EDIT: THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD IS STRICTLY EDUCATIONAL. im not political and this is not a conspiracy theory.
Lets just start of by saying that it is not Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. This is no crazy tinfoil talk, its common knowledge among everyone in the business sphere that the measures used by forbes is greatly flawed as it only accounts to TAXATED money.
Forbes, for one, does not count old, inheirited money, where (believe it or not) most of the actual money that exists today lies.
According to most historicans, economy insiders and even wikipedia, the biggest fortune to ever be measured in the history of mankind was possesed by the european banking dynasty The House of Rothsthild, whose sole fortune was measured to be worth 6 billion USD In 1850. This sum was, in fact, more than half of the amount of money that existed in all of europe at that time.
Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:
$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%) $7.8 trillion US (@ 5%) $31.5 trillion US (@ 6%) $125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%) $491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)
To give these figures some perspective consider these benchmarks:
A little of $300 billion US buys every ounce of gold in every central bank in the world U.S. M3 money supply August 1997 was $5.2 trillion U.S. debt is currently $5.4 trillion. U.S. GDP (1997; 2nd Q.) is $8.03 trillion. George Soros' empire is worth an estimated $20 billion.
400 trillion dollars. (but dont take the numbers to literally)
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply." - Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild
Since then,, the Rothschild family has kept a rather low profile. You might ask why "The Economist" doesnt write about this? well, you can find your answer on wikipedia, The Economist (among many other magazines) is directly owned and controlled by Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, cousin to the current Baron lord Jacob.
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.
The same goes for the Federal Reserve, wich Rothschild owns a part of.
almost all nations have huge governal debts. to who? well, the Rothschild "owns" a considerable share of it. And Forbes doesnt count that kind of money,
this little youtube video shows a fraction of the familys palaces and properties built during the 19th century. (the song is the original version of the song "if i was a rich man" from the musical fiddler on the roof,"If i was a rothschild".
People like Bill Gates and Mark zuckerberg are just middle class people who happened to make a lot of money. but their money and power is nothing compared to the true upper class that has ruled the western world for hundreds of years. Bill Gates is just a scapegoat to divert attention from the big sharks.
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.
The House of Rothschild. Money’s Prophets, 1798–1848, Viking Books, 1998, ISBN 0-670-85768-8. The House of Rothschild: The World’s Banker, 1849–1999, Viking Books, 1999, ISBN 0-670-88794-3
You might ask, What are the Rothschilds doing today?
The heir to the english branch, Nat Rothschild, recently bought up almost all of the remaining Coal and Aluminium reserves in the world.
His Cousin, David, is one of the most prominent spokesmen for the climate change and he has written several books on the subject. The Rothschilds are one of the biggest pushers for the climate change debate.
Sir Evelyn de Rothschild is married to an american woman called Lynn Forester, just to use her as his prolonged arm to fund american president campaigns and gain control of the US. Her Lobby group is one of the most influental ones in america and she was a big supporter of Hillary Clinton.
Yeah I know about them to the same extent you do, which is sadly nothing at all (all off us know nothing about them)
For all of you who dont know when people say the world is run by an illuminati, They may not know it but they mean the Rothschild(or mabye freemasons, but its more unlikely that they are an illuminati).
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.
On November 10 2011 08:00 jubil wrote: Thought for sure if this was a historical discussion the Medici family would be brought up. I guess they're not quite as prominent nowadays...
i would say they are still well known, at least in our schools we were taught about them.
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.
It must also be said that the Rothschilds in many ways founded and financed the state of Israel. The comission signed by the queen of england that gave birth to the state of Israel was written by the current Baron, and The Rothschilds have donated money to build both the Israeli state house (knesset) and the grand court house.
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.
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.
If 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.
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).
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.
Being a significant portion of the banking industry is evil. Not hard to figure that one out.
On November 10 2011 08:02 sc2holar wrote: You might ask, What are the Rothschilds doing today?
The heir to the english branch, Nat Rothschild, recently bought up almost all of the remaining Coal and Aluminium reserves in the world.
His Cousin, David, is one of the most prominent spokesmen for the climate change and he has written several books on the subject. The Rothschilds are one of the biggest pushers for the climate change debate.
Sir Evelyn de Rothschild is married to an american woman called Lynn Forester, just to use her as his prolonged arm to fund american president campaigns and gain control of the US. Her Lobby group is one of the most influental ones in america and she was a big supporter of Hillary Clinton.
I couldn't watch that clip out of embarrassment. Pretty sure if your name has 'de' in it and you have the title of 'Lady' you're probably one of the 'elite.' Thanks for sharing this info though, it was interesting.
"...but their money and power is nothing compared to the true upper class that has ruled the western world for hundreds of years..." So this family has ruled the Western world for centuries? That's stunning news. I guess we'd better burn all the works of so called eminent historians. Hitler was right after all, it's those Jew bankers who are to blame for our miserable existence.
By the way, I did enjoy the video. Those are some beautiful buildings! Still, this thread deserves to be closed for reasons of excessive stupid.
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.
The history of Rothschild is pretty amazing and not just a story about some people inheriting a huge amount of money. They have jewish roots and had to face several difficulties on the civilian and the political side. They saved a lot of nations before bankruptcy by lending money to them and were helping the poor folks. Not to forget that Rothschild is responsible for building railroad lines all over europe.
How they used and use their money today is a different story though.
I can recommend reading the two books of Niall Ferguson, his writing is pretty vivid.
The House of Rothschild. Money’s Prophets, 1798–1848, Viking Books, 1998, ISBN 0-670-85768-8. The House of Rothschild: The World’s Banker, 1849–1999, Viking Books, 1999, ISBN 0-670-88794-3
@sc2holar: what are you studying? some kind of political/business stuff?
On November 10 2011 08:20 wadadde wrote: "...but their money and power is nothing compared to the true upper class that has ruled the western world for hundreds of years..." So this family has ruled the Western world for centuries? That's stunning news. I guess we'd better burn all the works of so called eminent historians. Hitler was right after all, it's those Jew bankers who are to blame for our miserable existence.
By the way, I did enjoy the video. Those are some beautiful buildings! Still, this thread deserved to be closed for reasons of excessive stupid.
Dude, i was refering to the Upper Class in general. the Rothschilds are just a part of it. In every human civilization there has always been an elevated ruling class. nothing "tinfoil" about that.
@sc2holar: what are you studying? some kind of political/business stuff?
I study Economic History, but i have learned about business and economy since i was a kid since my family is a part of that class and my parents did also inherit a huge amount of money that the state doesnt know about. So i know this kind of stuff
On November 10 2011 08:20 Skilledblob wrote: where is my tinfoil hat.
I came in here expecting many more conspiracy theory posts. I am happy to be disappointed. Some families have immense money and theoretical or real power over millions. If not them, then someone else. The world keeps turning and we distract ourselves with entertainment.
Shit sucks but that's the way it is. And it's not necessarily bad things happen because of it.
All and all though, it's interesting as all learning tends to be.
Most of this is the stuff of common conspiracy theories fueled by blatant anti antisemitism.
But yes, there's certainly a point to there being money that isn't taxed. There's lots of it and these guys aren't the only ones who have it.
You're overestimating today's influence of money though. In the Napoleonic wars soldiers went where they were paid and fed. Today we have only one superpower and when it's in financial trouble, we're talking trillions. Sums so vast they dwarf the collective assets of that "1%" you're talking about.
No private interest, not even a Rothschild, can bail out nations today. The monetary system simply works differently. You can't control $'s the way you could bouillons.
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.
If 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.
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.
On November 10 2011 08:27 sc2holar wrote: I study Economic History, but i have learned about business and economy since i was a kid since my family is a part of that class and my parents did also inherit a huge amount of money that the state doesnt know about. So i know this kind of stuff
That's nice to hear, use it for good and not for evil ^_ ^
You have some more books to recommend? I read everything from Niall Ferguson and Georg Heuberger about this topic and want to read more.
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.
If 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.
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).
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.
If 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.
actually Forbes does consider 'old money' when considering the richest in the world. Consider that most of those on the list that were related to Sam Walton got most of their money from his wealth.
On November 10 2011 08:00 jubil wrote: Thought for sure if this was a historical discussion the Medici family would be brought up. I guess they're not quite as prominent nowadays...
Probably the only way people today have heard of the Medici family is from Assassin's Creed.
Can you link reference to some book or articles form you course in economic history?? It sounds really interesting, so I would like to check your statement and learn more.
On November 10 2011 08:35 sc2holar wrote: 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.
yes, this is a problem, a lot of people have trouble with math and don't really understand how interest works.
Boy, I'd take $1000 dollars in a bank account in 1850 with interest up till today, let alone billions.
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).
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.
If 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.
The 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.
ok the first one posted Zeitgeist. Now this thread is over. I am sure the Rothschild family is still rich and I am sure they are having fun with the money and I am sure some of them are politically motivated but this thread is turning more and more to a garbage bin for conspiracy theories.
