Capitalism doesn’t really seek anything, it is what happens when everyone tries to gain the most out of each transaction. It certainly has interesting and useful consequences, but almost by definition it does nothing by design.

I believe that the US is becoming more and more socialistic and that Europe (esp. Sweden, France, Ireland and others) is becoming more and more capitalistic. Therefore, your assertion that wealth inequality is becoming more persistant in the US is one that I accept.

One often sited statistic is from the Center for American Progress [I'm unable to quickly find a web citation.] which found that children from the lowest quintile of parental family income in America in the last generation had only a 1% chance of reacing the top 5% of the income distribution vs. a 22% chance for those born to the highest quintile. (Those born in the middle quintile had less than a 2% chance by the way.)

Bhash Mazumder’s “Analyzing Income Mobility Over Generations” [ http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/2002/cflsept2002_181.pdf ] notes a persistance of American income inequality at least half again as high in 2000 as it was a generation earlier in 1980. Wealth inequality has become even more persistant. This paints a Capitalist America with class lines become increasingly more rigid.

Furthermore, Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg & Stephen Machin, “Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America” [ http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf ] shows that the United States actually now has less upward social mobility than Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and Canada. (I assume that at least one of those will strike you as Socialist.)

There is actually a huge body of studies on this topic if you’d like to consult a good university library, but these papers are a good starting point and are readily available on the internet.

I disagree completely that socialism keeps people at the same class level in which they were born btw. The greatest social mobility in the UK was in the 1950s and 1960s – which coincided with the most socialist political era. For all its faults, many individuals had opportunities under the Soviet Union that they wouldn’t have got otherwise.

I think capitalism encourages individuality. That may be beneficial and it may not, it depends a lot on the person concerned. I think socialism is less restrictive than you might think. After all, it is a lot easier to start your own business, if you don’t have to worry about losing access to affordable healthcare.

Also, my wife loves IKEA. Whenever we go there, I know I am in for a long night. IKEA is owned by Scandinavians, but were their first stores based there.

NOS, I don’t want the topic to be hijacked. I think plonkee has stayed on topic. No one has said anything to change my personal conclusion that capitalism stimulates creativity, independence and risk-taking. While socialism generally keeps people at the same class level in which they were born.

In Scandinavian countries, there are quite a few and they are relatively socialist (e.g. Ikea guy whose name I can’t remember).

In the UK (which is only socialist compared to the US) I can think of quite a few Richard Branson, Anita Roddick, Alan Sugar, JK Rowling.

Don’t forget your own cultural bias. There are lots of American success stories that are not well known outside of the States – I’ve no idea who ‘Walton’ is, Edison is famous for lightbulbs alone, and although I know who Warren Buffett is, I don’t think he’s even remotely famous over here. Everyone has their own heroes.

My response wasn’t an attempt to defend socialism, but to help answer your initial question about the trans-societial nature of the “rags to immense riches” story meme. “Horatio Alger” stories do seem to be more common in America, but Horatio Alger was an American, neh? I was only trying to speculate why such stories would be less popular under Socialism. Don’t Capitalists hold that Market demand dictates cultural products? I was trying to guess why Capitalist and Socialist Markets might have different preferences for their cultural heroes. Aren’t Consumers (directly or indirectly) the source of “the money to support the arts or poetry” in both Capitalist and Socialist societies? Aren’t they the ones who “pay the bills”?

Your comments on the appropriateness of the esteem of various peoples, the contributions of the ultrawealthy to the poor, the disdain you express for Socialism, and even the neglect of economic and philanthropic contributions of everyone but the ultrawealthy all seem off topic. Unless you don’t care if your thread of posts is diverted from your original question, you might want to drop them or else do another post. I don’t want to be the one to hijack this thread, but I will be snarky enough to suggest that lack of respect for Paris Hilton has little to do with her wealth being inherited.

As to whether or not artistic types like Samuel Clemens or Frank Lloyd Wright are more “esteemed” than Rockefeller or Carnegie -it is kind of a wash. An oranges to apples comparison.

It is not really a matter of lifting up the rich, but has more to do with how they achieved success. aka: Paris Hilton and the Kennedy’s are not respected entrepreneurs because their wealth is inherited.

I too think you are asking the wrong question. In a socialist society, it is less likely that people will be esteemed for making money than for their contribution to society.

I can think of several Europeans that have made great fortunes (for example the founders of Ikea, Tetrapak, Dyson) but are they as esteemed as Tim Berners-Lee, Stephen Hawking, Primo Levi, Picasso,… Not in my book they’re not. But then I’m British, and boasting about making a lot of money is still considered ever so slightly vulgar.