I don't know about the power elite 'deserving' their vast power and wealth... don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they don't work damn hard to get where they are, or that we should take away their riches Robin-Hood-style, it's just that, as Mr Rothkopf said, there's a lot of luck involved and all things aren't equal, not to mention your childhood background and opportunities, or lack thereof.

I agree with Wei Wei's point, that it is worrying that the power elite has so much influence. Furthermore, as Mr Rothkopf said, the demographics of the elite are so skewed that some groups are in danger of getting left out and screwed over by decisions made by the elite that they aren't a part of. I don't know if there is a balance point... hopefully the situation will change in the future such that the global power elite has a much more balanced and representative demographic representation. I don't think it's going to happen automatically though... there's no reason why this problem should be self-correcting.

Last edited by chengli.ong (2008-04-21 12:01:50)

I would also add that, as David pointed out, the power elites often fall short of the "ethics of leadership."  This is something I wish he would have gone into more detail.  The question in my mind is how these ethics should be determined, and then how to get them assimilated by the power elite and actually put into practice.  I expect this is very difficult to accomplish, and I don't think David necessarily has a solution...most of his talk seemed to center on a description of the power elite problem, and much less on a specific, suggested solution.  I do agree with the concerns expressed by Wei, Chengli, and Diana...perhaps if the ethics question is given enough attention (starting with us and our colleagues at the leading universities), something good may come out of it.

Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe.  It's either working for you or against you.  The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the middle class and everyone below have essentially no financial literacy.  "A sample of high-school pupils aged 17 or 18 gave correct answers to barely half of a set of questions about personal finance and economics posed in 2006 by researchers at the State University of New York, Buffalo. Getting it right on the money.  http://www.economist.com/displaystory.c … d=10958702 The Economist."  Change this, fix a lot of inequality.

To correct a previous forum poster's comment: The richest 1000 have more money than the poorest 2.5 Billion.  Basic calculation: The richest 1000 people have about 10^9 dollars.  If it were 2.5 million, then richest / poorest would be 10^12 / 2.5*10^6 = 4*10^5 which is 400K which is far far more than the average amount that the poorest people have.  The correct number is 2.5 billion, which would suggest the poorest people have on average a net worth of about $400, a far more realistic number.

I agree with ricky.yean. I do not necessarily agree with all the facts that David gave to us in order to sustain his claim about today's superclass. Maybe the richest 1000 are in fact richer than the poorest 2.5 billion people, maybe not, but I do believe he did a great job in actually raising awareness that something must be done. I'm sure very few people will actually argue to him that this superclass exists and that it in fact has a level of power disproportionate to the rest of the population. I really liked that he knows what he is doing and that he is actually interested in this very interesting topic.