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.
you should really watch that half hour cartoon video. some of it is done in parody, but the gist of why you should care and how it effects you is there.
Don't. The system is fucked up enough without people injecting crazy into the discussion. These people are 9/11 truthers, correct?
Zeitgeist is like the mother of all the modern conspiracy theorists. They write about everything
I've seen the first one. They took a little bit of economic truth and turned it into a bad Philip K. Dick novel. But this was after they informed me Jesus was an Egyptian god and before they told me 9/11 was an inside job (you'd think these things are different enough that Zeitgiest would do them one at a time).
Applying a 6% interest rate to the net worth compounding for 150 years would make anyone of that era filthy rich in today's dollars...there is no reason or justification for attaching that 6% interest rate. It multiplies the value of that person's net worth by 6250 times...its just silly...
Yeah, the US borrowing money from a private bank (having them print it) and paying interest on it, instead of printing the money themselves makes perfect sense. Def nothing more to this than meets the eye. At least it's no wonder how they are so powerful.
This sum was, in fact, more than half of the amount of money that existed in all of europe at that time, and if you translate it to todays money with an interest rate of 6% it translates to over 400 trillion USD.
400 trillion dollars.
I haven't heard anything so ridiculous in quite a while, someone actually claiming that a fortune could amount to that much seriously has no grasp of economic digits, or returns on investment, or inflation, or even the simple real world economy. There's so much nonsense in that sentence I can't even start to explain why.
People need to stop masturbating over a long lost fantasy of a secretive power controlling the world.
And even if there was one, accept the fact that you don't know about it, no one knows about it, and I can bet you even within the family itself there's uncertainty.
Also, for the sake of the argument, 6 billion with a 6% interest rate over 161 years becomes 71 trillion, which becomes 1 775 trillion today by taking into account inflation, just to show how ridiculous the calculation is (assuming $1 in 1850 = 25$ today, an average estimate used often).
To all the people comparing the Rothschild families wealth to Bill Gates... Of COURSE the wealth of that entire extended family is worth more than a single man, just like Microsoft is worth more than Gates alone. Comparing the wealth of an entire family with 100s of members to that of a single person is stupid.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If 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.
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.
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.
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).
Back 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.
If 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.
The 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!
On November 10 2011 09:26 sekritzzz wrote: Oh btw can someone explain the point about wealth being preserved through inheritance? I thought inheritance tax existed in the west?
The wealth of the family clan is organized in a trust or corporation or something along those lines, and no one actually inherits that wealth, only the private wealth of their parents.
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
I'm pretty sure I know what GDP is, I was making a comparison just to put things into perspective.
And FYI, the total amount of farmland in the US is 2.5 trillion. Now farmland isn't land, its land with revenue, idle land is worth almost nothing. Farmland now is probably selling at something like 15 times land value.
Total amount of gold in the world is estimate 7 trillion.
According to The Economist, "developed economies'" assets at the end of 2002 were the following: Residential property: $48 trillion; Commercial property: $14 trillion; Equities: $20 trillion; Government bonds: $20 trillion; Corporate bonds: $13 trillion; Total: $115 trillion.
Developed economies include all Europe, North and some of South America, Australia, and parts of Asia/Africa.
So technically, OP is claiming that Rothschild's own TOTAL DEVELOPED ECONOMIES ASSETS + 5 TIMES TOTAL WORLD GDP, so.. yeah.
I mean, this is all just throwing figures around, I can't be bothered to verify them all, but seriously just.. just consider the statements before talking.
On November 10 2011 08:54 Skilledblob wrote: ok the first one posted Zeitgeist. Now this thread is over. I am sure the Rothschild family is still rich and I am sure they are having fun with the money and I am sure some of them are politically motivated but this thread is turning more and more to a garbage bin for conspiracy theories.
exactly. considering if you look up the money supply of all the money in the world it doesn't even come CLOSE to op's figures
How exactly is someone supposed to earn 6% interest on invisible money for over 100 years? What is this investment device? Where would the money currently be invested?
Marcus Crassus was possibly the most wealthy single human being who has ever lived. He was a Real Estate baron, who later shared control of Rome with Julius Caesar and Pompey. He reportedly owned a large swathe of the empire. He wanted to be recognised for his military prowess however, and this led to an ill fated attack on Parthia. He was defeated in battle, and was executed by having molten gold poured down his throat. A nasty end.
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
I'm pretty sure I know what GDP is, I was making a comparison just to put things into perspective.
And FYI, the total amount of farmland in the US is 2.5 trillion. Now farmland isn't land, its land with revenue, idle land is worth almost nothing. Farmland now is probably selling at something like 15 times land value.
Total amount of gold in the world is estimate 7 trillion.
According to The Economist, "developed economies'" assets at the end of 2002 were the following: Residential property: $48 trillion; Commercial property: $14 trillion; Equities: $20 trillion; Government bonds: $20 trillion; Corporate bonds: $13 trillion; Total: $115 trillion.
Developed economies include all Europe, North and some of South America, Australia, and parts of Asia/Africa.
So technically, OP is claiming that Rothschild's own TOTAL DEVELOPED ECONOMIES ASSETS + 5 TIMES TOTAL WORLD GDP, so.. yeah.
I mean, this is all just throwing figures around, I can't be bothered to verify them all, but seriously just.. just consider the statements before talking.
Clearly you are failing to account for their investments in Periodical Cicada Broods. These assets mature every 16 years and earn 6% interest without arousing any suspicion.
On November 10 2011 09:03 Gnial wrote: Applying a 6% interest rate to the net worth compounding for 150 years would make anyone of that era filthy rich in today's dollars...there is no reason or justification for attaching that 6% interest rate. It multiplies the value of that person's net worth by 6250 times...its just silly...
You know about dollar value fluctuation right? the multiplication comes from factoring in the value of the currency 1850 vs today.
6billion dollars in 1850 would be equal in buying value to around 300 trillions today. Depending on the interest, the family trust could easily hold 400-500 trillions today. It would of course be impossible to prove, but its a technical possibility,
The OP makes the huge mistake of assuming constant 6% growth, which anyone with a basic understanding of economics can tell you is terribad.
$6 billion in 1850 only totals to around $173 billion today, if you use the Consumer Price Index to calculate inflation. That number is a lot more reasonable, even if it does mean they're still fairly wealthy.
if your going to go by individual wealth, crassus is the richest person of all time imo. He had the right to kill anyone he wanted and take their money. He owned the treasury of rome. he set fires in cities, bought all the houses that were about go burn down and got slave armies to put out the fire.
he died because he bought an army with some of his money and tried to conquer syria. unfortunately he was a terrible tactician and lost the battle. The syrians poured molten gold down his throat after he died.
You guys are missing the point. They own hundreds of billions of dollars and yes, the fed is not completely run by the government, this is on their own site, they explain how the government has very little direct influence on what the fed does.
So basically this family controls a lot of banks and hundreds of billions of dollars, I don't think any sane person is saying they have hundreds of trillions RIGHT NOW.
On November 10 2011 09:59 Childplay wrote: can we get a more reliable source than Wikipedia? for all we know you could of just wrote that whole article
Wikipedia has a source index. The most reliable source you could find would be nial fergussons books wich were approved by the rothschild family itself.
On November 10 2011 10:04 Snuggles wrote: This sounds like conspiracy BS. No thanks. I'm fine as long as I can go to sleep happy with a full stomach.
This is not a conspiracy and thats not how you should approach the subject.
i dont think the rothschilds are evil i dont think they rule the world i dont think they have much direct infuence over my life
im just brining this up because i personaly find it to be a very interesting gem of history.
Dont you find it fascinating that one Man, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born as a poor jew in an antisemitic society, managed to lay the foundation stone to what would be the biggest fortune in modern history. and this happened over just 3 generations.
On November 10 2011 08:29 Thrill wrote: Most of this is the stuff of common conspiracy theories fueled by blatant anti antisemitism.
But yes, there's certainly a point to there being money that isn't taxed. There's lots of it and these guys aren't the only ones who have it.
You're overestimating today's influence of money though. In the Napoleonic wars soldiers went where they were paid and fed. Today we have only one superpower and when it's in financial trouble, we're talking trillions. Sums so vast they dwarf the collective assets of that "1%" you're talking about.
No private interest, not even a Rothschild, can bail out nations today. The monetary system simply works differently. You can't control $'s the way you could bouillons.
What is this non-sense? Legal tender today is almost completely fiat money (paper). The Fed Reserve can bail out anyone and everyone they want to and have (The partial audit we got revealed 16 Trillion in loans / bailouts to foreign banks and Governments & Private interests like JP Morgan / Goldman Sachs / Citi / McDonalds / etc. etc.). Paper money is only limited by the amount of numbers you can print on a piece of paper (which using font .2 could probably end up being 10^60 which means paper is always and everywhere become worthless).
It seems you have no idea how the monetary system works in todays world. It won't last long -- you are living in the age of Fiat Collapse. All the paper money is racing towards zero.
