Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> True. I wonder if it might be a better sample of "the rich" to run the same
> analysis on the Forbes 400 across time.
>
> At the very least, it would be nice to have both, and the Forbes data is
> easily accessible.
I haven't looked at a Forbes list lately, but they used to run in the back of the 400 issue a list of _families_ whose collective wealth would have put them in the 400 or close to it had it been in the hands of a single person. I always thought that was of greater sociological interest than the 400 names by themselves.
Perot is ruling class & Kissinger is not, though I don't disaagree with Doug's observation on the two. But Perot could (for example) with a flick of his pen immensely add to the cultural/political weight of some middling think tank in a way that Kissinger could not. And Kissinger would quickly be small potatoes were his "ruling class" mentors decide to drop him. The MR editors once referred to Howard Huges as a "billionaire nut," and without influence. That was a correct observation at a given point in time, but that billionaire nut _could_ potentially have made quite a splash with his will. I think the best point of departure for analysis of the ruling class is to identify it, period, with the top 1-3% in wealth; then complicate the analysis from that point of departure.
Carrol