I know a lot of you have asked about what recommended books you should read to learn more in depth about the content on this channel. I made a complete reading list freely available to subscribers who join the channels mailing list. To download the reading list, click on the link below. nickpardini.substack.com/subscribe
Mate, judging by moves the old money clan is making (Brexit, Trump, all of a sudden conservative powers finding the funds for successful election campaign in Europe), they absolutely do not appear to be supporting the left 🙈🙈🤷♂️
There's definitely fdifferent classes of wealth to be sure. From my perspective, even the so-called middle class are rich and can be kind of problematic in that they tend ot vote in a bunch of zoning laws which prevents poor people from moving in and just building a house of one sort or another. Then they jack up rents and they complain when crime increases as if the poor really have a lot of options.
I know this is controverssial or "offennsive" to say, but the demogrphics of the uberrich has changed. Jewshpeople now comprse a not insignifcnt part of the ultrarich and bring with them their tradittionalpolitcl leanings (this is not meant to criticze them, but it is a fct). Also, many SouthAsians and other immmgrnts are becomng part of the veryrch and tend to be Democrtts.
Old money benefits most from increased government spending. They own all the "preferred contractors" that automatically win every government contract. High taxation also benefits them as it forces out their competition. High taxes make it near impossible to become wealthy.
True. The benefit its efficiency. I hardly believe we could develop so fast in the last 100 years without this. But this "short" gains will make humankind suffer for many centuries, because what starts with efficiency soon develops to cancer, cause we dont allow everybody be at more or less the same level. And when people are not around the same level, some kind of exploitation is develop, that leads somehow to slavery/feudalism a huge dependency on someone else or some form of government.
The Laws are made for this. No gov institution or corporation will ever try(and most times are banned) to lets say hire you to paint an office for $1000. They have to hire a large company that has a portfolio of such projects, ISO certifications, etc. Of course then they pay times more than the market price even just because of many managers, costs for personel, etc. Noone cares- if you need to work competition is closed and you may only work for the big company. Of course they don't ban frre initiative and "fight monopolies" it is done for you and me. Imagine the white wall is 2 shades darker than perfect iso certified white.
@@atanasmarkov9016 It didn't use to be like that in the 50s and 60s western governments had engineering departments and had public workers that were direct state employees instead of contractors. I wonder why we built nearly every infrastructure back then and did so at a fraction of the cost we now pay contractors
The wealthy I've met actually play both sides... donating to everyone guarantees you get preferable treatment regardless of who wins or what party is in power.
It’s a small token they can pay to buy influence and fame. What are corporate social responsibility and DEI programs - a sliver in their profits to buy politicians.
@@haritadepalli959dei policies clear your organization of ethical people. There may be a few left, but an ultra minority. Everyone else will appeal to authority or money. Dei started at imperial oil. They then said everyone they deal with has to be dei and "big brothers" and encourage their business partners to do the same. Completely top down, from blackrock.
There’s a MAJOR catch to that: You CANNOT let either side know you’re donating to the other. If they find this out, the illusion is dissolved and the cat’s out of the bag.
When you get rich, the easiest way to stay rich is by supporting big government programs and high taxes that kill your competition. They pull the ladder up behind them by supporting a progressive nanny state.
Isn't now also because rapid inflation literally priced out "undesirables" from buying the fixer upper in that picture perfect blue town in Vermont? While at the same time rapidly increasing the value of your assets? Stocks, homes, cars, art, watches, antiques, jewels all being worth more than ever. I thought that's more or less the modern reason the rich are quietly voting blue no matter who. More so than to create invisible tape for your new competition.
In 2008 while debating POTUS election with a group of military officers I heard a Belgian Colonel and Noble say something that at the time was so ridiculous I couldn’t help but remember it. “The ruling class will gladly pay higher tax if it means they don’t have to compete for capital”. After making my money I now understand 100%
Every wealthy person wants a monopoly on power and wealth. This is why rich people stay in their hometowns whereas truly wealthy people live in large cosmopolitan cities. Better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond. Nobody wants to be the poorest person in a group of wealthy people.
@@LuckyCharms777 never heard of that. One of my early goals was to make enough to hire employees. Now I enjoy mentoring people. This seems to be the same with the people in my circle
Talking with a guy connected with a major shipping company in the 1980s.. He was leaving for a trip to the state Capitol to lobby on behalf of his company.. I was in my twenties, so I blurted out the stereotypical idea of big companies working with Republicans. He surprised me by stating that his company actually supported Democrats because they implemented so many restrictions and costs to businesses that it kept out competition. His company had the money to maintain while newer upstarts who could do the same service cheaper were unable to do so because they were overwhelmed with regulations. He described Democrats as standing in front of people with one hand in the air declaring their devotion to the common man and their willingness to protect them from the evil big businesses. But their other hand behind their back acquiring money and/or deals from big businesses to keep the little guys out if the game. 😮
I have a few family members who work with addicts, mostly teens and young adults. One of these family members ran an organization for quite some time. She told me thats its important that we have a good economy no matter what. When we have a good economy there are less people who turn to drugs. When governments create social programs, there is an uptick in addicts and they never improve anything. She also said when people have money its easier to fundraise. Government doesnt give very much, private funding can provide a lot more - but it is directly tied to how well the economy is going.
@sandollor Well, there is lots of data to support this. Even just logically, a government program would not want to eliminate the problem, because then they would be out of jobs. Here, in Canada, the government gives addicts free drugs. What happened over the last 30 years? Per capita drug use is at its highest level ever, and there are more people than ever before employed by the government to solve this issue. Remember kids, don't stay in school or you will end up a brainwashed fool.
@sandollor homelessness? Up. Addictions? Up. Crime? Up. All the budgets for those problems? Higher than ever before. Amount of people employed to solve those problems? Larger than ever before. Look at any western country and you will see the same things. One can only assume from your comments that you are a government worker. A low level one, at that.
First, you don’t really know who all the “old money” actually are, just some of them. If there’s something they value a lot is privacy and anonymity. Second, “old money” is multi-generational money. And they only become so by being very pragmatic and knowledgeable of how the world works. In other words, political ideology for them is a tool, not an identity. They’ll support whatever they think works best for their interests. Liberal, Conservative, Capitalist, Anarchist, whatever.
Not just old money. New money too. When corporate execs in places like Google have militant DEI policies, the exec class who get their jobs through referrals and contacts are not impacts. It is the average person who has to grit hard to compete among a reduced pool of jobs and promotions.
@@MilwaukeeF40C most anecdotes I know are ultra wealthy people who do all they can make sure elephants have as much power as possible. Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch etc. Would be weird to imagine that it isn’t expected for the ultra to support the party of tax cuts for billionaires and no regulations on corporations…
But I do think, middle classes are the ones to blame for this. When covid hitted 5 years ago, it was the common people who supported lockdowns, who shame the ones that try to counter argue. Then it come the change in energy laws, again the middle class allow the goverments do whatever they want. At the same time, mass emigration from everywhere in europe, again the middle class allow it. Now noone can afford houses, and still the ones that complain are the ones been mocked, been told they accept to live in mediocre houses.... I honestly believe we are on a point without return for this ERA, where this ERA is doomed to collapse with civil wars in a matter off centuries. But its allways the masses that legitimizes the "Old money".
1984 explained this. The proletariat didn't care because they didn't have anything, the inner party was the elite and the outer party was the danger because they had just enough to lose that they would kill to keep it.