Besides, Governments have always been under the influence of the most wealthy. The ones who need to be outed are those who receive Government immunities, graft, and privilege.
Also, the second richest person in the world if I remember is the Queen of England. She still controls a vast majority of the world.
On November 10 2011 10:01 stroggos wrote: if your going to go by individual wealth, crassus is the richest person of all time imo. He had the right to kill anyone he wanted and take their money. He owned the treasury of rome. he set fires in cities, bought all the houses that were about go burn down and got slave armies to put out the fire.
he died because he bought an army with some of his money and tried to conquer syria. unfortunately he was a terrible tactician and lost the battle. The syrians poured molten gold down his throat after he died.
I'm sorry, Ima let you finish, but John Davidson Rockfeller has one of the biggest fortune of all times, of all times!
He had 200 billion dollars, Crassus was indeed very rich (around 200 billion sesterce) but "most modern expert believe his wealth to be far less than historians centuries before had presumed".
On November 10 2011 08:29 Thrill wrote: Most of this is the stuff of common conspiracy theories fueled by blatant anti antisemitism.
But yes, there's certainly a point to there being money that isn't taxed. There's lots of it and these guys aren't the only ones who have it.
You're overestimating today's influence of money though. In the Napoleonic wars soldiers went where they were paid and fed. Today we have only one superpower and when it's in financial trouble, we're talking trillions. Sums so vast they dwarf the collective assets of that "1%" you're talking about.
No private interest, not even a Rothschild, can bail out nations today. The monetary system simply works differently. You can't control $'s the way you could bouillons.
What is this non-sense? Legal tender today is almost completely fiat money (paper). The Fed Reserve can bail out anyone and everyone they want to and have (The partial audit we got revealed 16 Trillion in loans / bailouts to foreign banks and Governments & Private interests like JP Morgan / Goldman Sachs / Citi / McDonalds / etc. etc.). Paper money is only limited by the amount of numbers you can print on a piece of paper (which using font .2 could probably end up being 10^60 which means paper is always and everywhere become worthless).
It seems you have no idea how the monetary system works in todays world. It won't last long -- you are living in the age of Fiat Collapse. All the paper money is racing towards zero.
Besides, Governments have always been under the influence of the most wealthy. The ones who need to be outed are those who receive Government immunities, graft, and privilege.
Also, the second richest person in the world if I remember is the Queen of England. She still controls a vast majority of the world.
You dispel his contention with even more preposterous conspiracy theorist garbage? I'm going to guess you like Ron Paul. No, money is worth something because we agree it is and because people keep working and making things. Gold is no more inherently valuable (as a conductor, it's great. But there's no mythical reason pegging currency to it will save the world).
which is why we must return to the gold standard and fast? Money isn't worth anything "because we say it is" Nothing works that way, that doesn't make sense. If I print money and say it has value it's still just paper, and has no value. Look at early U.S. for an example of this.
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
I'm pretty sure I know what GDP is, I was making a comparison just to put things into perspective.
And FYI, the total amount of farmland in the US is 2.5 trillion. Now farmland isn't land, its land with revenue, idle land is worth almost nothing. Farmland now is probably selling at something like 15 times land value.
Total amount of gold in the world is estimate 7 trillion.
According to The Economist, "developed economies'" assets at the end of 2002 were the following: Residential property: $48 trillion; Commercial property: $14 trillion; Equities: $20 trillion; Government bonds: $20 trillion; Corporate bonds: $13 trillion; Total: $115 trillion.
Developed economies include all Europe, North and some of South America, Australia, and parts of Asia/Africa.
So technically, OP is claiming that Rothschild's own TOTAL DEVELOPED ECONOMIES ASSETS + 5 TIMES TOTAL WORLD GDP, so.. yeah.
I mean, this is all just throwing figures around, I can't be bothered to verify them all, but seriously just.. just consider the statements before talking.
You are not factoring governal debts and fractional banking.
Governal debts exists as real money that belongs to bankers that issued the loans.
Some people fail to realize that there is a "diminishing return" on owning A LOT of money. While you still trying to get your millions or first billion you can relay on interest and other "secure" growth programs. As soon as you start having a substantial amounts like tens of billion you run into the problem of not just making profit on that whole amount but to sustain that amount cause your money so spread out and affected by world market.
No reasonable bank will give you high %(even 5%) on substantial amount in this state of the world, it's a suicide.
It does make sense for them to own share in federal and world banks cause they can charge whatever interest they want and on those substantial amounts to sustain and increase their wealth. Its working and not like Nations go bankrupt every year, plus they usually bail each other out with money they again borrow in those banks :D
On November 10 2011 10:04 Snuggles wrote: This sounds like conspiracy BS. No thanks. I'm fine as long as I can go to sleep happy with a full stomach.
This is not a conspiracy and thats not how you should approach the subject.
i dont think the rothschilds are evil i dont think they rule the world i dont think they have much direct infuence over my life
im just brining this up because i personaly find it to be a very interesting gem of history.
Dont you find it fascinating that one Man, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born as a poor jew in an antisemitic society, managed to lay the foundation stone to what would be the biggest fortune in modern history. and this happened over just 3 generations.
Well if it involves tearing down well accepted facts or hinting on things like "Ooh you think that's how the world works? Let me tell you how it really is!" I just flat out avoid it. Obviously if it has a very direct affect on my life then I'd give it a chance. But after having friends deceived by conspiracy theories, I have a terribly narrow minded attitude to these things, even if it's all true.
Call me dumb or ignorant, w/e I don't care. IMO it's on the same level as MLM slaves trying to sell you their product, and here you are trying to give me education. So just like how Verizon reps go door-to-door with direct marketing, I still have ill-feelings towards their approach.
On November 10 2011 09:59 Childplay wrote: can we get a more reliable source than Wikipedia? for all we know you could of just wrote that whole article
Wikipedia has a source index. The most reliable source you could find would be nial fergussons books wich were approved by the rothschild family itself.
Wait... So the Rothschild approved the book wich says they are awesome and kewl and have alot of $$$$ and that makes it a believable source? There is no way to fact check this. NO WAY!
On November 10 2011 08:29 Thrill wrote: Most of this is the stuff of common conspiracy theories fueled by blatant anti antisemitism.
But yes, there's certainly a point to there being money that isn't taxed. There's lots of it and these guys aren't the only ones who have it.
You're overestimating today's influence of money though. In the Napoleonic wars soldiers went where they were paid and fed. Today we have only one superpower and when it's in financial trouble, we're talking trillions. Sums so vast they dwarf the collective assets of that "1%" you're talking about.
No private interest, not even a Rothschild, can bail out nations today. The monetary system simply works differently. You can't control $'s the way you could bouillons.
What is this non-sense? Legal tender today is almost completely fiat money (paper). The Fed Reserve can bail out anyone and everyone they want to and have (The partial audit we got revealed 16 Trillion in loans / bailouts to foreign banks and Governments & Private interests like JP Morgan / Goldman Sachs / Citi / McDonalds / etc. etc.). Paper money is only limited by the amount of numbers you can print on a piece of paper (which using font .2 could probably end up being 10^60 which means paper is always and everywhere become worthless).
It seems you have no idea how the monetary system works in todays world. It won't last long -- you are living in the age of Fiat Collapse. All the paper money is racing towards zero.
Besides, Governments have always been under the influence of the most wealthy. The ones who need to be outed are those who receive Government immunities, graft, and privilege.
Also, the second richest person in the world if I remember is the Queen of England. She still controls a vast majority of the world.
You dispel his contention with even more preposterous conspiracy theorist garbage? I'm going to guess you like Ron Paul. No, money is worth something because we agree it is and because people keep working and making things. Gold is no more inherently valuable (as a conductor, it's great. But there's no mythical reason pegging currency to it will save the world).
Thanks to Ron Paul we know a bit more than we use to, but it was only a partial audit. We need to pass the actual Audit and Eliminate the Federal Reserve. If you like your money constantly being devalued to bail out the banks special buddies and interests, then continue the agitprop for the Fed. As far as Gold, it has always been money and still is today, the problem is it is not recognized as legal tender (even though it is and it is the only Constitutional money with Silver), because the people had no idea about money and banking, but that is changing quickly. (Gold & Silver have the best properties for being money, hence it always emerges out of the market as the recognized monies)
Also the Government consistently uses their violent powers to throw those people in jail who do not want to use the paper money:
You should really read the notes in the Constitutional Convention in regards to 'Emit Bills of Credit' (fiat paper monies) which was quickly taken out. There is no authority for paper money either Federally, or on a State level. It is in fact, illegal, but when has the Government followed their contract with the States?
The committee of detail, which drew up the initial draft of the Constitution, explicitly gave the federal government the power "to emit bills on the credit of the United States." They presented their work to the full convention for consideration on 6 August 1787. The debate was soon joined. Although some delegates spoke in favor of granting the power (including James Madison), the majority were resolutely opposed.
Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut remarked that since "the mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made were now fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America, [it was] "a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. … The power may do harm, never good." George Read of Delaware warned that the power "if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the beast in Revelation." John Langdon of New Hampshire said that he would "rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words 'and emit bills.'" The vote was then taken. Nine states voted for striking out the phrase "and emit bills on the credit of the United States." Only two states (New Jersey and Maryland) voted to retain it.
The heroic Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was so alarmed by the prospect of the federal government having this power that he wanted an explicit prohibition, but the other delegates thought it unnecessary. Experience soon vindicated Gerry's apprehension and desire for additional safeguards.
On November 10 2011 09:59 Childplay wrote: can we get a more reliable source than Wikipedia? for all we know you could of just wrote that whole article
Wikipedia has a source index. The most reliable source you could find would be nial fergussons books wich were approved by the rothschild family itself.
Wait... So the Rothschild approved the book wich says they are awesome and kewl and have alot of $$$$ and that makes it a believable source? There is no way to fact chek this. NO WAY!
Nial Fergusson had acess to the rothschild archive, wich contains letters, bills and other historical documents signed by family members and prominent people from their time. If thats not a reliable source of history, nothing is.
On November 10 2011 09:48 ManicMarine wrote: Marcus Crassus was possibly the most wealthy single human being who has ever lived. He was a Real Estate baron, who later shared control of Rome with Julius Caesar and Pompey. He reportedly owned a large swathe of the empire. He wanted to be recognised for his military prowess however, and this led to an ill fated attack on Parthia. He was defeated in battle, and was executed by having molten gold poured down his throat. A nasty end.
Quite possibly the most expensive execution of all time as well.
On November 10 2011 09:59 Childplay wrote: can we get a more reliable source than Wikipedia? for all we know you could of just wrote that whole article
Wikipedia has a source index. The most reliable source you could find would be nial fergussons books wich were approved by the rothschild family itself.
Wait... So the Rothschild approved the book wich says they are awesome and kewl and have alot of $$$$ and that makes it a believable source? There is no way to fact chek this. NO WAY!
Nial Fergusson had acess to the rothschild archive, wich contains letters, bills and other historical documents signed by family members and prominent people from their time. If thats not a reliable source of history, nothing is.
History is written by the victors is what i go by. I don't trust the Rothschild archive nor can i be certain of what this Nial guy says either...
The brothers helped co-ordinate Rothschild activities across the continent, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold across war-torn Europe. The family network was also to provide Nathan Rothschild time and again with political and financial information ahead of his peers, giving him an advantage in the markets and rendering the house of Rothschild still more invaluable to the British government. In one instance, the family network enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers.
What what the fuck fuck?
The head of the English family was informed of the final defeat of napoleon a day before the crown did? the guy bet the farm off of this knowledge and made more insane money then ever before. These people funded both sides of every war that the monarchs started one. They took advantage of every opportunity the world and faced it as a family. A House of not one but many branches all willing to do everything for another.
In the end they're all probably trying to make their predicesors proud. The ambition and the means to grow your family higher and faster then your parents. When the 900 trillion dollar derivative market blows up they'll be in the perfect spot to go on a buying tear like no one else. at the worlds worst they'll put they're money in and get everything they could want from all the nations on their knees. They paid for the first road in Germany.
At least we know that human greed will save the day again. We certainly live in interesting times.
The 400 trillions figure isn't to be taken too literally. Even if the maths have credibility (which I strongly doubt), they do not have 400 trillions. Not even close.
It is actually pretty well known today that the Rothschild owned so much Gold that during the 1900s, they could control and manipulate the gold value themselves. It was later revealed and it became a pretty big scandal, wich is why they withdrew from the gold market permanently
On November 10 2011 10:26 Happylime wrote: Okay so go back to being under a rock, if you don't trust era documents then you probably don't trust any major historical documents, don't be silly.
Trusting any information coming only from a single source? Thats stupid to me, but that may just be me then...
On November 10 2011 08:29 Thrill wrote: Most of this is the stuff of common conspiracy theories fueled by blatant anti antisemitism.
But yes, there's certainly a point to there being money that isn't taxed. There's lots of it and these guys aren't the only ones who have it.
You're overestimating today's influence of money though. In the Napoleonic wars soldiers went where they were paid and fed. Today we have only one superpower and when it's in financial trouble, we're talking trillions. Sums so vast they dwarf the collective assets of that "1%" you're talking about.
No private interest, not even a Rothschild, can bail out nations today. The monetary system simply works differently. You can't control $'s the way you could bouillons.
What is this non-sense? Legal tender today is almost completely fiat money (paper). The Fed Reserve can bail out anyone and everyone they want to and have (The partial audit we got revealed 16 Trillion in loans / bailouts to foreign banks and Governments & Private interests like JP Morgan / Goldman Sachs / Citi / McDonalds / etc. etc.). Paper money is only limited by the amount of numbers you can print on a piece of paper (which using font .2 could probably end up being 10^60 which means paper is always and everywhere become worthless).
It seems you have no idea how the monetary system works in todays world. It won't last long -- you are living in the age of Fiat Collapse. All the paper money is racing towards zero.
Besides, Governments have always been under the influence of the most wealthy. The ones who need to be outed are those who receive Government immunities, graft, and privilege.
Also, the second richest person in the world if I remember is the Queen of England. She still controls a vast majority of the world.
You dispel his contention with even more preposterous conspiracy theorist garbage? I'm going to guess you like Ron Paul. No, money is worth something because we agree it is and because people keep working and making things. Gold is no more inherently valuable (as a conductor, it's great. But there's no mythical reason pegging currency to it will save the world).
Thanks to Ron Paul we know a bit more than we use to, but it was only a partial audit. We need to pass the actual Audit and Eliminate the Federal Reserve. If you like your money constantly being devalued to bail out the banks special buddies and interests, then continue the agitprop for the Fed. As far as Gold, it has always been money and still is today, the problem is it is not recognized as legal tender (even though it is and it is the only Constitutional money with Silver), because the people had no idea about money and banking, but that is changing quickly. (Gold & Silver have the best properties for being money, hence it always emerges out of the market as the recognized monies)
Also the Government consistently uses their violent powers to throw those people in jail who do not want to use the paper money:
You should really read the notes in the Constitutional Convention in regards to 'Emit Bills of Credit' (fiat paper monies) which was quickly taken out. There is no authority for paper money either Federally, or on a State level. It is in fact, illegal, but when has the Government followed their contract with the States?
The committee of detail, which drew up the initial draft of the Constitution, explicitly gave the federal government the power "to emit bills on the credit of the United States." They presented their work to the full convention for consideration on 6 August 1787. The debate was soon joined. Although some delegates spoke in favor of granting the power (including James Madison), the majority were resolutely opposed.
Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut remarked that since "the mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made were now fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America, [it was] "a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. … The power may do harm, never good." George Read of Delaware warned that the power "if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the beast in Revelation." John Langdon of New Hampshire said that he would "rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words 'and emit bills.'" The vote was then taken. Nine states voted for striking out the phrase "and emit bills on the credit of the United States." Only two states (New Jersey and Maryland) voted to retain it.
The heroic Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was so alarmed by the prospect of the federal government having this power that he wanted an explicit prohibition, but the other delegates thought it unnecessary. Experience soon vindicated Gerry's apprehension and desire for additional safeguards.
This is all garbage. My god I'm am taking my head out of this thread immediately. I suggest you folks do the same. There's no point in arguing with each other here now that I've seen this bullshit.
On November 10 2011 09:48 ManicMarine wrote: Marcus Crassus was possibly the most wealthy single human being who has ever lived. He was a Real Estate baron, who later shared control of Rome with Julius Caesar and Pompey. He reportedly owned a large swathe of the empire. He wanted to be recognised for his military prowess however, and this led to an ill fated attack on Parthia. He was defeated in battle, and was executed by having molten gold poured down his throat. A nasty end.
Quite possibly the most expensive execution of all time as well.
they melted down the eagles that the legions carried into battle. Gold was not the same in the arab lands as it was in the roman lands. They probably were not going to be trading with the romans for some time and the china dynasty was on the other side of the long desert and wasn't very stable at the time. The propaganda and the moral boost was probably worth it.
No one knows how much the Rothschild family's net worth is, but it probably dwarfs any other individual person's wealth. Remember, these guys financed both the British and the French during the Napoleonic Wars. That shows you the influence and wealth the Rothschilds bring.
On November 10 2011 10:26 Happylime wrote: Okay so go back to being under a rock, if you don't trust era documents then you probably don't trust any major historical documents, don't be silly.
Trusting any information coming for a single source? Thats stupid to me, but that may just be me then...
*Lifts rock and crawls back*
There is so much written about the Rothschild family during this era, it is impossible to ignore. Even the Prime ministers and monarchs acknowledged them as the biggest power in europe. Just for one example,The British Prime Minister Lloyd George claimed, in 1909, that Lord Nathan Rothschild was the most powerful man in Britain
On November 10 2011 08:29 Thrill wrote: Most of this is the stuff of common conspiracy theories fueled by blatant anti antisemitism.
