[_DIFIGIANO_]

The issue is one of a philosophical kind. Just aknowledge that there is a vast gap between acting in self-interest and acting in a philantrophic way. The big game is played in the minds - this ideal or idea of meritocracy is a way to rule. It is a plain sophistic ideology (sophists were those greek philosophers whom argued that everything in the outside was a projection of what you have on the inside, for expl. the medieval cosmic view is based on this). On the other hand we have philosophers which believe the outside is what determines us as beeings and thus it's worth being analized and understood. Archimedes for example was one that promoted this way of thinking.

However, we can all be certain that it's neither just the one nor the other way of making sense of our reality that is absolutely 'right'. It's most likely a mix of both (or more, love maybe apart) - but by 'believing' that every action has always to be in your very own self interest this may gets you rich but everybody else gets poorer in the process.

I'm going to be honest, this is stuff the ruling class knows and has known for millenials (may even before the greeks wrote it down). They would not be granted such privileges if they didn't act in a philantrophic way (expl. Gates foundation). People would turn on them in a revolution that would harm anyone more than it would help a single soul. Thusfor the ruling class - through university and religion - gives us this self centered (sophistic) believe shemes so we would controll (ourselfs) one another.

And no, I'm actually not talking about rich people when I talk of the ruling class. What I mean by that are big rulers of land. Bcs. you can have as much money as you want - if you live on a certain soil you will have to obey the ruler in one way or another.