Venezuelan here. Leftists would be surprised to know that my country's socialist tyranny started thanks to the support of our traditional elites, including the richest families (the two largest media empires, international trade and financial moguls, among others).... and it was the highly educated middle class (which includes most intellectuals and professionals) who voted socialist revolutionaries into power. The poor didn't vote the revolution initially. Once it was in power, the story changed, but it was the elites who put them there. During the last quarter of the 20th century, the once successful, rich and free-market supporting Venezuelan elite changed its position from Western ally to geopolitically "neutral", and chose to brace the government to make it a a sort of wall/barrier that would prevent both foreign and internal competition from gaining too much ground as it "weakened the national soveringty". With the excuse of "developing the national industry", the government gave them hundreds of billions of cheap petrodollars through soft loans, preferential exchange rates, direct government contracts, etc. Later, when the government ran out of money, they simply made war against reformists and supported a strongman, Hugo Chavez, that would make everybody fall in line and allow them to keep their privileges, no matter the cost. Things went wrong for them, though. Chavez betrayed them, he was a sleeper ally of local socialist extremists, Cuba and anti-western governments who used the 2000s oil bonanza to create a new, loyal economic upper-class to substitute these traditional elites of "foolish rich". Even the wealthiest, like the country's richest family lost 90% of its assets despite moving to Miami in the early 2000s. Nowadays, most of those families are just wannabe-rich names with upper-middle class net values, living in wealthy countries.
Chavez had 3% in the polls 10 months before the Dec. 1998 election. When a pro-partial-reforms faction of the traditional elite gave its support to a popular (and pretty competent) beauty-queen-turned-politician, another faction gave to Chavez their full support: TV chanels, radio stations, buildings, airplanes, buses, buildings, staff and world-class campaign advisors were put at his service.
@@mrgooodod3179 In general, these families didn't lose all their wealth but a huge portion of it. So, now, compared to first-world-level fortunes, theirs are minuscule and, being Venezuela ruled by a new elite connected to the military, their influence is laughable within the country and internationally. They're like fossils, and considering a significant chunk of their assets is just sunk in Venezuela, their future doesn't look bright either. The example I gave was the Cisneros family. In 2003, its head, Gustavo Cisneros, had a net worth adjusted by inflation of around 9.5 Billion. He led the wealthiest family in the country. Last year, at his death, He was not in the Forbes list and his fortune was estimated in less than 900M. That's at least a 90% loss in real value since 2003. The Otero family were media owners connected to the political (leftitst, never forget that Venezuela is under a total leftist hegemony since 1959) who had helped Chavez and other revolutionary socialists since even before his two 1992 coups. The Otero eventually became too uncomfortable for the socialist regime and now live in exile. Their media are banned or limited, chavista courts ordered giving their assets in the country to Chavez's and Maduro's number 2, Diosdado Cabello. Something similar happened to the Boulton family, who were among the top financiers of the Chavez campaing (although they vehemently deny it nowadays, they funded both Chavez and his final adversary's 1998 campaing -not the former beauty queen, but a former governor-) yet Chavez's cronies and hechment ended up covering up for the Colombian gangs who kidnapped one of them in 2000 and finally intervened and expropriated several of their businesses later that same decade. The Branger family who were big traditional landowners who developed a spectacular agricultural and eco-tourism business, which was among if not the biggest in Venezuela and Latin America in terms of extension. They supported Chavez's campaignbut were later affected by his agrarian reforms and expropriations. The Tinoco family, the Febres-Cordero Family, and the Vegas family, who were "masters of the Valley" are now they're a shadow of their former glory. Even the Machado family (who have always been very political, to the point one of them founded the communist party) are a far cry what they were, their businesses are barely running.
@clopezferrer Lots of interesting detail. I can't digest it all! I have a question, if you dont mind... Venezuela was known as a rather prosperous country (basic wealthiest of Latin America). They had a decent middle class and professional folks. Did this actually happen during the rule by leftists (since the 50s)? What style of leftists were in power (communists or something else)? When did the country begin to fall apart (Chavez & nationalization of resources)?
There is a psychological phenomenon where people are fine with having less if it means that the other person/the competition gets nothing. Just thought that was relevant.
Think about what happened during the FDR administration. The South was the poorest region in America. Of all regions, the South would have benefited the most from the New Deal programs. And yet, there was resistance. The fear was that Blacks would also be included in such programs. The rich didn't want to lose what they say as a labor/servant class. Many poor Whites during the Jim Crow era didn't want to share such programs with Blacks, who were even poorer. There were some people willing to go without so that Blacks couldn't have it either. The reason the New Deal programs were finally passed were due to finding sneaky ways to exclude Blacks from the New Deal programs.
@@TheGeoScholar i mean tbf, i can see why the south would be sceptical of the puritan northern elites that had destroyed them a generation before. And the new deal has plunged the world into chaos. I doubt it would have benefited the south in the end.
In free-market capitalism, there is unequal prosperity. In communism/socialism, there is equal misery (except for the elite, who always exempt themselves from their own rules).
@dzcav3 you a very much spot on, as a person who was born when my country became communist, we lived in utterly misery, I mean civil war broke out, food and medicine shortages, power and water cuts was daily, prices rasing daily or hourly, persecutions --> normal citizens were spied on (living in constant fear of been taken to the jail or forced work camps), people we that disapeared and we still don't know their destination after 50 years, the last goes on and on in Misery... As soon we became pseudo Democratic country with open market, life improved like day and night. Can not compare with levels of success from Western countries achieved but its visible the difference. My country still considered one of the most poor countries on the Planet, but lately I started questioning what's been poor mean???! Are the supposed experts really sure that someone from a remote Village in Africa really need life of consumption or their modest way of life free of wars / infighting due to so called Modern standards of wealth. Do we really need to erase awhole Culture to adopt progress/financial gain??? The definition of poverty I believe needs to be reformulated --> hope it makes sense, English it's not my language. By the way my country its Mozambique.
It's incredibly infuriating to think about how much general progress for civilization as a whole has been delayed by the short-sighted and selfish interests of people who had enough wealth and power to gum up the works.
humans evolved for hundreds of thousands of years under feast or starvation mode. you might think the rich already have enough wealth only from your perspective. however the rich dont think they have enough because they never know if tmrw they might lose it all
This ain't nirvana. How much of the unnecessary privation and suffering is because people are so quick to reject good knowledge of all types? They may be trained to be so poor at thinking, or they may be focused on short-term personal gain, but we have what we have because people accept it. Stanley Milgram showed how reflexively we fall in line to kill innocent people. That can't be blamed on the oligarchs.
A lot of people marvel at the technological advancement of the Germans during part 2 of their series, Germany vs the World. They did away with all the old money. There were no longer impediments to advancement. In a typical situation, the guy who wants to build jets, has to grapple with “big propeller”. Germany kinda neutralized that particular roadblock.
The rest of the population isn't any better. People love wasting money for useless crap and/or to impress neighbors instead of building wealth instead of doing something useful with the money and get rich.
both parties pass budgets of bankruptcy. Neither party actually stands for anything. If the Democrat party stands for liberal values, and socialism, then why are they in Gaza genociding civilians? where does that fit on the platform besides raking money in from AIPAC
But why would the imported class support the ruling class? Why would those coming across the border into USA vote for those who opened the border after they have entered? Don't they also want to "pull up the ladder behind them". Why do the Democratsand others ASSUME that those crossing the border will vote Democrat??
When Biden proposed the $25,000 first home buyer credit, I thought "This a stupid idea, houses will just be $25,000 more expensive" But the silver lining is that my property would also increase from that. And that's when I realized what's going on, have policies that look like helping but eventually just benefits people with assets. Who has the most assets? It's an insidious plan cloaked in self-righteousness.
So would your property taxes - even though you aren't making any additional income. Suddenly people have to fork over more across the board if they actually own property or a home. Hmmmm...
@@ltarmenia4ever Just to clarify, since it is a Federal program, then it would not be paid for with property taxes, but as the value of the property increased, the property taxes (usually a percentage of that value) would also go up. Although if you are renting out or leasing out the property, you would merely pass those costs on to your customers. Meanwhile the Home Buyer Credit, itself, would be paid for through more deficit spending and thus inflation of the money supply, the equivalent of a regressive tax on money (since the money is devalued) which is paid by everyone who participates in the cash economy, especially the poor. Those who have their money invested in 401Ks, IRAs, equities, real estate, gold, collectibles and so forth, merely see the value of their investments go up as the value of the money goes down.