But yes, there's certainly a point to there being money that isn't taxed. There's lots of it and these guys aren't the only ones who have it.
You're overestimating today's influence of money though. In the Napoleonic wars soldiers went where they were paid and fed. Today we have only one superpower and when it's in financial trouble, we're talking trillions. Sums so vast they dwarf the collective assets of that "1%" you're talking about.
No private interest, not even a Rothschild, can bail out nations today. The monetary system simply works differently. You can't control $'s the way you could bouillons.
What is this non-sense? Legal tender today is almost completely fiat money (paper). The Fed Reserve can bail out anyone and everyone they want to and have (The partial audit we got revealed 16 Trillion in loans / bailouts to foreign banks and Governments & Private interests like JP Morgan / Goldman Sachs / Citi / McDonalds / etc. etc.). Paper money is only limited by the amount of numbers you can print on a piece of paper (which using font .2 could probably end up being 10^60 which means paper is always and everywhere become worthless).
It seems you have no idea how the monetary system works in todays world. It won't last long -- you are living in the age of Fiat Collapse. All the paper money is racing towards zero.
Besides, Governments have always been under the influence of the most wealthy. The ones who need to be outed are those who receive Government immunities, graft, and privilege.
Also, the second richest person in the world if I remember is the Queen of England. She still controls a vast majority of the world.
You dispel his contention with even more preposterous conspiracy theorist garbage? I'm going to guess you like Ron Paul. No, money is worth something because we agree it is and because people keep working and making things. Gold is no more inherently valuable (as a conductor, it's great. But there's no mythical reason pegging currency to it will save the world).
Thanks to Ron Paul we know a bit more than we use to, but it was only a partial audit. We need to pass the actual Audit and Eliminate the Federal Reserve. If you like your money constantly being devalued to bail out the banks special buddies and interests, then continue the agitprop for the Fed. As far as Gold, it has always been money and still is today, the problem is it is not recognized as legal tender (even though it is and it is the only Constitutional money with Silver), because the people had no idea about money and banking, but that is changing quickly. (Gold & Silver have the best properties for being money, hence it always emerges out of the market as the recognized monies)
Also the Government consistently uses their violent powers to throw those people in jail who do not want to use the paper money:
You should really read the notes in the Constitutional Convention in regards to 'Emit Bills of Credit' (fiat paper monies) which was quickly taken out. There is no authority for paper money either Federally, or on a State level. It is in fact, illegal, but when has the Government followed their contract with the States?
The committee of detail, which drew up the initial draft of the Constitution, explicitly gave the federal government the power "to emit bills on the credit of the United States." They presented their work to the full convention for consideration on 6 August 1787. The debate was soon joined. Although some delegates spoke in favor of granting the power (including James Madison), the majority were resolutely opposed.
Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut remarked that since "the mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made were now fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America, [it was] "a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. … The power may do harm, never good." George Read of Delaware warned that the power "if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the beast in Revelation." John Langdon of New Hampshire said that he would "rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words 'and emit bills.'" The vote was then taken. Nine states voted for striking out the phrase "and emit bills on the credit of the United States." Only two states (New Jersey and Maryland) voted to retain it.
The heroic Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was so alarmed by the prospect of the federal government having this power that he wanted an explicit prohibition, but the other delegates thought it unnecessary. Experience soon vindicated Gerry's apprehension and desire for additional safeguards.
This is all garbage. My god I'm am taking my head out of this thread immediately. I suggest you folks do the same. There's no point in arguing with each other here now that I've seen this bullshit.
Everything I wrote is the truth. You can read the Constitutional Conventions own notes, the GAO partial audit, and the proceedings and writings in regards to Von NotHaus. You can put your head in the sand, but that doesn't change the facts. If you use monies other than FRN's in payment of debts and other activities you are considered a domestic terrorist. The Government and its ancillary the stakeholders in the Fed, do not want any competition. If you got rid of legal tender laws (which are unconstitutional), the taxes on Gold & Silver, and allowed people to choose what they want to transact in, FRN's would disappear quite fast because why on Earth would you want to keep money which is constantly being devalued (ie; you are being stolen from by counterfeiters). If today there is 500$ in circulation and you own 200$ then tomorrow the issuing entity creates 500$ more new money and gives it to his friends you have just been robbed from because your purchasing power has been drastically reduced. This is the great gift of hard money or commodity money which it can not be manipulated like paper money, and it has a natural limitation on the lusts and grandeurs of Governments and their agents & it safeguards your time and labor.
This is hilarious. I was just reading about the family today out of curiosity. They are very famous for re-inventing investment banking as well. There strategy was not to be as big as the banks today, but rather they strove for quality (of relationships with their clients). Their firms were just as global as the next bank, though.
I'm very curious as to how they acquired all their wealth. In particular, how it all began. Once you have millions, it is easier to make more millions. The true challenge lies in the beginning.
How come people use the word "conspiracy" as if it dictates whether or not something is true?
Their family fortune is probably even greater now than it was in 1850. They've had their hands in the steel companies, the bomb builders, the defense givers, the world banks, real estate, multiple fortune 500 companies. With the kind of money they have they can buyout a good portion of a commodity and then artificially drive the commodity through the roof, making themselves even richer. They sold guns to the both sides of the war in ww2 and almost every war thereafter.
There's even a story floating around about how they are descendants of the Mirovingian bloodline and that bloodline is directly tied to Jesus Christ (JC having a child with Mary Magdelene). This is interesting because the Vatican supposedly believes the anti-christ will be from the same bloodline, so they have been trying to off them the whole time.
This is why modern views on religion are breaking away from the church. You're being controlled and taught to act against GOD by sinning (have sex, be a glutton, envy others, it's all television, music and subliminal messaging techniques).
The storyline also frames the Vatican as having been involved in money laundering schemes with the Grey Wolves (afghani heroin) as well as south american cocaine tzars, mexican drug gangs and of course the CIA.
According to this storyline the Vatican and the clan Rothschild are basically at war with each other over control for mankind. Both sides have been gaining and losing ground. Both sides have a ton of money and use their own tricks to get people to be their agents.
Before you call me a conspiracy theorist, please note I don't believe this. It's just a story.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -President Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -President Andrew Jackson, Veto Mesage Regarding the Bank of the United States [2] (10 July 1832)
Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out! -President Andrew Jacksson, confronting a board of european bankers in 1834
On November 10 2011 10:36 Invictus212 wrote: This is hilarious. I was just reading about the family today out of curiosity. They are very famous for re-inventing investment banking as well. There strategy was not to be as big as the banks today, but rather they strove for quality (of relationships with their clients). Their firms were just as global as the next bank, though.
I'm very curious as to how they acquired all their wealth. In particular, how it all began. Once you have millions, it is easier to make more millions. The true challenge lies in the beginning.
This first one got rich by gold speculating or something like that I believe. Read it in a book about the history of finance. can't remember exactly how it happened but the guy pretty much became a billionaire overnight.
On November 10 2011 10:36 Invictus212 wrote: This is hilarious. I was just reading about the family today out of curiosity. They are very famous for re-inventing investment banking as well. There strategy was not to be as big as the banks today, but rather they strove for quality (of relationships with their clients). Their firms were just as global as the next bank, though.
I'm very curious as to how they acquired all their wealth. In particular, how it all began. Once you have millions, it is easier to make more millions. The true challenge lies in the beginning.
They were given Government monopoly / privileges on the minting of money & banking.
Give anyone this power and they'll be as rich as the Rothschild's. This is why it is so important to get banking and money completely away from Government.
For a second I thought this was about the illuminati but then your disclaimer managed to convince me otherwise, but I'm still not too sure.
Money in families isn't that common anymore unless you count the inherited fortunes of the Walton brothers and the princes in Saudi Arabia. Most billionaires today are self made, bu nostalgia is cool I guess. The British also used to own three quarters of the globe, but now they're about the size of Rhode Island.
Fun fact: Rothschild hates obama. When Obama defeated hilllary (whom the rothschild lobbists had funded with a great amount of money) they went over to McCain Palin.
On November 10 2011 10:51 keiraknightlee wrote: For a second I thought this was about the illuminati but then your disclaimer managed to convince me otherwise, but I'm still not too sure.
Money in families isn't that common anymore unless you count the inherited fortunes of the Walton brothers and the princes in Saudi Arabia. Most billionaires today are self made, bu nostalgia is cool I guess. The British also used to own three quarters of the globe, but now they're about the size of Rhode Island.
Things change, stop being stuck in the past
Billionares are self made. but Trillionares are heirs to the great old families. I have no source but im pretty sure Rockefeller is up there with the Rothschild, along with the queen of Holland.
On November 10 2011 10:51 keiraknightlee wrote: For a second I thought this was about the illuminati but then your disclaimer managed to convince me otherwise, but I'm still not too sure.
