Well, your generalizations about the wealthy have a grain of truth, as generalizations usually do; but like all generalizations they tend to be wrong in specific cases.
I thought about dropping some names originally, and decided against it. I considered changing my mind to respond to your post, but I'll stick to my principles and not name-drop. Given that self-imposed handicap, I can only ask that you trust me when I tell you that the very best of the very rich that I've known don't match your stereotypes of either neurotic nouveau riche nor wastrel old money. Rather, the one family in particular I'm thinking of managed to acquire its wealth relatively recently, yet they seem to have consciously decided to adopt the traditional principles of nobless oblige. It sounds corny to use a term like that, but to see how the patriarch put billions of dollars into a charitable foundation, and taught his kids that they were responsible for managing the fund for the good of humanity...well, that to me is the definition of nobility.
That family is an exception, unfortunately. I'll grant you that the majority of both old and new wealth conform to your stereotypes. But having known a few exceptions, I feel like I'd be doing them a disservice by not pointing out that wealth doesn't inevitably corrupt people. It tends to, but some people are wise enough to resist.
Your characterization of the two "breeds" of the wealthy aren't very flattering, which is probably why I felt compelled to point out positive exceptions. It's not clear to my why I should conclude that the nouveau riche who are "fixated on money" and "indeed seem (or are) depraved" are the best people to lead the nation. Nor the "gentry with generations of inherited money" who are " Less motivated. Less driven. Often lazy. Often less depraved". Well, less-depraved is probably a good thing, but none of the other character traits you list is generally considered a positive thing in a leader.
'The most balanced rich are the "upper middle class"' is a good observation. So why would it not be a good thing to address the distribution-of-wealth problem to rebuild the middle class and restore the mobility that produces an upper-middle class? If these are the best people to lead us, then isn't it in our best interests to reform the system to produce a bumper crop of upper-middle-class people? If it's done at the expense of the class of people you characterize as essentially worthless, isn't that a net two-for-one bargain for America?
I forgot to address this one. In Silicon Valley...
You'd have probably been better off to not try. There's an old saying that goes something like "don't try to teach your granny to suck eggs, boy", and I'm sure it somehow applies. You shouldn't forget that I not only live here in Silicon Valley, I work here, and I've participated in the process you're lecturing me about.
I think I need to clarify for you that the Horatio Alger stories are not documentaries, they're parables, and as such they contain both as much truthiness and as little literal truth as "any little boy in America can grow up to be President someday." Hypothetically possible and useful notionally, but in reality, your mileage will differ.
The latest couple of updates to Horatio Alger place him in a garage in Silicon Valley, toiling through the night while supporting himself by day as a janitor, and totally without any help from anyone else and by the fruit of his own labor alone, Horatio brings forth the PC revolution and becomes a multibillionaire. Or two decades later he invents the Web and etc.
(Ahem, janitors in Silicon Valley have trouble renting ghetto apartments, let alone making the mortgage payment on a house with a garage, but hey, it's parable, it doesn't have to make sense.)
Here's the real story behind one of the archetypical Silicon Valley Horatio Alger tales: The Two Steves Found Apple Computer In Their Garage. Yeah, they were working in a garage. That's the limit of the truth. What's usually not mentioned in the tale is the role of a capitalist named AC "Mike" Markkula, who gave the boys $91,000 of his own money, arranged a $250,000 line of credit for them, arranged deals with component suppliers, and generally opened a lot of doors otherwise closed to them.
Let's stop and savor those facts. Not only did Markkula drop some serious change on the boys, he had the connections in the Valley financial community to secure a line of credit for them worth a quarter of a $million, something they could never have done on their own. That's the old-boy network in action, Techie. It's who you know that counts, as it has always been.
Shall we talk about Bill Gates lifting himself up by his boostraps from the Seattle ghetto?