If you sell your home to capture that $25,000 the new house you buy will cost at least $25,000 more Even though you are not a first time home buyer you might be able to get the credit, who know's? If you don't buy another home you will get hit by a capitol gains tax and take a beating
Indeed, it is the democrats who can get away with the biggest transfers to the wealthy because many people cannot tie words and actions together. If the dems say they work for the poor and the middle class, it must be true, right?
It's a social thing. Bezos can make all the money he wants, he'll never be from a monied family, he'll never get the time of day from a Sulzberger or Astor. Same with Elon or Zuck, and it's why the east coast families hate the SV nuveau elites. Even Gates only gets halfway acceptance after all his groveling and loyalty to their social scene
I think everyone is very aware that there is a class system, except they’re being bombarded constantly by surrogate activities (see Kaczynski). You may be aware of the elites, but at the end of the day you go home and watch sportsball, go to a concert, argue online, workout, or drink a beer. Poor people have nothing to lose, but middle-class people still believe in the system as corrupt as it is. They don’t want to lose what they have. If your people are being systematically replaced, you have to be willing to risk it all, otherwise your people will cease to exist.
Exactly. As a result, societies with low mobility don't get the fresh blood to move up to leadership positions. The old money ruling class becomes incompetent after the third generation and beyond. The system comes down like a house of cards.
The old money rulling class doesnt need to be "competent" they own assets, they make money on their sleep. They're not working for it, so they cant be competent or incompetent
The circulation of elites happens since existing elites do not incorporate new talent. The foxes ossify the vitality of society as a consequence of their maintained grip on power, and eventually the lions seize power through force.
@@goncalodias6402They need to be competente. Now the west oliquarchy are facing another’s oligarchy’s. The chinese and the Russian are creating a new system of paying. The rich in the west destroy their own society to stay rich with no competition but now will be very difficult to compete against Russian and Chinese oligarchy. They don’t have the best people in the west in their side, so will be very difficult to win. They destroy the best in their own side!!! Now… they will fail. Look the companies in Germany, look the technologies in the battle field ( hipersônico míssel) . The old money west elite choose the worst to stay in the stage for them, but other elites civilizations saw an opportunity to destroy them on this. Probably they will succeed.
Pulling up the ladder. This has been something intuitive to me since I started moving from the left in adulthood, but it's good to see someone put these thoughts into a workable format.
Half right. They never give up power. But they ( well some of them) do at least attempt to build upon what they inherit. This is done indirectly so it isn’t directly observable. Individually they appear to own nothing but they have acccess to everything.
Established money is managed by fear of losing authority to direct the situation, at the expense of blinding themself to the potential for raising a greater number of people to a higher quality of life… under the mis-perception of scarcity, that does not account for fruitfulness of technological improvements ability to support broad improvement at nearly no greater expense.
The person who made the video, answered that. Its not about left or right, its about legitimization of the system. And the legitimization process always goes to where there are more supporters. Usually centralization laws tend to be more legitimized by people who depend more on centralization, that's why old money and law makers use the left.
During apartheid in South Africa new money and middle class whites found themselves benefiting more from it while filthy rich old money was better off in less advanced extractive neighbors.
@@cbrogers4614 That's absolutely not necessarily true. You're just declaring it to be true, because of the examples of Russia and China. Typically whoever the powers that be, and the muscle that props them up in some everyday free market cap society, treats it as a matter of absolute life and death to violently suppress and eliminate any socialist type government that could emerge, even in a completely democratic political process, as in Chile, and so naturally socialists arm themselves as well. What do you expect them to do, just let themselves get shot?
No one votes communism in lol. Communism requires revolution. You know cause people are not voting for the complete over turn of the social hierarchy. There has never been a communist party win legally through the election system. They all had to fight and defeat the army and all others who resisted. This is why communism is not a serious threat. As people will not start fighting against the government directly unless they are insanely poor and living in utter strife. The easiest way to stop communism is to simply maintain standard of living above the willingness to fight threshold. Fascism on the other hand has and can win elections. Because despite left leaning economic support. The highly conservative pro corporate social policies make winning elections possible.
It's crazy. Sometimes I feel only I have made these analysis but there's always someone who shares your thoughts and intuitions. Subscribed. It isn't a race war it is a class war.
@@kv4648 it appears that you don't understand what @lukaskopia was saying. What he, or RFK was saying is the vote was very close to 50/50 in 2020, but the "rich" (those holding 70% of the total wealth) typically voted for democrats and the working class/middle class (holding 30% of the nations wealth) typically voted for republicans. This makes sense based on the video because the rich like to use the government to over-regulate and block any competition from arising.
@@kv4648 Let me re-explain that better. Rich Republicans are represented in the 30% of wealth holders. Rich Democrats are represented in the 70% of wealth holders. The Trump voters all together, rich, poor, working class, middle class etc. held 30% of the wealth....70% was held by the Biden voters poor, rich. etc. What makes this interesting, is that 30, 40, 50 years ago, the opposite was true. The parties have changed. You can also see this in political fundraising where democrats outraise republicans like 4 to 1.
"Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self- government, or anarchy." - Niccolo Machiavelli: "The Prince"
Listened to this on my way to work this morning. It answered the question that I have long asked myself. It totally changed my mindset. Thank you for the information.
I was a bit confused first but then realized y'all have the colors flipped there in the US. Red is the color of socialism after all, that's why the Left uses it.
@@paavoilves5416 Interesting. Probably has to do with how our politics flipped at some point. Around the Ku Klux Klan period, which used to actually be the Democrats. It was the republicans who freed the slaves back then.
@@TheOblivionMemeGuy I mean yeah, might be. Though socialism doesn't always correlate with liberal views, N4zi Germany is a good example. I haven't actually heard where exactly the two US parties originate from...
Another important point: If you are a rich person trying to exert influence on the government and the law through lobbying, corruption, etc., it is in your interest for the government to have lots of power. You can’t abuse the power of a small government to get rich because a small government doesn’t have as much power to abuse. So the revolving door between corporation executives, lobbyists, and government officials is dependent on a large government with lots of money and arbitrary power.
I disagree I’ve seen small towns do shady stuff so the right people can profit and small towns don’t have a lot of power Frequently you just need a thumb on the scale to get things to go your war
My dad's side is old money. And I can tell you, they divest. hardcore. Simply because as you point out if they made their fortune off of oil, you need to expand your portfolio so you aren't relying on one thing. Dubai is actually a really great example of this. They made a lot of money from oil. But they knew their oil was limited and even it's use was ultimately no assured. They invested in higher education, real estate and tourism. In 20 years Dubai went from a place most had never heard of and wouldn't dream of going to. To a location that rivals Singapore, Hong Kong, Miami, etc..
There are billionaires on the left and right. Neither side gives a damn about you. Only when people understand that it's not just "the other side" that screws you over, only then change can happen.
Yeah of course let's ignore how the Republican states that have been in full rebublican control for ages are normally found in the bottom in everysingle metric. If you genuinely believe that either party are the good guys and the other the bad guys, congratulations on playing the game of the wealthy and focusing on tearing eachother up instead of focusing on the elite.
Not really, voting Republicans mean not competition. The elite use the dichotomy of the Left and Right to take control over everything. They use the left to open the markets and destroy their competition and then they use the right to avoid new competition enter the game.
Reminds me of "millionaire goes broke for a month" to see what he can earn or hustle up over the month. Didnt watch much of the video. But there is always the knowledge that everything can go to hell and he wont be destitute at the end of it. Im sure he didnt lay block or swing hammers or something on the hour.
How is he "disconnected from reality"? What you mean is he disconnected from YOUR "reality" - just as you are disconnected from his. The saddest part is, people think they know how much money the wealthy have. But the truth is, they have no idea. Middle class people cannot comprehend just how much money the elites truly have...
Short answer to the title: old money goes left because the descendants of those wealthy owners never had to work a day in their life. They don’t understand the value of money they don’t know what hard work is they just live after their ancestor.
