|
On November 10 2011 08:21 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 08:15 CaucasianAsian wrote:
cool. so all i gotta do to get mad rich is marry someone from this family. ez pz. It doesnt actually work that way though. The kids only inherit around 1billion pound each, while the great fortune is stuffed away in the family trust fund and can only be used for business and investment purposes. Nial fergusons books explain it in pretty great detail. The familys founder, Mayer Amschel, set up strict rules to keep the wealth within the family. For more than 150 years, the family members were ONLY allowed to marry first cousins.Jessica de Rothschild recently married a middle class man in america. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1340840/Geri-Halliwells-ex-Sacha-Gervasi-weds-banking-heiress-worth-450million-star-studded-ceremony.html
The kids only inherit around 1billion pound each
OK good enough for me ^_^
|
Funniest thread I have ever seen.
|
So they secretly control over seven times the net GDP of the world.
-.-
Meanwhile, in conspiracy theorist land...
|
On November 10 2011 08:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I understand that a small number of people are extremely wealthy... I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why I should care, or to provide some type of evidence that this group of people have done specific, sinister things.
But I guess in modernspeak, just being extremely wealthy is itself sinister and scary.
I also don't give a fuck about how much money anyone has. I'm gonna get or not get my own money based on my own actions and work ethic.
However, I have a problem with ridiculously rich people being much more effective at lobbying government than any interest group representing middle class citizens is. Seems like taxation w/o representation to me, except that on top of that, the corporations that generate money for these people usually pay little to no taxes (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/11/corporate-taxes.html) (granted this is probably biased information, although i'm sure there is some truth to it).
TLDR; Rich people can go ahead and be rich as long as they don't fuck it up for the rest of us.
|
yeah but its well know that the corporatism has replaced the democracy for years and its not a conspiracy statement at all.
|
On November 10 2011 09:14 Nqsty wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 09:10 JohnMatrix wrote:
400 trillon = 400 000 billion. its more than all the money in the world right -_- Correct, 7 times more than total GDP in the world. Also, the OP seems to think that a fortune can grow faster than the total aggregate rate, even though they apparently half own the world itself.
Who said GDP= Wealth of the world?
GDP= world's production in a given year. You realize the net worth of land alone in the UK can easily top 10trillion+? This is a wild guess but land is not accounted for, nor is gold and a lot of other things in the world's GDP
|
Can I quote a quote from wikipedia? Does that count as valid?
The Rothschild family established finance houses across Europe from the 18th century and was ennobled by the Habsburg Emperor and Queen Victoria. Throughout the 19th century, they controlled the largest fortune in the world, in today's terms many hundreds of billions, if not in trillions ($US). The family has, at least to some extent, maintained its wealth for over two centuries
Keep in mind that this is essentially said by Niall Ferguson, and well....knowing sources is important.
|
400 trillion? I might believe 4.
|
On November 10 2011 09:19 J.E.G. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 08:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I understand that a small number of people are extremely wealthy... I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why I should care, or to provide some type of evidence that this group of people have done specific, sinister things.
But I guess in modernspeak, just being extremely wealthy is itself sinister and scary. I also don't give a fuck about how much money anyone has. I'm gonna get or not get my own money based on my own actions and work ethic. However, I have a problem with ridiculously rich people being much more effective at lobbying government than any interest group representing middle class citizens is. Seems like taxation w/o representation to me, except that on top of that, the corporations that generate money for these people usually pay little to no taxes (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/11/corporate-taxes.html) (granted this is probably biased information, although i'm sure there is some truth to it). TLDR; Rich people can go ahead and be rich as long as they don't fuck it up for the rest of us.
If the government had little power to control the economy, then business would have little incentive to lobby the government.
Let's not forget that some of the most powerful lobbying special interests are labor unions as well. The unions practically own my state of California, and they are running it into bankruptcy while refusing a penny cut to their pensions or benefits.