Money in families isn't that common anymore unless you count the inherited fortunes of the Walton brothers and the princes in Saudi Arabia. Most billionaires today are self made, bu nostalgia is cool I guess. The British also used to own three quarters of the globe, but now they're about the size of Rhode Island.
It is also interesting to note that the third baron of the english branch, Lord Victor, was a communist. During college he was a member of a secret maxist club and four of his closest friends and college roomates would later be sentanced for leaking information to the SSR. they were soviet spies. Some accused Lord Rothschild for being a soviet agent aswell, but he was never charged in court.
The Rothschilds have made business with russia since the russian revolution. The Tsar refused to do business with foreigners, so some people claim that wealthy europeans supported the revolution to set up a trade route. It is a well established fact that Josef Stalin himself worked for the Russian Rothschild Office before he got a position in the communist party. After the fall of SSR, Rothschild Invested in huge amounts in Russian Oil through Mikhail Khodorkovsky. It was officially revealed that after Khodorskovsky's arrest, his shares in the oil tycoon company were passed to Lord Jacob Rothschild. The shares were estimated to be worth $13.5 billion
On November 10 2011 11:06 sc2holar wrote: It is also interesting to note that the third baron of the english branch, Lord Victor, was a communist. During college he was a member of a secret maxist club and four of his closest friends and college roomates would later be sentanced for leaking information to the SSR. they were soviet spies. Some accused Lord Rothschild for being a soviet agent aswell, but he was never charged in court.
The more I look into this the more likely it seems to me that this whole thing is blown way out of proportions and while this family may be extremely rich, it looks like the nearly "mythical" and "legendary" feel of this whole deal managed to heavily screw with modern accounts of how much they own and how influential they can be.
Maybe I'm completely wrong though, but I'm skeptical.
"This family is extremely secretive" + Outrageously high $ figures... Seems like nice stories.
Does the family have trillion(s)...? Maybe... That would surprise me... I wish there was a way to know. Does one person in the world have over a trillion dollar to their name (like a member of this family)... I HIGHLY doubt so...
On November 10 2011 10:39 sc2holar wrote: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -President Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -President Andrew Jackson, Veto Mesage Regarding the Bank of the United States [2] (10 July 1832)
Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out! -President Andrew Jacksson, confronting a board of european bankers in 1834
I thought you were trying to keep this thread apolitical? Or are you trying to derail your own thread?
On November 10 2011 10:39 sc2holar wrote: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -President Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -President Andrew Jackson, Veto Mesage Regarding the Bank of the United States [2] (10 July 1832)
Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out! -President Andrew Jacksson, confronting a board of european bankers in 1834
I thought you were trying to keep this thread apolitical? Or are you trying to derail your own thread?
Im not taking a political stand, im just posting interesting relevant historic quotes.
who gives a shit if they have the modern equivalent of 400 trillion? obviously if forbes doesn't recognize it because it's non-taxable it all has to be stashed away and out of circulation, which makes it as good as worthless. i don't even believe that any one of them actually controls more than several billion, and even if they did have access to 400 trillion what would it be good for? over about 100 billion you reach a point where everything in life is basically free, and yet the majority of the rothschilds have lived rather miserable lives. good majority of them grew up in sheltered microcosms and wanted to live conventional lives, but were forced into a life of upright aristocracy and banking. read any one of the multitude of biographies on these individuals and chances are they spent time collecting some fancy cars, collected some exotic bugs, ran some obscure bank, met some big wig from some other company, got married, was unhappy, got divorced soon after, bought some estate and lived in relative isolation, was introduced to someone else while out in a vineyard, got married, had a child, got divorced again. thrilling.
On November 10 2011 11:06 sc2holar wrote: It is also interesting to note that the third baron of the english branch, Lord Victor, was a communist. During college he was a member of a secret maxist club and four of his closest friends and college roomates would later be sentanced for leaking information to the SSR. they were soviet spies. Some accused Lord Rothschild for being a soviet agent aswell, but he was never charged in court.
Again with the epic source web-site... The site even has the word "rumor" in its adress.
You can find similiar articles in official english newspapers. There is nothing to debate here, Lord Victor himself admitted to "Being a leftist, but never a soviet spy".
I don't know if i would either be really happy or really fucking pissed to be a Rothschild child.
But also i didn't know Forbes didn't take into account inherited, i mean even if those numbers are off by a few trillion (lol) the wealth they have is absolutely scary
On November 10 2011 10:51 keiraknightlee wrote: For a second I thought this was about the illuminati but then your disclaimer managed to convince me otherwise, but I'm still not too sure.
Money in families isn't that common anymore unless you count the inherited fortunes of the Walton brothers and the princes in Saudi Arabia. Most billionaires today are self made, bu nostalgia is cool I guess. The British also used to own three quarters of the globe, but now they're about the size of Rhode Island.
Things change, stop being stuck in the past
Billionares are self made. but Trillionares are heirs to the great old families. I have no source but im pretty sure Rockefeller is up there with the Rothschild, along with the queen of Holland.
The Queen of Holland? Please elaborate, I know the Dutch royal family has been in some shady business over the years, especially in the World Wars, but to class them right up there with the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds?
Also, I find this subject crazy interesting, but apart from the odd Zeitgeist vid or some funny animations I'm not really able to find too much freely accessible information on it. Could you state some of your sources? I wouldn't mind reading a good book on the subject or at least some info site. Thanks.
On November 10 2011 10:51 keiraknightlee wrote: For a second I thought this was about the illuminati but then your disclaimer managed to convince me otherwise, but I'm still not too sure.
Money in families isn't that common anymore unless you count the inherited fortunes of the Walton brothers and the princes in Saudi Arabia. Most billionaires today are self made, bu nostalgia is cool I guess. The British also used to own three quarters of the globe, but now they're about the size of Rhode Island.
Things change, stop being stuck in the past
Billionares are self made. but Trillionares are heirs to the great old families. I have no source but im pretty sure Rockefeller is up there with the Rothschild, along with the queen of Holland.
The Queen of Holland? Please elaborate, I know the Dutch royal family has been in some shady business over the years, especially in the World Wars, but to class them right up there with the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds?
Also, I find this subject crazy interesting, but apart from the odd Zeitgeist vid or some funny animations I'm not really able to find too much freely accessible information on it. Could you state some of your sources? I wouldn't mind reading a good book on the subject or at least some info site. Thanks.
Niall Ferguson's books or his documentary 'The Ascent of Money'.
On November 10 2011 11:06 sc2holar wrote: It is also interesting to note that the third baron of the english branch, Lord Victor, was a communist. During college he was a member of a secret maxist club and four of his closest friends and college roomates would later be sentanced for leaking information to the SSR. they were soviet spies. Some accused Lord Rothschild for being a soviet agent aswell, but he was never charged in court.
Again with the epic source web-site... The site even has the word "rumor" in its adress.
You can find similiar articles in official english newspapers. There is nothing to debate here, Lord Victor himself admitted to "Being a leftist, but never a soviet spy".
So why would you post such a stupid source for your information? It dose not make sense. "This obscure kinda shitty looking website with no contact information has the information i want! I'll pick that one over this other trustworthy website"
On November 10 2011 10:11 Happylime wrote: which is why we must return to the gold standard and fast? Money isn't worth anything "because we say it is" Nothing works that way, that doesn't make sense. If I print money and say it has value it's still just paper, and has no value. Look at early U.S. for an example of this.
Your version of logic is interesting.
"Money is worth something only because we believe in governments as guarantors and we agree on it. Gold is worth something only because we believe in governments as guarantors and we agree on it. Therefore, we must return to the gold standard."
Comical. This is all conspiracy theory. Oooh, a family is very rich? Aliens, 9/11, etc.
On November 10 2011 09:03 Gnial wrote: Applying a 6% interest rate to the net worth compounding for 150 years would make anyone of that era filthy rich in today's dollars...there is no reason or justification for attaching that 6% interest rate. It multiplies the value of that person's net worth by 6250 times...its just silly...
You know about dollar value fluctuation right? the multiplication comes from factoring in the value of the currency 1850 vs today.
6billion dollars in 1850 would be equal in buying value to around 300 trillions today. Depending on the interest, the family trust could easily hold 400-500 trillions today. It would of course be impossible to prove, but its a technical possibility,
Dollar value fluctuation... probably easier to just say inflation?
Unfortunately I think you're confused. $6 billion dollars in 1850 is equal in purchasing power to $173 billion in 2010, according to this program which is the first thing that came up in google when I searched "historical purchasing power". http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/index.php
He is applying a 6% interest rate onto that in addition to regular inflation, presumably from investing. He is assuming not only that ALL of the money was invested (none was spent), but also that the average return on those investments for the last 160 years is 6%. Its just a silly addition.
I'm not really getting answers so I figure I'll ask again more clearly. Do we have any reason to believe that this Rothschild family is that far above Bill Gates's level of wealth?
I'm just working off of very messy resources off Google and while they're interesting, they do seem like hearsay and cute urban legends.