A famous story is from a foreign observer during the last days of the Romanovs. He saw that while the Capital has soldiers and civilians alike wreaking havoc in the city, he found the Romanov women in the palace with red arm bands in solidarity with the Bolsheviks.
As a stupidly stupid rich person I wish to declare, this is on point exactly. 1.Stay rich. 2.Prevent competition. 3.Keep a desperate impoverished class willing to suffer for our mere entertainment. 4.Get away with attending Squid Games as a spectator.
Machiavelli writes in the Prince that there are two groups of people in every society: peasants whose only desire is to live out their lives without being oppressed, and nobles whose only desire is to oppress the peasants.
Many people are poor because they're uneducated/stupid. However, that lowers the overall bar, damages new potential/evolution, and degrades/trashes everything adjacent. I know subject based intelligence is something real, and *needs* to be thoroughly discussed and acted upon [on all levels]. I believe someone stupid [has lots of money], and someone stupid [given lots of money]; are very similar. The more resources, the more you are able to pour into human advancements/evolution. The unwilling to change stupid people, will naturally be phased out with time; the focus are new generations.
Dumb Aristocrats did died specially in France and other unstasble country in past centuries, smart ones just married with Bourgueois and some later even my New Money. That was good because this made still influential and also avoid inbreeding.
Bill Gates and his father have campaigned to impose an income tax on the state of Washington for decades. His father actually wrote a book on the subject. Bill Gates does NOT pay income taxes, so in other words he wants to increase taxes on the middle class. In fact Bill Gates pays very little taxes at all because he puts money into his foundation, which partially funds his lifestyle and increases his power and sphere of influence.
@@mackijs1 in Minnesota we have tax credits for electric cars and for having kids. Just doing a quick search we have sustainable energy tax credits and military service credit working family credit. The sustainable energy credit might only be available for wealthier people that can both afford to buy sustainable and pay enough for the credit to have a big impact. But as sustainable energy gets cheaper I'm sure it'll be more beneficial.
The government is smaller than ever. Most governments in the west and the world are bankrupt, most middle class people are going bankrupt, whos getting the money? The super rich. Why do they keep getting richer? Because theres no taxation to redestribute the money.
@@goncalodias6402 "The government is smaller than ever. Most governments in the west and the world are bankrupt, most middle class people are going bankrupt, whos getting the money? The super rich. Why do they keep getting richer? Because theres no taxation to redestribute the money" You are so wrong dude. What else explains the giant DEBT from the US treasury, inflation and the destruction of the dollar since the FED's creation? that's right, your big "WELFARE STATE" .
@@juventinocasillas3023 much less than the few decades after the world war two, you know, the time that we had trade unions, high taxes and a regular worker could afford a house. Also, welfare programs are being cut time after time with successive governments, of both parties. Just to mention that weapon manufacturers are private companies, the corruption of government by private companies is an indictment on corruption, not on government. The thruth is governments are mote bankrupt than ever, therefore are smaller, the middle class is more bankrupt than ever, who do they are in dept to? The super rich and the corporations. If you want to be a direct subject to a corporation, with no freedom at al, just say so, since you hate so much the thing that, being democratic is the only force against the practical enslavement of 99 percent of the population. Just read Charles Dickens about how free those people were when the government was small, how free they were to go work at five years old and die before reaching thirty.
Nick is right. I have friends and family in Sweden and it’s largely known that the highest wage most people can earn is less than $70k USD, where anything higher than that is taxed away. Most people earn less than this. While they have a robust social safety net, it’s not quite enough to “move up” in society above the middle class-it’s enough to save up to buy a home, but not to live in lavish luxury... especially since things like clothes, food, real estate can be quite expensive. Meanwhile most of Sweden’s aristocracy lives abroad in London as they can afford to do so, usually only moving back when they get married and start a family. They still work a job to keep themselves busy but they are not doing so because they need to earn a living; they work because this is the socially expected thing to do in a socialist state. I have friends in Austria and they tell me that the average income is $30k plus social benefits. Same scenario. But imagine moving from a lower or middle class into the upper class (monetarily, not in terms of aristocracy) on $30k before tax and expenses. It’s a non reality. I think this is one of reasons America is the destination for so much of Europe’s brain drain. It makes more sense to try your hand at starting a company in the US where capital is abundant and taxes are lower once you exit than to build a company only to have most of your profit taxed upon exit. It’s why IKEA’s founder lives in Switzerland (among other European billionaires) and pays a very low tax in his specific canton.
What's the problem with being "average" in Sweden, or Denmark, or any other Nordic country for that matter? There's no poverty. There's no illiteracy. There's probably no homelessness. Why would you want to live in lavish luxury if actually everyone already does, according to the rest of the world's standards? I can tell you why. Because you're selfish and greedy. And jealous of that 1% (made up that number) richer then you. There are no resources for everyone on earth to have 5 mansions, a private jet and a yacht and 10 exotic cars, bro. There's also nothing wrong with trying to provide a decent living standard for everyone else.
@@whateverrandomnumber European cultures celebrate mediocrity. But wanting to earn income commensurate to the economic value you are creating is not selfishness or greed. It's actually normal human nature in most parts of the world. The only type of person who would disagree is a happy serf.
@@whateverrandomnumber I’m sorry that you are projecting. I never said there was anything wrong with providing a good quality life for people. Education, healthful foods, and urban planning are some of my main causes for philanthropy and advocacy. I firmly believe everyone should live in a healthy society with ample opportunity. That is not the topic of this video. This video speaks to how the old money set in the US and Europe tend to support large government with an ample social net and high progressive taxes because this keeps people in a stable social position with difficult upward mobility above the middle class. The general population is equally as unlikely to revolt as they are to be entrepreneurial under such circumstances, which maintains the status quo and therefore protects their quality of life and their position at the top of society’s hierarchy. It is difficult to create actual political change and increase actual social mobility under such conditions. This is especially true when the establishment class has more opportunities to corrupt the regulatory bodies within a large government when compared to a more streamlined system-regulatory capture, again, to reduce economic competition and keep their position safe at the top of the hierarchy, no matter the cost to society. Even if, like in the US, it means being at war for over 90% of the country’s existence and bombing Western Asia into oblivion for the past 30 years just to keep the profits of the military-industrial complex alive. This is an issue of bi-partisan consensus-the “liberals” want it just as much as any hawkish conservative. Meanwhile the billionaires off-shore their cash and therefore often leave much of the burden of taxation on the general population to find anything from social programs to education to wars. Trusts and shell corporations are a dime a dozen. Idk why you were so triggered by my comment and tried to moralize me to be a selfish and greedy person. It’s entirely unnecessary and doesn’t help the spirit of public discourse online. You would do better if you made reasonable points, used proper grammar, and didn’t insult the character or intelligence of some stranger you’ve never met online. And as for the projection, I must say that whatever you find ugliest in others is usually that which you are suppressing in yourself. Maybe you are looking at the world from a position of greed and selfishness because you feel the desire for more within yourself, or maybe you view the world as there not being enough to go around? I don’t know, but please don’t be so ugly when speaking with others in the future. Xx
Anybody seen "the man in the high castle" well imagine the people who won were the communist through a silent war, and people just never realized their system slowly turned into communism.
On point! This has been the reality in Britain since WWI. They first eliminated social competition through high taxation on the aristocracy, - a purification ritual of sorts - and then they moved on to the common man by saturating the system with regulation and high taxation, and eventually mass migration.
So high taxation on the aristicracy was a bad thing? The rich really convinced people that you cant taxed them. Maybe because they like the money only going one way, theirs
Месяц назад+4
I like this video, no conspiracy, no bias, just a men talking about humanity
Although it focuses more on "new money", the book "Revolt of The Elites" by Christopher Lasch offers a great analysis of the relationship between left wing politics and the wealthy / ruling class.
New Money - the corporate exec class is more aligned with leftist politics. The welfare they so fondly recommend doesn’t have to come from their check books.
