Post: #1

Do the giant industrial/banking groups of a hundred years ago still run the world?

The Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgans etc?

I am a little skeptical about this. But not sure what to think either way.

It feels like a lazy conspiracy theory to say that the world is still run by a few families. Since that oversimplifies the world. And also - because most wealthy families are too busy living a playboy lifestyle to care about political power.

When your grandfather was incredibly rich, and you father was incredibly rich and your youth spent living in mansions around the world, flying private jets and sleeping with beautiful women - it is hard to imagine you would suddenly start getting all Dr Strangelove and vengeful about trying to control the world.

Then again - I have never really looked into this area. Since this is the sort of subject that is like standing under Niagra Falls in order to quench your thirst. In terms of using the internet to research it.

So - I am just curious what you guys think? Do you guys feel the strings that controlled power in the past still does today?

Post: #2

I've often wondered about this. Take the Rothschilds. Spend an afternoon Googling, not the wacky Illuminati theorist sites, but just try to trace what they are involved in and what can be known for sure. It's very opaque. What would even be a testable hypothesis about how much power they have?

Like Bilderberg meetings, these guys aren't letting on what they do in private, and we just have no way of knowing whether when you get 50 of the most powerful people of the world get together they just drink tea and make plans for making the world a better place, or whether they plot coups and national bankruptcies.

Post: #3

The mentality of any rich and prominent family like the ones you mentioned is to create dynasties by taking a very, very long term view of things. They mean to survive and thrive over what to most of us may as well be geological time. But it's actually more difficult to do this than it seams. You can't just imagine that since your family has X billion $'s now your descendants 100 years from now will still be rich. At the upper ends money isn't really money. It's not like the Rothschild sit on their beds in 5* hotels scooping 1000's of $100 bills in the air. They can't "cash out" because of the large sums involved. They must continually renew their wealth through profitable investments. They can't just retire and sit back and maintain their status. If they do they'll lose most of their wealth.

Think of it like planting a forest you eventually intend to harvest for profit. But a hardwood forest where the trees take 100+ years to grow to maturity. If you can't get your mind round that, or think that you're wasting your time because you wont live to see the profits you won't be on a position to build a dynasty.

As to your question re whether the same families control the economic world today that controlled it years ago. I think some do, and some don't. I think some, like the Rothschilds, are still very powerful, but they all face major difficulties to maintain their status.

Post: #4

On wikipedia - it says that the Rothschilds had to hand over their bank in Austria to the Nazis.

I would be curious to know what this meant. Was the bank in Austria their main bank (possible since the Rothchilds were originally from Austria)? Or was it a minor part of their banking operations?

As such - I am curious as to how devastating to their wealth this Nazi seizure was? And whether any of it was recovered after WWII?

The problem with researching questions like this is that it is hard to wade through the avalanche of information and conspiracy theories on the web. As such - after each trawl you end up with even more questions than answers.

Post: #5

Good thread. It's hard to decipher the who's who of the big name industrialists and bankers.

There's been many since the decolonisation of the 3rd world and the fall of communism. Oligarchs in eastern Europe, Indian mega industrialist families like the Tatas and Mittals. African moguls like Dangote. They've become very effective in buying up western companies.

Post: #6

On top of all this. I once heard that the Dutch Royal Family are the richest family in the world.

So - that could be another source of 'old' money which has a lot more influence than people think.

I think the reason the British Royal Family is not richer is because we got rid of them in 1649. And ever since then - they haven't being a proper royal family - instead a constitutional figurehead put in place to stop any more civil wars or revolutions.

These days they are the descendents of some very minor royals from Germany. As such - the family has not had a chance to loot the country and build up wealth in the way that other royal families who have sat on the throne for centuries have. I am guessing the Dutch royals fit this picture.

The thing about the Dutch is that Holland was the richest country in the world - 300 years ago. Which was around the same time that royalty could get away with pocketing large chunks of wealth.

Post: #7

I think new money really skews the power curve. I'd say the past 100 years has seen incredible wealth creation from people of "average" social class.

Money and power doesn't always go hand in hand either. The DuPonts are an example of what too much money and too many generations does. Unless there is a strict guiding hand involved in some of those old money families the degenerative effects of immense wealth on successive generations starts to happen.

Post: #8

There is an old Chinese saying...

"Wealth doesn't last 3 generations."

Post: #9

(05-21-2014 01:40 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Do the giant industrial/banking groups of a hundred years ago still run the world?

The Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgans etc?

I am a little skeptical about this. But not sure what to think either way.

It feels like a lazy conspiracy theory to say that the world is still run by a few families. Since that oversimplifies the world. And also - because most wealthy families are too busy living a playboy lifestyle to care about political power.

When your grandfather was incredibly rich, and you father was incredibly rich and your youth spent living in mansions around the world, flying private jets and sleeping with beautiful women - it is hard to imagine you would suddenly start getting all Dr Strangelove and vengeful about trying to control the world.

Then again - I have never really looked into this area. Since this is the sort of subject that is like standing under Niagra Falls in order to quench your thirst. In terms of using the internet to research it.

So - I am just curious what you guys think? Do you guys feel the strings that controlled power in the past still does today?

Lol I say... Lol I say again...

Post: #10

Post: #11

IMO it is impossible to say who the heirs of the great banking fortunes are nowadays and how much they really have because many ultra-high net worth individuals have their money squirreled away in offshore trusts or hidden behind many layers of offshore shell corporations.

