[aspenmayer]

It seemed like you were saying that those in power have a vested interest in solving this social problem because they have more to lose because they have more skin in the game. They actually have almost no exposure to this failure mode because they have lawyers and accountants. They have entire family office services. They don’t suffer due to identity theft even when it happens. Failure isn’t an option or even a distinct possibility, because losses due to identity theft have already been priced into their exposure to liquid markets, and they’re insured for illiquid assets.

It’s not the same for the little people. That was my point.

[MichaelZuo]

This doesn’t seem to relate?

The only thing I said was it’s tautological… if they couldn’t affect the status quo to their desires, then they wouldn’t be considered to have wealth or power in the first place.

[aspenmayer]

They (elites who want to solve the problem/change the status quo) are not able to do so because most elites are okay with the current status quo.

[MichaelZuo]

How is this point relevant to my point?

It seems to be completely unrelated to the tautology.

[aspenmayer]

Your argument is that elites who wish to change the status quo, but can’t for whatever reason, aren’t really elites. I agree to a point.

I argue even if the above is true, they truly are elites if the word actually describes anyone accurately and not just aspirationally, and that there are too many cooks in the kitchen for one to rise above the din.