Good discussion. It comes down to this the threat to old money is decentralization. It doesn’t matter where it comes from whether its in the business side or the government side, it’s easier to maintain your position when government becomes big and omnipresent and businesses are few and large.
Old money doesn't care about other old money, so long as they stay in their own lane and keep their own monopoly. What they do care about is those uppity new money kids trying to muscle in.
The American revolution was about a new, more efficient and more equitable structure arising amidst the old powers of Europe, despite their best efforts to divide and subdue it. The colonies were actually in a very fortuitous place, of more land, more people and more resources, and the best minds of Europe had already gravitated to the "new world". The economic and social "revolution" had been accomplished before it began. Of course the revolution built on a long series of legal, social and military revolutions in Britain and the Continent, it was just the next logical development.
@@lalannej Old Money controlling the ports and trade - Pro British , new money being slave plantation class - The founding fathers. The old money had control of trade with Europe and the plantation class did not.
Do research on the Salem witch trial before the American revolution. Tensions between the new money plantation class and the old money pro Europe class that owned the shipping ports.
Because they never faced a harsh world that made them grow out of youthful idealism. Their unearned wealth insulates them against bad consequences of good-sounding ideals
I’ve always heard growing up that the only people who love and want competition are the underdogs. Every license is a barrier to competition disguised as safety.
Im thankful that people need a driver license and workers and consumers are protected by safety regulations... even if it hinders people like you from competing
Before 1913 no one paid taxes. The government collected money through a kind of VAT system. Because there were no taxes it was possible to build wealth. Which is no longer possible today due to a progressive tax system.
@@AFNick The truth is , taxes are much to high today and regulation is too big and government itself is too big. Massive debt (35 T )on top of massive taxes, makes it pretty obvious we have had governments that have been completely irresponsible.
@@AFNickdepending on how the selection turns out although I doubt it would be a complete elimination of personal or business income taxes I have a feeling there will be a substantial pivot back towards taxes based on consumption rather than based on production those who are Frugal and good stewards of what they have gained along the way what benefit greatly from that and certainly many will be able to accumulate substantially especially if they are able to create something that really sells or they invest their money wisely and consistently.
1913? Wait, what happened in 1912? Oh, that's right: All the opposition to the income tax and Federal Reserve went down on the RMS Titanic -- really the RMS Olympic. JP Morgan lured them to London to be finally appreciated by the European aristocracy. But on the morning of the RMS Titanic's return voyage to NY, JP Morgan was "too sick to sail." The rest is history: In 1913, we got the 70% income and estate taxes to hold down rival families; and the Rockefeller-owned F.R.
Having the ability to elucidate what can be quite complex in plain speech is a gift. It can be difficult to do it because you lose many listeners so early on due to their thinking that such plain speech must indicate a lack of true understanding. I would say that you exemplify this ability. Nicely done, and thank you.
Always vote for the party that creates agency for entrepreneurs and gives the middle class the power. The producers, not the parasites on both ends of the economic spectrum.
people with old money are lazy, earning at the expense of the working class. New rich are enterprising working class. educated, creative, and adaptive.
Thanks! This video has finally helped me to understand why the modern left is more pro-immigration than the right. I couldn’t understand why “the left” which supposedly cares more about workers than the right is more supportive of migrants than the supposedly “corporatist right-wingers”. I am Canadian and excess immigration is keeping wages lower than they would be with reasonable immigration levels, particularly but not exclusively, in lower skilled jobs.
Canadian politicians very openly say that their immigration policy is for business interests. It's only in the U.S. and parts of Europe where the whole thing is disguised as "empathy" bla bla bla.
Big corporations lobby the government for mass immigration to keep wages low and devalue labour, but then they push mass immigration as progressivism to not get backlash from the truth which is that it's all a ploy to destroy the working class. I consider myself an actually progressive guy, I think most so called progressives are hypocrites and like 99% of people, am for immigration, but not mass immigration and there's also the big issue with mass immigration is that to have mass immigration we forego vetting the people coming here and we end up with people who create distinctively different societies and don't want to actually be canadians. Most people coming right now to Canada are from extremely socially conservative country and their beliefs don't mesh with western liberal beliefs. The liberals pride themselves on being super open minded and progressive, but then bring in people who are against women's rights and lgbtq rights. I'm sure you heard about that 1 million march for children crap well it was mainly immigrants protesting against lgbtq rights. This is a big problem with the left right now, they live in a fantasy land where every thing is perfect and nothing can be criticized if it's from a minority.
(13:37) Interesting point, I never thought about the middle class being the biggest threat to the upper class. I suppose old money is glad the middle class is shrinking.
Think of it this way: The rich get wealthy off of the poor, because the poor spend their money poorly - on the things the wealthy own. However, the middle class are smart with their money - they don't give it away easily, or spend it frivolously, but they also don't really take big enough risks to make themselves wealthy. The wealthy would fall apart from the middle class being smart with their resources. The poor are what allow the wealthy to thrive.
@@ajones8008 I wish I was allowed. It's the most censored subject on youtube. Not allowed to say much. Do you know the national socialist policies on the green movement (they kinda kicked it off). From an 'AI summary': Eric Voegelin argued that communism, alongside other modern ideologies like National Socialism and progressivism, can be understood as a form of secularized Gnosticism, essentially claiming that communism acts as a "religion of Gnosticism" by mirroring key Gnostic beliefs in a political context; particularly the idea of achieving a utopian "heaven on earth" through revolutionary action, rather than through traditional religious practices.
Im just peasant class so I don't know first hand but that sounds sensible. I naïvely thought it was they were able to get a social conscience but I suspect you are spot on with the easing of their conscience and maintaining their perceived paternal position while reducing competition. Let them eat cake
The social conscience political party has clearly proved to have become a fake narrative nowadays but I agree this is an interesting point regarding the conscience cleaning for the old money lords.
"..with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they [the rich] very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease [poverty]: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease" - Oscar Wilde 1891
The interesting thing about the UK is the way the prevented local challengers but welcome foreign elites with open arms with their non-dom program. Eventually the consequences became obvious
I’m a CPA and a republican working in NYC, and it always driving me mad to see Dems mainly talking about increasing income taxes on the rich and corp tax, when the former would generally hurt the upper middle class and small business owners rather than the rich, and the latter would mostly hurt employees of large businesses. If you want to actually tax the ultra wealthy, you’d increase the tax on capital gains (and it would also pop the stock and housing bubbles). Increasing the capital gains tax would also hurt the average American less than an increase in corp tax because we have a permanent edge in the stock market while not actually having one in labor. Not to mention how regulations usually help massive multinationals over the competition because they actually have the money to adapt to said regulations. Personally I would love to see the GOP embracing capital gains tax increases to go along with budget cuts to decrease the deficit.
@@relaxedleisure4766 you are totally correct, it is normal to reject the left-wing discourse on taxes if they end up falling on people who work for a living merely making a bit more. It would be great if more Republicans moved to your position. Here in Europe one of the biggest failures of the EU is not having a fiscal union that prevents tax loopholes like the ones in Ireland or Luxembourg... what is the point of union if you can not leverage that against tax avoidance?
@@soicosoirav9174 Unfortunately, a lot of people who lean more to the left (not that the average American right winger is anywhere near to be economically literate) here, don’t actually understand how taxes are structured and also fail to realize that it is much easier to move your factories to counties where labor is cheap (and therefore avoiding paying tax while also laying off people) than it is to stop investing in stocks….