While I have no doubt that this family is extremely rich, are there any usable sources stating that they're significantly richer than Forbe's rich people, or do I have to go off of some random people's wild guesses - guesses which may very well be the rambling of guys wanting to make themselves interesting. Just throw me a bone here, I've been looking into this for a bit. I'm sure it's actually impossible to really KNOW and that's torture to me
I know I certainly couldn't write a very credible paper off of what I'm given here. Give me stuff I can write a paper off of
I'd like to briefly derail this thread, I feel like a lot of people are disagreeing on basic inflation and how inflation/deflation and simple economics, if anyone can properly word an explanation for that then this thread might lean towards a reasonable discussion of how wealth is distributed and who controls what.
On November 10 2011 11:17 TheDraken wrote: who gives a shit if they have the modern equivalent of 400 trillion? obviously if forbes doesn't recognize it because it's non-taxable it all has to be stashed away and out of circulation, which makes it as good as worthless. i don't even believe that any one of them actually controls more than several billion, and even if they did have access to 400 trillion what would it be good for? over about 100 billion you reach a point where everything in life is basically free, and yet the majority of the rothschilds have lived rather miserable lives. good majority of them grew up in sheltered microcosms and wanted to live conventional lives, but were forced into a life of upright aristocracy and banking. read any one of the multitude of biographies on these individuals and chances are they spent time collecting some fancy cars, collected some exotic bugs, ran some obscure bank, met some big wig from some other company, got married, was unhappy, got divorced soon after, bought some estate and lived in relative isolation, was introduced to someone else while out in a vineyard, got married, had a child, got divorced again. thrilling.
At its largest, Rothschild's collection included 300,000 bird skins, 200,000 birds' eggs, 2,250,000 butterflies, and 30,000 beetles, as well as thousands of specimens of mammals, reptiles, and fishes. They formed the largest zoological collection ever amassed by a private individual.
He was the first to describe the Rothschild giraffe (Giraffa camelopardis rothschildi], a subspecies with five horns instead of two, which was named after him. It also known as the Ugandan or Baringo Giraffe, and is the most endangered of the nine subspecies. Another 153 insects, 58 birds, 17 mammals, three fish, three spiders, two reptiles, one millipede, and one worm also carry his name. Rothschild opened his private museum in 1892. It housed one of the largest natural history collections in the world, and was open to the public. In 1932 he was forced to sell the vast majority of his bird collection to the American Museum of Natural History after being blackmailed by a woman. In 1936 he donated the rest of the collection to the Trustees of the British Museum. The Walter Rothschild Zoological Museum at Tring is now a division of the Natural History Museum.
He Proved that Wild Zebras could be tamed by riding a carriage driven by Zebras to buckingham Palace, and in his garden he would travel around by riding on the back of a giant turtle.
On November 10 2011 10:11 Happylime wrote: which is why we must return to the gold standard and fast? Money isn't worth anything "because we say it is" Nothing works that way, that doesn't make sense. If I print money and say it has value it's still just paper, and has no value. Look at early U.S. for an example of this.
Comical. This is all conspiracy theory. Oooh, a family is very rich? Aliens, 9/11, etc.
You turn it into a conspiracy theory. Im just posting stuff from the history books. Yes, this family is very rich and very interesting, and that is all i want to tell people by creating this thread. I find it interesting, lots of others do, but if history is not your cup of tea, then fine. but dont derail the thread.
On November 10 2011 10:32 kakaman wrote: No one knows how much the Rothschild family's net worth is, but it probably dwarfs any other individual person's wealth. Remember, these guys financed both the British and the French during the Napoleonic Wars. That shows you the influence and wealth the Rothschilds bring.
That guy was what struck me in the face once I learned about the whole Fugger family in school. He owned something like 80 million euro in today's gold value (multiplying his original capital by 10 over his life) and controlled Europe. I mean controlled. He made kings, got himself crowned, initiated and prevented wars, it's beyond belief. The english page unfortunately is rather lackluster but you can't just go by the nominal value here. Considering the average living expenses his fortune was beyond anything we have in the world today. It's all based on a long family history but wow did that guy get rich.You have to realise that he had more money than any country(!) at the time. Now Rothschild may be a huge monetary power today but it's all dwarfed if you qualify it. I'll spare you the political part of my post here^^ I just wanted to put this in perspective for fun. There are some really rich people in this world's history^^
Honestly, people with that much equivalent money are the people who are physically unable to get poorer, especially considering how their fortune is worth enough to buy entire countries.
Common sense will tell you the assets of the entireworld are not even worth $400 trillion.
$400 trillion? that is one of the most rediculous things I have ever heard. The total US government debt is what 11 trillion? and they are basically screwed and cant pay it back.
Bill and Warren have what $60billion each... But apparently the rothchild's have 6,666 times as much money as Bill gates and Warren buffet.
I could believe that some rich old family has say 50-200 billion tops but even 200billion is likely to be a stretch.
On November 10 2011 10:11 Happylime wrote: which is why we must return to the gold standard and fast? Money isn't worth anything "because we say it is" Nothing works that way, that doesn't make sense. If I print money and say it has value it's still just paper, and has no value. Look at early U.S. for an example of this.
Comical. This is all conspiracy theory. Oooh, a family is very rich? Aliens, 9/11, etc.
You turn it into a conspiracy theory. Im just posting stuff from the history books. Yes, this family is very rich and very interesting, and that is all i want to tell people by creating this thread. I find it interesting, lots of others do, but if history is not your cup of tea, then fine. but dont derail the thread.
You make it a conspiracy theory by coming up with rediculous sums.
You claim this family has approximately 6,666 times more money than the richest man in the world. (400 trillion divided by 60billion).
On November 10 2011 10:32 kakaman wrote: No one knows how much the Rothschild family's net worth is, but it probably dwarfs any other individual person's wealth. Remember, these guys financed both the British and the French during the Napoleonic Wars. That shows you the influence and wealth the Rothschilds bring.
That guy was what struck me in the face once I learned about the whole Fugger family in school. He owned something like 80 million euro in today's gold value (multiplying his original capital by 10 over his life) and controlled Europe. I mean controlled. He made kings, got himself crowned, initiated and prevented wars, it's beyond belief. The english page unfortunately is rather lackluster but you can't just go by the nominal value here. Considering the average living expenses his fortune was beyond anything we have in the world today. It's all based on a long family history but wow did that guy get rich.You have to realise that he had more money than any country(!) at the time. Now Rothschild may be a huge monetary power today but it's all dwarfed if you qualify it. I'll spare you the political part of my post here^^ I just wanted to put this in perspective for fun. There are some really rich people in this world's history^^
The Medici's and Fugger's can indeed be seen as the spiritual preceedors to the Rothschilds. Fugger is an example of how much power and wealth the international-banker class can wield.
On November 10 2011 11:49 searcher wrote: Take all the wealth of all families and individuals claimed in this thread and multiply it by zero. You now have the amount of fact in this thread.
I think a lot of people are way too caught up on the exact dollar value of their wealth and ignore a much more simplistic truth. If they own gold reserves, banks, land, natural resources, politcal power etc - their actual $ value is insane. It might not be 400 trillion or w/e the fuck but that doesn't matter.
The fact is they own power. They own natural resources (Gold, steel, silver, oil, land). They own political influence. There is a sad but simple fact about something. A lot of people refuse to believe that they could be that rich (or anyone for that matter) because they simply do not have the mental/physical ability to actually understand and comprehend the possibility of something.
The word conspiracy is getting thrown around way to much. Face it. There are rich motherfuckers in this world who control part of the world.
On November 10 2011 10:11 Happylime wrote: which is why we must return to the gold standard and fast? Money isn't worth anything "because we say it is" Nothing works that way, that doesn't make sense. If I print money and say it has value it's still just paper, and has no value. Look at early U.S. for an example of this.
Comical. This is all conspiracy theory. Oooh, a family is very rich? Aliens, 9/11, etc.
You turn it into a conspiracy theory. Im just posting stuff from the history books. Yes, this family is very rich and very interesting, and that is all i want to tell people by creating this thread. I find it interesting, lots of others do, but if history is not your cup of tea, then fine. but dont derail the thread.
You make it a conspiracy theory by coming up with rediculous sums.
You claim this family has approximately 6,666 times more money than the richest man in the world. (400 trillion divided by 60billion).
Accounting for the Rothschild Wealth and Influence
Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today's dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!
Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:
$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%) $7.8 trillion US (@ 5%) $31.5 trillion US (@ 6%) $125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%) $491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)
check the reference list before you attack the source... i was directed to this site by a family member who works as an investment banker and he agreed with this calculation. The important fact here is that Rothschild had their money placed in a bank wich they owned themselves, wich means they can basicly set the interest rate for maximum profit. this is how the banking class makes its money. Believe what you want...
