F. Scott Fitzgerald ("The Great Gatsby") knew something about wealth and the wealthy. In his novella "The Rich Boy" he writes, "They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand."

But we shall try -- to understand, that is -- what's behind these millennial heirs as they aspire to "live their values" by getting rid of their money (click, The Rich Kids Who Want to Tear Down Capitalism). It would be tempting to write off as simply being soft some of these self-described "anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, abolitionist" trust funders were it not for the fact they are part of a generation destined to inherit tens of trillions dollars. We might probe the mindset of those few who have won the inheritance lottery to determine the extent, if at all, an entire generation has been similarly afflicted.

In one sense they are seeking the right to never have existed in the first place and, by extension, others like them. Some of you may recall many years ago that self-canceling black box novelty toy called "Magic Hand Black Box." You'd drop a coin in the outside slot, the box made a whirring sound, a lid opened, a small plastic hand reached out, took the coin and the hand withdrew as the box lid closed, silence again, the slot awaiting the next coin. The cited millennials seek a similar self-cancellation, not only of themselves but of capitalism itself.

We might start our discussion with Winston Churchill's observation that, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of the miseries." This session's co-host, Bob Davis, will help walk us through some economic history and basic principles, some of which we'd taken on in MM 3/11/19 (click, The Socialist Seduction). Perhaps we can then discover the motivation behind this incipient socialist movement beyond some simple rebellious desire to throw all the furniture around the room.

This discovery process could certainly lead to an examination of capitalism's excesses, a subject we have never been shy to address. Yet, even here, one needs to be careful to differentiate among the various issues attendant to any capitalism/socialism discussion e.g. the actual workings of the "invisible hand" in a free-market economy; an understanding of socialism as more than simply the redistribution of income and wealth, etc. The article's cited rich kids seem unaware of such distinctions as they seek to blow up the entire system.

Take, for example, the reported distress on the part of one young trustfunder as she states her wealth is, " . . . . mostly stocks, which means it comes from underpaying and undervaluing working-class people . . . " Yes, but one could respond that such wealth disparity comes, in large part, from state interference in an otherwise functioning marketplace i.e. artificially low interest rates that not only drive up the value of those very stocks in her portfolio but also serve to destroy the interest income otherwise owed to those working-class people.

The subject lends itself to a thoughtful discussion about a system that has powered America's remarkable growth while, at the same time, addressing a society's responsibility to those less able, for whatever reason, to participate in the spoils. The deliberative body must surely include the wisdom on the part of those whose credentials are something beyond being born rich.

That, ahem, would be us.

(To access previous Member Monday introductions, click TOC)