@@soicosoirav9174 I honestly prefer the way taxes are structured in most of Europe (less progressive and an actual sales tax), it is much more balanced, less costly (if the eu actually tried to be less bureaucratic) and less dependent on the rich doing well. But as a right winger, I obviously prefer lower rates. The EU should honestly tell Lux and Ireland that if they want to remain tax havens, then they should expect their access to EU funds and access to the Euro significantly curtailed (yes, I did just suggest kicking them out if they don't even try to compromise). I’m personally an eurosceptic on most issues except for fiscal rules and financial regulations. I find it to be rather disappointing that the eu focused deepening integration in divisive areas that are alienating a lot of people like Schengen and non-financial regulations rather than fiscal rules and trade which were what the bloc was originally created for, and where one would have expected to find the most integration
@@relaxedleisure4766 yes, although some authors, mostly hard left like French professor Annie Lacroix-Riz, maintain that from the beginning European integration was a tool of capital to bypass democratic controls and popular sovereignty. But I agree, even if that vision is a bit conspiratorial it is clear that the EU has been rather disappointing on many issues. I guess that it remains stable after the Brexit damage was contained, and Eastern Europeans are into it for the development funds, but I don't think that beyond Ukrainians or similar candidates the rest of the continent is enthralled with it.
@@relaxedleisure4766 also true. In that sense, the fact that thanks to Trumpism protectionism is no longer a dirty word could have interesting repercusions.
"We're moving the town plant to mexico. Dont you like saving money buying $6 tshirts?" "Not really of it means my neighbor doesnt have a job, he gets addicted to drugs and dies. I now have to pay hogher taxes to essentially sipprt his family too. I cant catch a break. All the homes here are worth less now. So my wealth dries up and i have less take home pay" "Yeah but GDP go up!"
If you are pure leisure class, and live on tax-free bond coupons, do you REALLY care what the income tax rates are ? They are so detached from everyday life that they probably don't even know what their economic interests even are.
I was a progressive liberal and now enjoy right conservative values. My wealth building father kept me in the poor house until I acquired my first business to compete with him. Now he is retired and so am I. We currently compete by desiring to spend the least. My son rejects both behaviors - he is a struggling artist. WHAT FUN
Well said, I’ve always likened it to a race. If I am not the fastest runner, but am a strong runner, I want the rules to be changed so that everyone has a 20 pound vest. This will bog down anyone who is faster than me. Now look at the corporate virtue signaling, it cost them more money than it cost us to pay these “social taxes” but it will drown us as upstarts way before it drowns them and thus allows them a larger chunk of the market because there’s no longer competition.
I think it's more about preserving their influence. Old money already has its wealth secured, so it’s about shaping policies that maintain power structures. Plus, progressive policies don't threaten them as much because they’re not as vulnerable as the middle class
That makes sense. They can afford to back higher taxes or social reforms because their assets are diversified in ways that protect them, regardless of the political climate
Exactly. Their wealth is often tied up in investments that grow no matter who's in power. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to be much more strategic about our financial decisions. It's why I started working with Joseph Nick Cahill a few years ago
There are two basic reason why old money goes left: #1) People who have old money have been insulated from reality by that money and have never had to live and work in the real world. #2) People who have old money (which they of course never had to earn) subconsciously feel guilty for being born into such privilege, and therefore feel the need to compensate (overcompensate). They do so by advocating and supporting misguided, idealistic policies and platitudes, which are detached from reality and common sense.
@@0_Katt_0 Atone by volunteering at a charity rather than vote for political parties who's policies are to tax the f out of the middle class and pretend to help the underpriveliged by overemploying overpayed bureaucrats
I always wondered why they really hated trump on the left but considering how he speaks about raising people out of poverty and building up the middle class…your video fills in the blanks. Thank you so much for putting this together. I will be sharing this.
Your channel is underrated, appreciate the thoughtful analysis. A build I’d have for this video is to tie some more specific examples of old money families and political donations, is there any research showing high net worth people whose parents were middle class differ substantially from those of some economic means but multigenerational?
British Professor, Matt Goodwin uses the terms "Elite Class" (legacy moneyed, detached from the middle & working classes) and "Luxury Belief System" (elite class untouched by actions imposed upon middle & working classes)
Very interesting analysis, perfectly well exemplified by the letter that Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour wrote to his uncle Jean-Jacques de Sellon on February 5th, 1831. Only 20 years old, Camillo explicitly wrote that the aristocracy's only opportunity for salvation, in front of the liberal sentiment that was sweeping through Europe back then, was "putting itself at the head of the movement"! Camillo Benso, otherwise known simply as "Cavour", went on to become a very famous and powerful Italian politician, reformist and ideologically quite "flexible".
Sex has a lot to do with economics. No sex no people no people no Economics. Now with that premise in mind We need to understand the eex and dating dynamics. The rich and powerful are gonna have access to damn near any woman they want and damn near every depravity. And you can see that the wealth have extremely low divorce rates than the poor. We also know that competition for woman has very strong financial and economic undertones. We also know that high inflation correlates to low birthrates. My arguement is that sex and money are intricately linked and play a huge role in this
Not to mention the mass importation of economic migrants (mercenaries) needed to offset dwindling birthrates and to subsidize the social safety net of an increasing aging population
You failed to mention two major factors that contribute to left old money, Ivy League being extremely left and a religion/charity case mindset. Further just being completely out of touch with reality and the groups they support because they don’t have live amongst them.
The main religion of many wealthy people is the following of their own desires even to their own detriment (Epstein, Diddy, etc…) they are not known to be particularly fearful of the creator. If and when they engage in charitable activities it’s for status or cementing their legacy i.e. the many individuals names on monumental buildings around the world.
@@pizz0tim384 Voting for the government to do what you as an individual, and by extension the community can do quicker and with more precision, is just laziness and shirking of the responsibility. Start by giving charity to your relatives and other close family members so the government doesn’t have to tax you to do the same thing with less efficiency and accuracy. Aid one another upon goodness, keep the family ties, and stay away from evil. If such things were to be done by the majority of individuals in society we wouldn’t be so reliable on the government. The latest hurricane disaster in the US has proven the ineffectiveness of the government once again.
I know a lot of you have asked about what recommended books you should read to learn more in depth about the content on this channel. I made a complete reading list freely available to subscribers who join the channels mailing list. To download the reading list, click on the link below.
nickpardini.substack.com/subscribe
"Young England" Victorian political party. They spelt it out.
Show me a young conservative, and I will show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal, and I will show you someone with no brain.
Mate, judging by moves the old money clan is making
(Brexit, Trump, all of a sudden conservative powers finding the funds for successful election campaign in Europe),
they absolutely do not appear to be supporting the left 🙈🙈🤷♂️
Just one problem that new money becomes old Money!
I think Gloria of Thurn und Taxis is a exception!
Most people think of the guys in the first class section of the airplane as “the rich”. Real rich people aren’t even at the same airport.
They fly Epstein
There's definitely fdifferent classes of wealth to be sure. From my perspective, even the so-called middle class are rich and can be kind of problematic in that they tend ot vote in a bunch of zoning laws which prevents poor people from moving in and just building a house of one sort or another. Then they jack up rents and they complain when crime increases as if the poor really have a lot of options.
I know this is controverssial or "offennsive" to say, but the demogrphics of the uberrich has changed. Jewshpeople now comprse a not insignifcnt part of the ultrarich and bring with them their tradittionalpolitcl leanings (this is not meant to criticze them, but it is a fct). Also, many SouthAsians and other immmgrnts are becomng part of the veryrch and tend to be Democrtts.
The ones flying first class have the tax write offs.
They have their own planes
Old money benefits most from increased government spending. They own all the "preferred contractors" that automatically win every government contract.
High taxation also benefits them as it forces out their competition. High taxes make it near impossible to become wealthy.
True. The benefit its efficiency.
I hardly believe we could develop so fast in the last 100 years without this. But this "short" gains will make humankind suffer for many centuries, because what starts with efficiency soon develops to cancer, cause we dont allow everybody be at more or less the same level. And when people are not around the same level, some kind of exploitation is develop, that leads somehow to slavery/feudalism a huge dependency on someone else or some form of government.
The Laws are made for this. No gov institution or corporation will ever try(and most times are banned) to lets say hire you to paint an office for $1000. They have to hire a large company that has a portfolio of such projects, ISO certifications, etc. Of course then they pay times more than the market price even just because of many managers, costs for personel, etc. Noone cares- if you need to work competition is closed and you may only work for the big company. Of course they don't ban frre initiative and "fight monopolies" it is done for you and me. Imagine the white wall is 2 shades darker than perfect iso certified white.