On November 10 2011 11:52 phiinix wrote: 8 pages and I still haven't seen the calculation for how 6 billion usd turns into 400 trillion. And what's this tinfoil reference? I feel dumb T_T
Let's say one of your relatives in the 17th century sold a cow for about 100 US$ in modern money. Compound that at 6% a year, and you and your fellow descendants are heir to a fortune of about 1.3 trillion! This hypothetical scenario corresponds exactly with real life experience, and is exactly how the Rothschilds are now worth half of Europe.
On November 10 2011 10:11 Happylime wrote: which is why we must return to the gold standard and fast? Money isn't worth anything "because we say it is" Nothing works that way, that doesn't make sense. If I print money and say it has value it's still just paper, and has no value. Look at early U.S. for an example of this.
Comical. This is all conspiracy theory. Oooh, a family is very rich? Aliens, 9/11, etc.
You turn it into a conspiracy theory. Im just posting stuff from the history books. Yes, this family is very rich and very interesting, and that is all i want to tell people by creating this thread. I find it interesting, lots of others do, but if history is not your cup of tea, then fine. but dont derail the thread.
You make it a conspiracy theory by coming up with rediculous sums.
You claim this family has approximately 6,666 times more money than the richest man in the world. (400 trillion divided by 60billion).
Accounting for the Rothschild Wealth and Influence
Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today's dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!
Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:
$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%) $7.8 trillion US (@ 5%) $31.5 trillion US (@ 6%) $125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%) $491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)
check the reference list before you attack the source... i was directed to this site by a family member who works as an investment banker and he agreed with this calculation. The important fact here is that Rothschild had their money placed in a bank wich they owned themselves, wich means they can basicly set the interest rate for maximum profit. this is how the banking class makes its money. Believe what you want...
It's still a useless way to look things as for one that's not what happened with the money and secondly it doesn't take into account that markets crash hard - meaning that if they shoved that money in a 8% interest rate bank account (which is ridiculous to bring up, in so many ways), things wouldn't work out that way. Conservative range of 4 to 8%? Lawl, maybe for your $5000 over 30 years.
Apply some common sense to that 400 trillion figure, it has 0 application to real world and it's a poor way to present the past. It's just a big number to catch people's interest.
Edit: Also idk how you're making the calculations but I'M getting 67 trillions @ 6% and 1336 trillions @ 8%. Something would break anyway.
I think it has to be explained that those 6billion dollars mentioned werent just dollar bills piled up in a basement, it was money put in very profitable investments such as Gold and gornment bonds. you can easily assume that these investments would asett a 5-10% profit each year, and then you factor in the trust interest.
I can invest my money into a bank account and get 6% interest. The bank pays me for the use of my money.
I don't think the person at the top of the food chain can just "get interest" from putting money into a bank account, as they're the ones paying/charging the interest. So are they going to be paying themselves this interest? That results in a zero net gain. You can't just create money out of nowhere.
Their wealth would be that of the accumulation of interest they're charging other people. Good luck guessing how much that is, but $400 trillion is doubtful.
As for other investments like gold, they haven't constantly gone up 6% per year for the last 160 years.
On November 10 2011 12:09 sc2holar wrote: I think it has to be explained that those 6billion dollars mentioned werent just dollar bills piled up in a basement, it was money put in very profitable investments such as Gold and gornment bonds. you can easily assume that these investments would asett a 5-10% profit each year, and then you factor in the trust interest.
You can always easily assume that everything always works well and interest always goes up when you have no idea what you're talking about.
I could easily look at Bill Gate's 102 billions from the past and say clearly he'll have 150 billions in a few year herp derp. And now he's around 60 billions.
On November 10 2011 12:11 Tektos wrote: I can invest my money into a bank account and get 6% interest.
I don't think the person at the top of the food chain can just "get interest" from putting money into a bank account, as they're the ones paying/charging the interest. So are they going to be paying themselves this interest? That results in a zero net gain. You can't just create money out of nowhere.
Their wealth would be that of the accumulation of interest they're charging other people. Good luck guessing how much that is, but $400 trillion is doubtful.
Where on Earth are you getting 6% interest? Even long term CD's are only getting ~1.7% at the upper limit (generally over 55k). You are actually earning negative interest considering inflation even with the manipulated Government statistics has it pegged @ 4%.
On November 10 2011 12:06 Djzapz wrote: Conservative range of 4 to 8%? Lawl, maybe for your $5000 over 30 years.
I think you are underestimating the potentional of fractional banking, governal bonds trading and the rise of gold value. And the fact that when you have money placed in a bank that you OWN, you can set the interest for your own money.
On November 10 2011 12:11 Tektos wrote: I can invest my money into a bank account and get 6% interest.
I don't think the person at the top of the food chain can just "get interest" from putting money into a bank account, as they're the ones paying/charging the interest. So are they going to be paying themselves this interest? That results in a zero net gain. You can't just create money out of nowhere.
Their wealth would be that of the accumulation of interest they're charging other people. Good luck guessing how much that is, but $400 trillion is doubtful.
Where on Earth are you getting 6% interest? Even long term CD's are only getting ~1.7% at the upper limit (generally over 55k). You are actually earning negative interest considering inflation even with the manipulated Government statistics has it pegged @ 4%.
On November 10 2011 12:09 sc2holar wrote: I think it has to be explained that those 6billion dollars mentioned werent just dollar bills piled up in a basement, it was money put in very profitable investments such as Gold and gornment bonds. you can easily assume that these investments would asett a 5-10% profit each year, and then you factor in the trust interest.
You can always easily assume that everything always works well and interest always goes up when you have no idea what you're talking about.
I could easily look at Bill Gate's 102 billions from the past and say clearly he'll have 150 billions in a few year herp derp. And now he's around 60 billions.
You arent looking at this from the perspective of an international banking family with a monopoly on governal bond trading and issuing loans to governments, with the ability to control the interest. Do you know about fractional banking?
On November 10 2011 12:06 Djzapz wrote: Conservative range of 4 to 8%? Lawl, maybe for your $5000 over 30 years.
I think you are underestimating the potentional of fractional banking, governal bonds trading and the rise of gold value. And the fact that when you have money placed in a bank that you OWN, you can set the interest for your own money.
HAHAHA that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. You can set interest for your own money. So if I start a bank, put $1 in it, and "set the interest" at 100000000%, I'll be pretty rich soon. I wonder why the investment banks didn't do this to avoid the financial crisis.
Also, according to this and the your claim, the Rothschilds have more money than the whole world. Are you 10 or something? Maybe you need to read some books and learn stuff.
On November 10 2011 12:06 Djzapz wrote: Conservative range of 4 to 8%? Lawl, maybe for your $5000 over 30 years.
I think you are underestimating the potentional of fractional banking, governal bonds trading and the rise of gold value. And the fact that when you have money placed in a bank that you OWN, you can set the interest for your own money.
I think you're GROSSLY OVERESTIMATING those, the governal (what?) bonds part is pretty ridiculous but jesus... ok
The absolute worst part of what you said is where you get to "set the interest for your own money" if you own a bank, LOL, are you dead set on destroying your credibility? Where's that money from? You invent it? Ok! Ask Zimbabwe how that turned out.
Seriously... dude... seriously... You have answers to everything, we get it - none of them are founded on an understanding of how the economy works and you'll probably keep going, that's great.
I want you to go back and address the part where "you get to set the interest for your own money" and tell me, how do you that without BREAKING -EVERYTHING-. That was absurd beyond words and you have clearly, unequivocally showed that you are 100% clueless.
On November 10 2011 12:06 Djzapz wrote: Conservative range of 4 to 8%? Lawl, maybe for your $5000 over 30 years.
I think you are underestimating the potentional of fractional banking, governal bonds trading and the rise of gold value. And the fact that when you have money placed in a bank that you OWN, you can set the interest for your own money.
You realize that when you OWN the bank you're the one PAYING the interest?
So if I'm paying the interest earned by the customer (who is also, me) I'm paying myself money with interest.
On November 10 2011 12:06 Djzapz wrote: Conservative range of 4 to 8%? Lawl, maybe for your $5000 over 30 years.
I think you are underestimating the potentional of fractional banking, governal bonds trading and the rise of gold value. And the fact that when you have money placed in a bank that you OWN, you can set the interest for your own money.
HAHAHA that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. You can set interest for your own money. So if I start a bank, put $1 in it, and "set the interest" at 100000000%, I'll be pretty rich soon. I wonder why the investment banks didn't do this to avoid the financial crisis.
Also, according to this and the your claim, the Rothschilds have more money than the whole world. Are you 10 or something? Maybe you need to read some books and learn stuff.
The Rothschilds already possesed around 40-50% of the worlds money in 1850 (this is something we KNOW) so this means that they already had as much/more money than "the rest of the world" 150 years ago.
i have read many, many books on this subject. i think you should do it too.
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Rothschild_Wappen.jpg/180px-Rothschild_Wappen.jpg)
Yeah, lets fix it![[image loading]](http://withfriendship.com/images/i/43158/Knesset-picture.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/WalterRothschildWithZebras.jpg/220px-WalterRothschildWithZebras.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/RothschildTortoise.png/220px-RothschildTortoise.png)