Post: #12

China - bunch of new billionaires. The revolution cleaned house.

Russia - bunch of new oligarchs, most of them up jumped men of "flexibile morality"

Silicon Valley and Wall Street - Able to leverage the new boy network and the old boy network. But both move too fast for the "Winklevoss" types to really take control.

Throw in all the financial centers and the movers and shakers, Dubai, Singapore, London, Hong Kong...

I mean they all meet for CFR, Davos, and G7/G20 summits, but it's not like Billy Gates can call in the Marines if he feels one of his Africa Malaria projects is in jeopardy.

WIA

Post: #13

There's a yes and no here.

No, it's not like the Rockefellers & Rothschilds rule the world. Or similar conspiracy theory nuttery.

But, yes, it matters a lot who your parents are in life: genes matter. If you read Gregory Clark's "The Son Also Rises" you'll note that talent runs in families. Social mobility is very, very low in society. If you look closer at the so-called rise of BRIC centimillionaires/billionaires/oligarchs you'll see the family names that ran the show when everyone was dirt poor throughout the respective national histories to be highly overrepresented today. Descendants of Japanese samurai class are much more likely to have a high public or commercial position. That's true for Sweden, US, China & the UK.

It's just the way it is.

OTOH, don't let that discourage you. Individuals can still be very succesful and if you want your kids to be succesful as well, you'll have to pick a good girl from a good family.

Post: #14

The names have changed, but the principle remains the same.

Post: #15

Old money runs the UK. Maybe not in other countries or worldwide.

Social mobility is shot. What you inherit is far more important than your education or even your job.

Take London for example.

You have a lot of people here paying 40-70% of their wages in rent with not much left over. Then you also have a lot of people who are getting massive rental payments as they own the property through inheritance. They are asset rich and cash rich. They can stack paper, trade up, sell up and leave, get involved in politics, etc.

Even a high personal income doesn't mean much. £100k salary after tax is £65k. Average properties are nearing £500k in London, homes that working class used to live in a few decades back. Someone who is top 2% in earning power is poorer than vast majority of home owners in total wealth.

The nouveau-riche are the creators of IT lovechilds like Whatsapp, CandyCrush, Twitter etc

New money is too late to be worth much against those with established wealth unless you can crack it in IT or finance.

Post: #16

Going to resurrect this thread to make an interesting point.

I learned about this from How to Get Rich by Felix Dennis (RIP Felix).

Imagine you're the patriarch of some rich, old money. Maybe $1+ Billion in assets, money that has been in the family for generations, possibly centuries. Your goal isn't to increase this wealth but to pass this to the next generation. That means no risky investments, no blowing money on yachts and keeping your head low.

IDK much about wealth management but I do know that much of it involves low-risk investments with slow & steady returns. That means no investing in rising companies and such but in old ones like GE. Many of these families sit on the boards of major corporations which own other smaller companies. That means that they influence who buys who, but don't involve themselves in the real risky maneuvers.

We all know that international business is dictated by Central Banks and small-medium sized players who make big splashes. Since large corporations act reactively instead of proactively to such events, they don't run the show. However, they do have much influence, as does the board, which includes old money.

So to answer your question (if you're still lurking), no old money doesn't run our increasingly chaotic world. But it sure as hell has a lot of influence in how we react to it.

Post: #17

(05-21-2014 01:40 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Do the giant industrial/banking groups of a hundred years ago still run the world?

The Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgans etc?

I am a little skeptical about this. But not sure what to think either way.

It feels like a lazy conspiracy theory to say that the world is still run by a few families. Since that oversimplifies the world. And also - because most wealthy families are too busy living a playboy lifestyle to care about political power.

Jeb Bush is a possibility in 2016. So is Hillary Clinton that same year. I'm middle-aged but not old, and yet in my (short) lifetime I've already had two presidents from the same family. And already looking at the possibility of having a third from the same family, or the wife of a previously sitting president.

It's not a "lazy conspiracy theory".

Post: #18

You really think the Bush family has all that power!
If there are richer people than the Rothschilds then I am a chinaman. I think a lot of you need to do some research about them and the Rockfellers.
Real money hides and is rarely mentioned in the media.

Post: #19

Since I'm Mr. Media Critic on here, let me add this:

1). Regarding a possible match-up of Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton: The shrinking of the pool of presidential candidates closely mirrors the shrinking of media outlets.

Years ago people could get dozens of different points of view, so you'd have oddball candidates emerge like Jimmy Carter since certain newspapers took to him while others didn't. These days, media ownership is more concentrated and you only get one or two "celebrity" choices. It's like what happened when Clear Channel took over all the radio stations and playlists shrank so you heard fewer artists.

2). The rise of women in media and as consumers of media has contributed to this. It's always been men who loved the average-guy-makes-good news stories and movies, because men see themselves in that. Women love royalty and celebrity gossip because they're the breeders and, as such, are attracted to good genes. The way the presidential system is set up now, it's more like we're electing a king or a movie star than a president. Women, IMO, have caused this shift.

The more you see shows like "The View," "Ellen" and the like, the more you'll see a focus on political dynasties or celebrity profiles on candidates, because that appeals to their female audience.

Post: #20

Women have caused this shift or the general dumbing down of the population.
How the hell could America vote for another Bush? Unless of course they realize he will lose to Hilary.