As a high taxation identifying citizen I can confirm
@@atanasmarkov9016 It didn't use to be like that in the 50s and 60s western governments had engineering departments and had public workers that were direct state employees instead of contractors.
I wonder why we built nearly every infrastructure back then and did so at a fraction of the cost we now pay contractors
No competition accelerates decline for them. Rig and dig (a hole for yourself), as they say.
The wealthy I've met actually play both sides... donating to everyone guarantees you get preferable treatment regardless of who wins or what party is in power.
It’s a small token they can pay to buy influence and fame. What are corporate social responsibility and DEI programs - a sliver in their profits to buy politicians.
@@haritadepalli959dei policies clear your organization of ethical people. There may be a few left, but an ultra minority. Everyone else will appeal to authority or money. Dei started at imperial oil. They then said everyone they deal with has to be dei and "big brothers" and encourage their business partners to do the same. Completely top down, from blackrock.
I guess you haven’t really met an actual wealthy person.
What if I told you that's what the CIA does in 3rd world countries and that's what Rothschild did in previous wars?
There’s a MAJOR catch to that: You CANNOT let either side know you’re donating to the other.
If they find this out, the illusion is dissolved and the cat’s out of the bag.
When you get rich, the easiest way to stay rich is by supporting big government programs and high taxes that kill your competition. They pull the ladder up behind them by supporting a progressive nanny state.
Isn't now also because rapid inflation literally priced out "undesirables" from buying the fixer upper in that picture perfect blue town in Vermont? While at the same time rapidly increasing the value of your assets? Stocks, homes, cars, art, watches, antiques, jewels all being worth more than ever. I thought that's more or less the modern reason the rich are quietly voting blue no matter who. More so than to create invisible tape for your new competition.
Exactly
Wow. Amazing information.
great take, now explain why oil people prefer republicans
Don't forget supporting more regulations to comply with.
In 2008 while debating POTUS election with a group of military officers I heard a Belgian Colonel and Noble say something that at the time was so ridiculous I couldn’t help but remember it. “The ruling class will gladly pay higher tax if it means they don’t have to compete for capital”. After making my money I now understand 100%
In free market capitalism, they still do compete for capital.
Every wealthy person wants a monopoly on power and wealth. This is why rich people stay in their hometowns whereas truly wealthy people live in large cosmopolitan cities. Better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond. Nobody wants to be the poorest person in a group of wealthy people.
@@LuckyCharms777 I’d like to be the poorest billionaire in a group of billionaires.
@@LuckyCharms777 never heard of that. One of my early goals was to make enough to hire employees. Now I enjoy mentoring people. This seems to be the same with the people in my circle
yeah, we're done with "ruling" classes. We all get a say or what's the point?
Talking with a guy connected with a major shipping company in the 1980s.. He was leaving for a trip to the state Capitol to lobby on behalf of his company.. I was in my twenties, so I blurted out the stereotypical idea of big companies working with Republicans.
He surprised me by stating that his company actually supported Democrats because they implemented so many restrictions and costs to businesses that it kept out competition. His company had the money to maintain while newer upstarts who could do the same service cheaper were unable to do so because they were overwhelmed with regulations.
He described Democrats as standing in front of people with one hand in the air declaring their devotion to the common man and their willingness to protect them from the evil big businesses. But their other hand behind their back acquiring money and/or deals from big businesses to keep the little guys out if the game. 😮
I have a few family members who work with addicts, mostly teens and young adults. One of these family members ran an organization for quite some time. She told me thats its important that we have a good economy no matter what. When we have a good economy there are less people who turn to drugs. When governments create social programs, there is an uptick in addicts and they never improve anything. She also said when people have money its easier to fundraise. Government doesnt give very much, private funding can provide a lot more - but it is directly tied to how well the economy is going.
He supported neoliberals; which are basically Republican light.
@@factsdontlie4342That isn't true. Creating social programs do not cause individuals to become addicts.
Stay in school kids.
@sandollor Well, there is lots of data to support this. Even just logically, a government program would not want to eliminate the problem, because then they would be out of jobs. Here, in Canada, the government gives addicts free drugs. What happened over the last 30 years? Per capita drug use is at its highest level ever, and there are more people than ever before employed by the government to solve this issue.
Remember kids, don't stay in school or you will end up a brainwashed fool.
@sandollor homelessness? Up. Addictions? Up. Crime? Up. All the budgets for those problems? Higher than ever before. Amount of people employed to solve those problems? Larger than ever before. Look at any western country and you will see the same things. One can only assume from your comments that you are a government worker. A low level one, at that.
Yep. It's called "pulling the ladder up after yourself." pretty underhanded stuff
Right. Pretty greedy.
Yes: with lots of wealth it's easy to buy the public sector, and turn tax money into money that serves you (and is funneled to you).
First, you don’t really know who all the “old money” actually are, just some of them. If there’s something they value a lot is privacy and anonymity. Second, “old money” is multi-generational money. And they only become so by being very pragmatic and knowledgeable of how the world works. In other words, political ideology for them is a tool, not an identity. They’ll support whatever they think works best for their interests. Liberal, Conservative, Capitalist, Anarchist, whatever.
Well said sir
Brilliant insight.
Sure.. the question is why is it the left in our time?
And I don't think there is an easy answer.
Good job king. 🎉
@@absolutium because jyews are new old mloney and both them and left hatye whyate man
Old money is usually insulated from the consequences of the policies that they support.
Not just old money. New money too. When corporate execs in places like Google have militant DEI policies, the exec class who get their jobs through referrals and contacts are not impacts. It is the average person who has to grit hard to compete among a reduced pool of jobs and promotions.
Show me data that doesn’t debunk the premise of this video.
What data are you saying does debunk it?
@@MilwaukeeF40C most anecdotes I know are ultra wealthy people who do all they can make sure elephants have as much power as possible. Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch etc.
Would be weird to imagine that it isn’t expected for the ultra to support the party of tax cuts for billionaires and no regulations on corporations…
See also: Luxury beliefs.
It basically boils down to the high and low against the middle because the middle is dangerous
Exactly
But I do think, middle classes are the ones to blame for this. When covid hitted 5 years ago, it was the common people who supported lockdowns, who shame the ones that try to counter argue. Then it come the change in energy laws, again the middle class allow the goverments do whatever they want. At the same time, mass emigration from everywhere in europe, again the middle class allow it.
Now noone can afford houses, and still the ones that complain are the ones been mocked, been told they accept to live in mediocre houses....
I honestly believe we are on a point without return for this ERA, where this ERA is doomed to collapse with civil wars in a matter off centuries. But its allways the masses that legitimizes the "Old money".
The old rock and a hard place......know it well.
T Harv Ecker, how the 3 classes think and why...
1984 explained this. The proletariat didn't care because they didn't have anything, the inner party was the elite and the outer party was the danger because they had just enough to lose that they would kill to keep it.
Venezuelan here.
Leftists would be surprised to know that my country's socialist tyranny started thanks to the support of our traditional elites, including the richest families (the two largest media empires, international trade and financial moguls, among others).... and it was the highly educated middle class (which includes most intellectuals and professionals) who voted socialist revolutionaries into power. The poor didn't vote the revolution initially. Once it was in power, the story changed, but it was the elites who put them there.
During the last quarter of the 20th century, the once successful, rich and free-market supporting Venezuelan elite changed its position from Western ally to geopolitically "neutral", and chose to brace the government to make it a a sort of wall/barrier that would prevent both foreign and internal competition from gaining too much ground as it "weakened the national soveringty".
With the excuse of "developing the national industry", the government gave them hundreds of billions of cheap petrodollars through soft loans, preferential exchange rates, direct government contracts, etc. Later, when the government ran out of money, they simply made war against reformists and supported a strongman, Hugo Chavez, that would make everybody fall in line and allow them to keep their privileges, no matter the cost.
