Thanks for the response.
BJ Campbell
1

While I don’t favor strong anti-white, anti-male policies. Some sort of measures are needed to foster equality of opportunity.

Affirmative action and college admission preferences are poorly designed if they intended to compensate for the heritability of wealth. The wealthy are rarely impacted by those policies. They disadvantage less wealthy White and Asian Men in favor of women and other racial minorities. They are clearly racist and sexist per R(1) but I still support them until something better comes along.

What we should be doing, what the States should be doing it building Charity Hospitals and excellent K-12 schools for the poor. The heritability of poverty is more of a problem than the heritability of wealth. It is also more easily rectified. The wealthy can block any measures to prevent the heritability of wealth and failing that they can insulate themselves from the affects of such measures.

It is a stretch to call what I wrote an economic model, it was just an anecdote. The point was when starting with a disadvantage a group will not reach parity with equal opportunity, you would not even close the gap. We must some how advantage the disadvantaged if you want to close the gap. Chaos and noise usually more adversely affect the disadvantaged as they have less resources to buffer against those them and the advantaged can often use chaos and noise to their advantage.

My projection is that your time scale of generations not centuries is correct. We will see the affects of todays and future policies in those time scales but the affect will not be equality. White Men will still be at the top of the Forbes 500 in greater proportions than they are in the general population.

TEK