does your last sentence apply to Chelsea Clinton, too?
 

It does, in fact—as I've said on this blog before.
 

It's fine to rag on people who choose to be investment bankers. And it's fine to note the decline of the aristocracy. But your linking of the two here contains a bubble of unadulterated goo composed of equal parts envy and snobbery. (Or is it must me?)

Granting for the moment the highly dubious proposition that investment banking has no social utility whatever, your piece assumes that someone who has the "bloodlines" this guy does is genetically better prepared to contribute to society than is the average person. Now where, pray tell, do you derive such a proposition? You use the term "aristocracy" but this country has, of course, no such thing. (On the contrary, that was one of the things Americans sought to escape.) True, families such as this young man's once held themselves out as the social elite, and claimed to raise their young with a sense of duty to country, etc., but not only has the time when this was remotely true long passed, but it was never true as a general proposition to begin with. Most of these families were robber barons, or earlier versions thereof.

In sum, not detecting any particular irony in your nostalgia-laden comments, I, as a proud African-American descendant of slaves, reject, on behalf of all of the dispossessed peoples of this misbegotten "plantation" of a country, reject your suggestion that this Times puff piece means anything at all.
 

Rich,

Why don't you explain to us all why a career in investment banking has no "social value whatsoever"?
 

Richard, your blog leaves a terrible taste in my mouth! Why be so snobby?

I don't even agree with what one of the bloggers above said -- that it is "fine to rag on people who choose to be investment bankers." Why is that? Who are we to judge the careers others choose? And why should investment banking be any less worthy than, say, social work?

Who says that choosing a career that makes money (yes, ok, alot of it!) is intrinsically bad, or means somehow that this person is selfish, or a non-contributor to society (what you were clearly implying in the blog)? Hey, what if this Carter Braxton Worth loves what he does - and is good at it -isn't that a contribution to society in and of itself? (As long as you are not hurting anyone , I think so.)

Regardless, the singular fact of what someone does for a living does not necessarily speak for that person's values or contribution to society; rather, it's the total picture that counts -- who the person is as a whole, and what they do in ALL aspects of his or her life, that speak for one's character, and contribution to society.

And do we even know if he is involved in any charities and/or does volunteer work? Maybe he is!

Or, what if he is able to contribute to society BECAUSE of what he does - like, say, Warren Buffett? Do we still judge him just because he makes money?

Sure, he probably has more responsibility to give back to society than others who are less fortunate. But bashing someone because of the singular fact that he or she has chosen investment banking as a career is short sighted!
 

Admittedly this wasn't the most incisive analysis I've seen on this blog (for one thing, the guy is a "chief market technician" -- which, translated, means he's NOT an I-banker), but jeez, people, just as it is unlikely anything printed in the NY Times Weddings pages is going to impact humankind one way or another, the whimsical (if slight) tweaking administered here is undeserving of such solemn deconstruction. (That includes you, my proud African-American slavester.) People, lighten up -- preppie-bashing is a cherished feature of our times and who better to continue the tradition than, um, our own RB!
 

Reading period at Harvard / vacation for everyone else tends to be a slow news period.
 

11:59, you are a nincumpoop. And to everyone else (save 2:46), someone who references his/her lineage past their grandparents in any bio--especially a brief one--is a no account buster.
 

4:38 - strangely, you have both called me (11:59) a nincompoop and exempted me ("save 2:46") from same. i'm all confused now.
 

Let's wrap up here and put things in perspective. We can list the relative order of "social value" with a list formulated and presented in descending order where those at the bottom of the list have the least "social value" to a given society.

1. An investment banker.

2. A commentator of individuals who are investment bankers.

3. A commentator of commentators of individuals who are investment bankers.