The question isn't whether you'll have elites or not but what sort of elites you will have.
Bingo.
Under capitalism, your "elite" class just means "someone who holds capital."
That was bad enough when we had sound money, as it generally attracted the greedy robber baron types.
But in a fiat system where capital is created at will, it is an inversion of the natural process of elites, where predatory rootless cosmopolitans, who have no connection to the people in society, no allegiance to them, no common religion, lifestyle, or even friendship with them, are now "elites."
That said, I'm not sure how being ruled over Viscount William Gates the Third is really any better then ruled over by CEO Bill Gates.
What we are seeing now is the tail end of the "old money" elites of the sound money capitalist system.
What we will see next is the "new money" types, which, unlike the traditional elites, lack the education, culture, family roots, community respect, and nobless oblige attitude.
Think people like Sam Bankman Fried, Mark Zuckerberg, Andrew Tate.
These types of people have no family wealth, so they look to greedily take money wherever they can, no matter the ethical case. They will also heavily cooperate with government, like how the Deep State has an open door at Facebook, and Zuckerberg frequently visits federal police offices in DC (in fact, many of these people, like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, were synthetically created *by* government itself.
They have no ties to the community, so they will do things like drug millions of people (Sackler family with opiods). They have no religion, (really most of them are atheist Jews), so they are not bounds by the historical mores or restraints of western civilization.
They lack the traditional liberal arts education, so they lack judgment, historical context, and wisdom, and will easily be swayed by new ideas (think Elon Musk and trannyism).
Unlike past elites (think Ford, Carnegie, etc.) they feel little need to help others. They believe in the libertarian model of greed capitalism, and rarely find a need to help others.
I'd like to see some of the old content over how a monarchy does a better job with selecting for elites.
Hopefully others can chime in here, but briefly: How were European Monarchs groomed? For one there was a rigorous education, training, and preparation plan that lasted years or decades. Monarchs would fully learn the history of their country, learn about the different peoples in the different regions in their nation, their customs, languages, and beliefs, and heavily relied on a group of advisors in making decisions.
As they ruled for life, they had low time preference, and would generally make decisions with their grandchildren in mind.
Since they were independently wealthy, bribes or donations from outside groups meant nothing--they lived in a castle with servants and had every need cared for. Those who came to the monarch with a suggestion that was not in the best interest of the nation, or came from a place of greed were judged harshly (if not punished).
Monarchs are given the solemn moral duty as God's representative on earth, and a monarch is held personally responsible for actions which endanger the souls of his people. So, a king, for example, who allowed pornography or divorce in his kingdom, knowing it would mean damnation for those who fell to these vices, would be held directly responsible by God and were therefore utterly opposed to degeneracy.
There's much more but the short answer is: A bunch of wise men thought a lot about this issue and refined it over decades or centuries. Monarchs are men, and men are fallible, so of course there are times when they fell short.
I am a big fan of the BBC series The Crown. One of the best episodes of television I've seen recently looks deeply at Prince Philip and his faith. The entire series gives an example of the cultural education QE2 receives in preparing her to rule over her nation. Does she make mistakes? Of course. She greatly influences events in South Africa that led to the end of white rule there, which has been a disaster for all involved. But compare that to the major blunders of democracy, or the millions of innocents who have been murdered by the GAE in my lifetime.
Here are a few quotes on the Crown episode in question, which centers around the doubt Prince Philip is feeling about his faith, and his infatuation with the US (((moon landing))) astronauts whom he worships, until he meets them and finds them boring and stupid:
The ‘Moondust’ episode is one of the most insightful explorations of faith I’ve ever seen on TV.
www.thegospelcoalition.org
In Season 3 of the Netflix series, Prince Philip finds faith on the far side of the moon.
thinkchristian.net
It is one of the most insightful explorations of faith I’ve ever seen on TV. In 56 minutes, the episode manages to show both why religious belief is easily sidelined in a secular age, and why—in spite of everything—people struggle to fully abandon it.
Prince Philip did not expect to meet God while watching the 1969 moon landing. But that’s how the BBC broadcaster frames it as the royal family gathers around their television in the “Moondust” episode of The Crown:
The entire series is a fantastic historical education, with excellent attention to detail, and often touches on faith. I found myself reading about many events over the past 100 years that I was unaware of until the series featured them. I don't want to spoil the episode too much, but here's an early clip:
