I think the common element is that the people around you are the key to your lot in life. In western societies that is being born into some money or knowing people that have some, in China it means the party.
Neither of those are a guarantee, but statistically speaking you'd expect people with connections or with parents in high places to do better than those without.
Rags-to-riches stories exist, but for every pauper that 'made it' there are hundreds if not thousands or more that don't stand a chance.
In a fair society everybody has equal chances at birth, but such a society does not exist (or at least I'm not aware of one). China is 'unfair' because it apparently gives the children of the party bosses extreme advantages, the west is unfair because if your parents have money you're likely to leverage that.
Oh, and I absolutely agree that this is the kind of 'leg up' that should be illegal, it's cronyism pure and simple. But then again, so is the 'Bush dynasty'. Or is there a gene for politics ?
That's the common element, sure. And we see this everywhere, no matter what the political system.
Some of the stats on wealth creation are interesting. If I remember correctly, it's very unusual for children of rich people to also generate a lot of wealth on their own. That's why you see one rich guy trying his best to keep his kids from squandering everything. If you're lucky you send them to a lot of schooling and they do acceptably well.
It's the hustlers that make the money, no matter the system.
I don't think you can have "fair" -- it's an overloaded term and can be stretched to fit anything. What you can have is enough controlled chaos and change that patterns are not easy to spot and exploit.
I'm not familiar with the term "Bush dynasty". Do you mean the fact that a bunch of them are in politics? If so, you'd have to add the Gores, the Kennedys. and a lot more to that category. I'm concerned that we're creating a system of nobility here with all of the offices that effectively have no competition and all of the families that hand down political power, but that seems a little off-topic for this thread.
I wouldn't say China is unfair because children of bosses get the goodies. I would say China is unstable because the same bosses rule for generations and the same kids get the same handouts. We see this pattern in a lot of places, but China has it the worst.
It's just the type of thing that Chinese communism was supposed to stop from having, so if anything you'd think they would be sensitive to this.
I think they are as much 'believers' as religious leaders are 'believers'.
Self delusion goes a long way towards apologizing for taking a bit more than you're giving, especially when you don't respect those that you are taking from.
Neither of those are a guarantee, but statistically speaking you'd expect people with connections or with parents in high places to do better than those without.
Rags-to-riches stories exist, but for every pauper that 'made it' there are hundreds if not thousands or more that don't stand a chance.
In a fair society everybody has equal chances at birth, but such a society does not exist (or at least I'm not aware of one). China is 'unfair' because it apparently gives the children of the party bosses extreme advantages, the west is unfair because if your parents have money you're likely to leverage that.
Oh, and I absolutely agree that this is the kind of 'leg up' that should be illegal, it's cronyism pure and simple. But then again, so is the 'Bush dynasty'. Or is there a gene for politics ?