If you want to talk about taxation without representation, we can talk about how generations of Americans have been stealing from their own children and their own grandchildren in the form of government debt. How can you represent your interests when you haven't even been born yet? You can't, which is why it's so easy to pass the buck down the line.
My point is, the problems in this country aren't due to wealth, they are due to excess political power.
|
Oh btw can someone explain the point about wealth being preserved through inheritance? I thought inheritance tax existed in the west?
|
On November 10 2011 08:35 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 08:31 trainRiderJ wrote:On November 10 2011 08:14 sc2holar wrote:On November 10 2011 08:08 Danglars wrote:Think this is better off named, "Who were the richest people in the world?" Rothschilds dwarfed others of their era, it's true. But now, they are dwarfed by the vast majority of people who did not inherit their money. Why am i brining this up? well, because i think its about time people realize how the system works. 99% of the worlds money is controlled by a small group of people (not just the rothschild family). This is all verified historical facts, none of this is crazy conspiracy talk. I learned most of this during my academic studies, so you can learn this at your local university if you take a course in economic history. As free trade increased and technology progressed, less and less of the wealthiest people merely got their riches from daddy. Forbes top 400 list changes all the time. Being on it one year is no guarantee on being on it the next. You merely have spots of inherited money, and no real dominance of it. But you say, THE MEASURING IS FLAWED! Secret old wealth really controls everything, from The Economist to The Fed! It's pretty encouraging speaking from the outside saying how this analysis is dead wrong, but putting forth just hints and whispers as to why your analysis is the true, right one. Let's see some prominent scholars reporting on the real concentration of wealth, let's see their sources of fact. You rip down Forbes's list, and put up nothing. You can Actually find evidence for most of this in the Book series written by Oxford professor Nial Fergusson. He had acess to the familys private archives and everything written there is confirmed by the family itself. http://www.amazon.com/House-Rothschild-Moneys-Prophets-1798-1848/dp/0140240845If you are saying that the rothschilds are dwarfed by Todays buffet and Gates, you are implying that they somehow must have lost 98% of the money they had in 1850. When you have money stuffed away in swiss banks with good interest, that doesnt happen. There's a lot more money in the world then there was in 1850. They don't have to "lose" money to have a smaller piece of the pie. But money still grows. There is no way 6billion dollars in 1850 can shrink to less than what bill gates has today. Especially not when you stuff it in your own bank where you control the interest rate.
i guess there is no way Leehman Brothers can possibly bankrupt.
And there is definitely no way Bill Gates could possibly drop 30 billion of net worth in just one year.
|
Right sek, but when you have influence on the national banks of almost every western nation...
things can sometimes get very tinfoily.
|
isn't the reason why it isn't reported on forbes because this is "family wealth" not individual wealth? gates/slim/zuckerberg would still be some of the richest "persons" in the world.
|
On November 10 2011 08:04 b0ngt0ss wrote:
400 hundrend faking trillion? WTF... it's probably even more than that.
Yes, but it is not like they can go to a secret vault under their mansion that holds 400 Trillion and make a withdraw. This wealth is everywhere. It's in mining, gas, and oil reserves, treasury shares, real estate and property assets, and companies. Though it is very true that their wealth is pretty much limitless in what they could do with it. It would take a great deal of effort to turn all those assets into actual currency.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
400 trillion USD.
Did anyone else read that in Dr Evil's voice?
|
You can't forget John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, Henry H. Rogers, J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt of the Vanderbilt family, the Astor family and others of the Gilded Age.
|
I am the black pope, just so you guys know
|
On November 10 2011 08:48 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 08:36 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 10 2011 08:14 Offhand wrote:On November 10 2011 08:06 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 10 2011 07:54 sc2holar wrote:
The Rothschilds made their vast fortune through a network of Federal Banks (they invented the word "federal bank") in all the big capitals of europe, and funded (issued loans with huge interest) both sides of many wars along with the industrialization and all railroads built in europe. Thanks to their splendid network of information, they always knew what was happening in europe, and they could always invest with huge profits. You might think that our federal, "national" banks are owned by the government, but they are not.
