get messed up. Many go bankrupt, and many succumb to substances. Think also of some of the film stars and pop musicians who maintain a 'free agent' way of life. "I have money, cocaine is available, and I get high".  Identity? Low-wage companies in retailing and fast food can try to create a corporate culture that includes a corporate identity for ill-paid workers so that they don't become free agents. So if the only thing wrong with working for Wal*Mart is the low pay... then at least one has an identity that one will not abandon cheaply.


So what would I do if I suddenly got rich? Unlike lottery winners who have jobs that they hate, I would try to keep my old identity or develop a new one. Buying a lake cottage, finding a gold-digging trophy wife, his and hers Mercedes Benz vehicles, a gas-guzzling RV, a cabin cruiser, and maybe a gold-plated toilet wouldn't cut it.

Easy money is as much a curse as a blessing. It rarely brings personal identity. Can people have identity and poverty? Sure. Mass poverty is now the norm in America as economic exploitation has become the most reliable way to get huge profits or enhance existing ones. The fast food business would not be so big if it had to pay wages commensurate with those of assembly-line workers of the 1950s. Mass poverty allows a few people to live like sultans in America, and the few who profiteer from mass poverty want even more of the same. If those profiteers on human suffering are the only investors, then our capitalist model looks like the stereotype that Karl Marx established and we are back to the norms of the Gilded Age.

Maybe we can't create more wealth off further investments. Businesses might be able to gut the market share of beached-whale competitors (think of Amazon.com thriving while Borders died and Barnes and Noble struggles). I have noticed some book-and-record stores surviving by adding used books and audio-video to their business.

[Mikebert]

(07-05-2016, 07:40 AM)pbrower Wrote: The Venetian traders were not industrialists..... They were not making things (typically textiles) as were the early capitalists  of Florence and Flanders, whose wares they were selling for luxuries of the Near and Far East.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/txt_s/hd_txt_s.htm

[Ragnarök_62]

https://theoutline.com/post/351/valley-of-the-dolts

Yes indeed.  Sillycone-Valley techno-elites are indeed neo-Robber-Barrons.  That says it all, yes it does. Says it all indeed.   Fuckerburg and all the rest are fuck wit Robber Barons, nothing more, nothing less.

[David Horn]

(12-15-2016, 09:39 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: https://theoutline.com/post/351/valley-of-the-dolts

Yes indeed.  Sillycone-Valley techno-elites are indeed neo-Robber-Barrons.  That says it all, yes it does. Says it all indeed.   Fuckerburg and all the rest are fuck wit Robber Barons, nothing more, nothing less.

I'll second this.

[David Horn]

(12-16-2016, 03:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-15-2016, 09:39 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: https://theoutline.com/post/351/valley-of-the-dolts

Yes indeed.  Sillycone-Valley techno-elites are indeed neo-Robber-Barrons.  That says it all, yes it does. Says it all indeed.   Fuckerburg and all the rest are fuck wit Robber Barons, nothing more, nothing less.

Zuck is nothing more than a media maven. Cook is just one step above a "Bassomatic" hawker. Musk reminds me of Howard Hughes but seems less crazy. None of these people are classic Silicon Valley.

Classic Silicon Valley was a bunch of people drinking beers and scotches at The Wagon Wheel, doing actual "back of the napkin" brain storming. From that would come great chips and systems. The true classics were GIs and Silents. They did Fairchild, Intel, AMD, National Semi, Amdahl, and the like. Boom came along and mostly followed in their footsteps. Boom did companies like (the old) Apple, NeXT, Palm, Cisco and Sun. They would have gotten ill were they to contemplate selling things like iShits or ads ... or users' "BI" data on and from the web.

The techno-products are not the problem ... not really.  The real problem is just now emerging as media control (for a lack of a better phrase).  When FB and Google can capture most of the eyeballs and the revenue from intellectual products they expropriate from real providers, and mix in the  toxic nonsense provided by the new Fake News industry, Fake News has to win.  It costs real money and time to do journalism, but Fake News just requires a little imagination, a cheap computer and access to the Net.

Unless the next four years is a serious reality check, this will be one more issue added to the pile in the next 2T.

[pbrower2a]

David Horn -- I expect the next four years to be the most brutal 'reality check' in America since the Civil War.

I wish I could be a real-life Rip Van Winkle -- unless that means waking up in a nuclear wasteland.