Mark Yzaguirre allows for the existence of undeserving rich:
[I]n a global economy, there are very wealthy economic players who didn't gain their wealth by risking their personal capital or other voluntary business transactions. Trillions of dollars of investment worldwide, including in the US stock markets and other investment vehicles that middle-class Americans rely on for their well-being, is provided by sources that didn't become wealthy via libertarian means. Jihadist oil barons from the Middle East, post-Soviet oligarchs and executives from Chinese Communist Party-backed companies are just as welcome as investors and guests at posh resorts as Warren Buffett and Steve Jobs. They have a big place at the table in the global economy.
This doesn't justify general suspicion or envy of the wealthy. In fact, it’s fair to say that these players didn’t attain wealth through free enterprise means, so their sins don’t say much about the free enterprise system. [Emphasis mine]
The bolded part really annoys me, as it implies that any suspicion (or envy, or disdain) of the wealthy is unjustified. But why? The wealthy aren't particularly known for their commitment to the low-income, and in the United States, the wealthy have waged a very successful campaign to loosen regulations, weaken the safety net, and redistribute income upward. From where I sit, those are fine reasons for suspicion, envy, or disdain.
Besides, while capitalism is an excellent system for the allocation of resources and the production of wealth, it is also true that it promotes qualities -- greed, selfishness, etc. -- that are, or should be, frowned upon. Put another way, there's no reason that someone can't admire capitalism as a system and condemn those who devote their lives to the pursuit and accumulation of wealth, even while acknowledging their necessity to the system.
-- Jamelle Bouie