This is bullshit. It varies greatly from country to country. Federal reserve systems are private on purpose. It is by design (preventing the office from becoming political, decreasing the scale of the political-business cycle, etc). Just to prove my point, because shit like this pisses me off, here's Sveriges Riksbank (/Bank of Sweden/Swedish National Bank): http://www.riksbank.com/templates/SectionStart.aspx?id=10601Back to what I was saying... This varies greatly from country to country. On November 10 2011 08:35 sc2holar wrote:On November 10 2011 08:31 trainRiderJ wrote:On November 10 2011 08:14 sc2holar wrote:On November 10 2011 08:08 Danglars wrote:Think this is better off named, "Who were the richest people in the world?" Rothschilds dwarfed others of their era, it's true. But now, they are dwarfed by the vast majority of people who did not inherit their money. Why am i brining this up? well, because i think its about time people realize how the system works. 99% of the worlds money is controlled by a small group of people (not just the rothschild family). This is all verified historical facts, none of this is crazy conspiracy talk. I learned most of this during my academic studies, so you can learn this at your local university if you take a course in economic history. As free trade increased and technology progressed, less and less of the wealthiest people merely got their riches from daddy. Forbes top 400 list changes all the time. Being on it one year is no guarantee on being on it the next. You merely have spots of inherited money, and no real dominance of it. But you say, THE MEASURING IS FLAWED! Secret old wealth really controls everything, from The Economist to The Fed! It's pretty encouraging speaking from the outside saying how this analysis is dead wrong, but putting forth just hints and whispers as to why your analysis is the true, right one. Let's see some prominent scholars reporting on the real concentration of wealth, let's see their sources of fact. You rip down Forbes's list, and put up nothing. You can Actually find evidence for most of this in the Book series written by Oxford professor Nial Fergusson. He had acess to the familys private archives and everything written there is confirmed by the family itself. http://www.amazon.com/House-Rothschild-Moneys-Prophets-1798-1848/dp/0140240845If you are saying that the rothschilds are dwarfed by Todays buffet and Gates, you are implying that they somehow must have lost 98% of the money they had in 1850. When you have money stuffed away in swiss banks with good interest, that doesnt happen. There's a lot more money in the world then there was in 1850. They don't have to "lose" money to have a smaller piece of the pie. But money still grows. There is no way 6billion dollars in 1850 can shrink to less than what bill gates has today. Especially not when you stuff it in your own bank where you control the interest rate. Not sure why you're so certain they've made good investments with their money. I agree that the money probably didn't go anywhere but I would never state that as a fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_central_banks#Countries_without_central_banksThe majority of the world's nations use the central bank system, including the US, EU, and China. Sweden is a member of the EU (and thus, participates in central banking). Please educate yourself before you post.
Are you claiming this is a private institution? Otherwise I assume you will concede that all countries do not have privatized central banks or federal reserve systems. It's like you want to educate me but you're not sure on what you're supposed to educate me on.
|
On November 10 2011 08:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I understand that a small number of people are extremely wealthy... I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why I should care, or to provide some type of evidence that this group of people have done specific, sinister things.
But I guess in modernspeak, just being extremely wealthy is itself sinister and scary.
I don't know about any public sinister things, but the Rotschilds are behind the global warming movement and them and the Rockefellers have created giant banks of all DNA of all animals, fish, birds and a great deal of people DNA from all over the world.
JP Morgan family is probably out there with the amount of money they have and they also have shares in the federal reserve banks in the USA and Britain.
|
My great-great-grandfather had 100 dollars to his name in 1850. With 6% interest this compounded for 161 years means I would have 100 * 1.06^161 today, or 1 186 435.98.
HOLY SHIT IM A MILLIONARE AND I DIDNT EVEN KNOW IT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
