Just read an article about Bill Gates no longer being the richest man in the world. In the article Buffett is revealed as a BIG MAN:
Kottak defines big man Figure often found among tribal horticulturalists and pastoralists. The big man occupies no office but creates his reputation through entrepreneurship and generosity to others. Neither his wealth nor his position passes to his heirs. p. 114 (5th ed.)In October, Buffett issued a challenge to members of the Forbes 400 richest Americans list, saying he would donate $1 million to charity if the collective group (or a significant number of them) would admit they pay less taxes, as a percentage of income, than their secretaries.
Days after issuing the challenge, Buffett appeared before Congress to encourage it to keep the estate tax. Armed with a few Forbes 400 issues, he told the hearing that "dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise."
Posts
1 comment:
The book made very clear distinctions between wealth, power, and prestige associating them with finances/economics, politics, and society, respectively. However, I feel in today's society, we have come to link the terms together even though they are clearly distinct. There was an example in class, that I wanted to disagree with and/or comment on but didn't get a chance to and now I've forgetten what it was. Even though they are distinct categories, often times, they are achieved in bundles. Wealth most often comes with prestige and can also be used to "buy" power. Lobbyists, PACs, and Special Action Groups control politics; in exchange for helping a candidates funding, the politician promises favorable legislation towards the contributors.
Post a Comment