: : I would concur as far as rich but unproductive inheritors, actors, musicians etc go - but not for the productive rich - people who work businesses regardless of income/wealth - they still speak of doing - although its very telling that the media prefers to portray them simply as having, as if the doing were not a necessary pre-cursor to having.: Perhaps...but the media present these figures -corporate heads included - in images this class wishes to present to the public - the concerned exec - surveying the New York skyline from the 47th floor, the correspondance via cell-phone from a beach in Hawaii, etc. These are the Decision Makers. It is NOT presented as a group process. An example of the Other way would be GNU-Linux. Unfortunately I can't see how this "Other Way" could be extended throughout society.
SDF: Let's skip the discussion of MANAGEMENT, a matter to be distinguished from OWNERSHIP, and cut to the chase: rich people may work at hobbies, they can even be important hobbies such as managing their businesses instead of paying managers to do that work, but it's not really a primary means of income. The primary income for the rich is business profit. The "working rich"! We might as well make the "nosepicking rich" into an economic category, and claim that when they work those boogers in their noses, they are performing productive labor!
