Yes, great points. Conflating intelligence with wealth is a generalization indeed but it's statistically significant and that's why I joined them in my analysis.

Your economic take is more straightforward but still there are caveats like wealthy people who are public figures who are also dependent on the system (entertainment, media, sports, politics, etc). Or wealthy intelligent people in STEM who are also dependent and have to tow the line. Your third category applies to the 1% businessmen and moguls or the independent academic researchers only. The system strives for totalitarian control and fights people who are not dependent on it on any level (except the technocrats at the top who control it but they are less than 0.01%).

Yes, great points. Conflating intelligence with wealth is a generalization indeed but it's statistically significant and that's why I joined them in my analysis.

Your economic take is more straightforward but still there are caveats like wealthy people who are public figures who are also dependent on the system (entertainment, media, sports, politics, etc). Or wealthy intelligent people in STEM who are also dependent and have to tow the line. Your third category applies to the 1% businessmen and moguls or the independent academic researchers only. The system strives for totalitarian control and fights people who are not dependent on it on any level (except the technocrats at the top who control it but they are less than 0.1%).

Yes, great points. Conflating intelligence with wealth is a generalization indeed but it's statistically significant and that's why I joined them in my analysis.

Your economic take is more straightforward but still there are caveats like wealthy people who are public figures who are also dependent on the system (entertainment, media, sports, politics, etc). Or wealthy intelligent people in STEM who are also dependent and have to tow the line. Your third category applies to the 1% businessmen and moguls or the independent academic researchers only. The system strives for totalitarian control and fights people who are not dependent on it on any level (except the technocrats/Party members at the top who are outside of it by definition but they are less than 0.1%).

Yes, great points. Conflating intelligence with wealth is a generalization indeed but it's statistically significant and that's why I joined them in my analysis.

Your economic take is more straightforward but still there are caveats like wealthy people who are public figures who are also dependent on the system (entertainment, media, sports, politics, etc). Or wealthy intelligent people in STEM who are also dependent and have to tow the line. Your third category applies to the 1% businessmen and moguls or the independent academic researchers only. The system strives for totalitarian control and fights people who are not dependent on it on any level (except the technocrats at the top who are outside of it by definition but they are less than 0.1%).

Yes, great points. Conflating intelligence with wealth is a generalization indeed but it's statistically significant and that's why I joined them in my analysis.

Your economic take is more straightforward but still there are caveats like wealthy people who are public figures who are also dependent on the system (entertainment, media, sports, politics, etc). Or wealthy intelligent people in STEM who are also dependent and have to tow the line. Your third category applies to the 1% businessmen and moguls or the independent academic researchers only. The system strives for totalitarian control and fights people who are not dependent on it on any level (except the technocrats at the top who are outside of it by definition but they are close to 0.1%).