Things went wrong for them, though. Chavez betrayed them, he was a sleeper ally of local socialist extremists, Cuba and anti-western governments who used the 2000s oil bonanza to create a new, loyal economic upper-class to substitute these traditional elites of "foolish rich".
Even the wealthiest, like the country's richest family lost 90% of its assets despite moving to Miami in the early 2000s. Nowadays, most of those families are just wannabe-rich names with upper-middle class net values, living in wealthy countries.
Thanks for the insightful comment. I didn’t realize Chavez had ties to old money.
Chavez had 3% in the polls 10 months before the Dec. 1998 election. When a pro-partial-reforms faction of the traditional elite gave its support to a popular (and pretty competent) beauty-queen-turned-politician, another faction gave to Chavez their full support: TV chanels, radio stations, buildings, airplanes, buses, buildings, staff and world-class campaign advisors were put at his service.
@@clopezferrercan you please mention some names of families who lost their wealth bcz of chavez?
@@mrgooodod3179
In general, these families didn't lose all their wealth but a huge portion of it. So, now, compared to first-world-level fortunes, theirs are minuscule and, being Venezuela ruled by a new elite connected to the military, their influence is laughable within the country and internationally. They're like fossils, and considering a significant chunk of their assets is just sunk in Venezuela, their future doesn't look bright either.
The example I gave was the Cisneros family. In 2003, its head, Gustavo Cisneros, had a net worth adjusted by inflation of around 9.5 Billion. He led the wealthiest family in the country. Last year, at his death, He was not in the Forbes list and his fortune was estimated in less than 900M. That's at least a 90% loss in real value since 2003.
The Otero family were media owners connected to the political (leftitst, never forget that Venezuela is under a total leftist hegemony since 1959) who had helped Chavez and other revolutionary socialists since even before his two 1992 coups. The Otero eventually became too uncomfortable for the socialist regime and now live in exile. Their media are banned or limited, chavista courts ordered giving their assets in the country to Chavez's and Maduro's number 2, Diosdado Cabello.
Something similar happened to the Boulton family, who were among the top financiers of the Chavez campaing (although they vehemently deny it nowadays, they funded both Chavez and his final adversary's 1998 campaing -not the former beauty queen, but a former governor-) yet Chavez's cronies and hechment ended up covering up for the Colombian gangs who kidnapped one of them in 2000 and finally intervened and expropriated several of their businesses later that same decade.
The Branger family who were big traditional landowners who developed a spectacular agricultural and eco-tourism business, which was among if not the biggest in Venezuela and Latin America in terms of extension. They supported Chavez's campaignbut were later affected by his agrarian reforms and expropriations.
The Tinoco family, the Febres-Cordero Family, and the Vegas family, who were "masters of the Valley" are now they're a shadow of their former glory. Even the Machado family (who have always been very political, to the point one of them founded the communist party) are a far cry what they were, their businesses are barely running.
@clopezferrer Lots of interesting detail. I can't digest it all! I have a question, if you dont mind...
Venezuela was known as a rather prosperous country (basic wealthiest of Latin America). They had a decent middle class and professional folks.
Did this actually happen during the rule by leftists (since the 50s)? What style of leftists were in power (communists or something else)? When did the country begin to fall apart (Chavez & nationalization of resources)?
There is a psychological phenomenon where people are fine with having less if it means that the other person/the competition gets nothing.
Just thought that was relevant.
Think about what happened during the FDR administration. The South was the poorest region in America. Of all regions, the South would have benefited the most from the New Deal programs. And yet, there was resistance. The fear was that Blacks would also be included in such programs. The rich didn't want to lose what they say as a labor/servant class. Many poor Whites during the Jim Crow era didn't want to share such programs with Blacks, who were even poorer. There were some people willing to go without so that Blacks couldn't have it either. The reason the New Deal programs were finally passed were due to finding sneaky ways to exclude Blacks from the New Deal programs.
@@TheGeoScholar i mean tbf, i can see why the south would be sceptical of the puritan northern elites that had destroyed them a generation before.
And the new deal has plunged the world into chaos. I doubt it would have benefited the south in the end.
@@TheGeoScholar They were included, and the New Deal was a disaster.
@@TheGeoScholarMaybe, maybe not. I don't trust much white liberal revisionist history these days.
In Greece we call it the "May my neighbor's goat die" phenomenon
In free-market capitalism, there is unequal prosperity. In communism/socialism, there is equal misery (except for the elite, who always exempt themselves from their own rules).
My current definition of power is "how much can you get away with breaking the rules"
@@adamd9166keep in mind that socialism is for the people, not for the Socialists
... best definition ✅ !
No such thing as free market capitalism.
@dzcav3 you a very much spot on, as a person who was born when my country became communist, we lived in utterly misery, I mean civil war broke out, food and medicine shortages, power and water cuts was daily, prices rasing daily or hourly, persecutions --> normal citizens were spied on (living in constant fear of been taken to the jail or forced work camps), people we that disapeared and we still don't know their destination after 50 years, the last goes on and on in Misery...
As soon we became pseudo Democratic country with open market, life improved like day and night. Can not compare with levels of success from Western countries achieved but its visible the difference.
My country still considered one of the most poor countries on the Planet, but lately I started questioning what's been poor mean???!
Are the supposed experts really sure that someone from a remote Village in Africa really need life of consumption or their modest way of life free of wars / infighting due to so called Modern standards of wealth.
Do we really need to erase awhole Culture to adopt progress/financial gain???
The definition of poverty I believe needs to be reformulated --> hope it makes sense, English it's not my language.
By the way my country its Mozambique.
It's incredibly infuriating to think about how much general progress for civilization as a whole has been delayed by the short-sighted and selfish interests of people who had enough wealth and power to gum up the works.
humans evolved for hundreds of thousands of years under feast or starvation mode. you might think the rich already have enough wealth only from your perspective. however the rich dont think they have enough because they never know if tmrw they might lose it all
@@simonl4657
I think they just can't see past the competition they're having with their peers.
This ain't nirvana. How much of the unnecessary privation and suffering is because people are so quick to reject good knowledge of all types? They may be trained to be so poor at thinking, or they may be focused on short-term personal gain, but we have what we have because people accept it. Stanley Milgram showed how reflexively we fall in line to kill innocent people. That can't be blamed on the oligarchs.
A lot of people marvel at the technological advancement of the Germans during part 2 of their series, Germany vs the World. They did away with all the old money. There were no longer impediments to advancement. In a typical situation, the guy who wants to build jets, has to grapple with “big propeller”. Germany kinda neutralized that particular roadblock.
The rest of the population isn't any better. People love wasting money for useless crap and/or to impress neighbors instead of building wealth instead of doing something useful with the money and get rich.
After becoming rich my politics changed to: if you want get rich vote Republican, if you want to stay rich vote democrat
Exactly, even though most popular media portrays it to be the opposite
Why is this? I started recently getting the feeling that democrats are destroying rich people?
both parties pass budgets of bankruptcy. Neither party actually stands for anything. If the Democrat party stands for liberal values, and socialism, then why are they in Gaza genociding civilians? where does that fit on the platform besides raking money in from AIPAC
And we KNOW WHO controls the media!
Killing babies for wealth sounds a lot like Molech worship doesn't it?
"Import people who will support the ruling class"
Explains why the border is wide open
Immigrants are flooding India? Why are they supporting BJP?
But why would the imported class support the ruling class? Why would those coming across the border into USA vote for those who opened the border after they have entered? Don't they also want to "pull up the ladder behind them". Why do the Democratsand others ASSUME that those crossing the border will vote Democrat??
Same thing is happening in Canada with Trudeau importing half of india
It's India in the US too. They've replaced enough blue-collar workers that they need to replace the office drones now too.
@@wigletron2846 the Indian borders are open? To whom?
When Biden proposed the $25,000 first home buyer credit, I thought "This a stupid idea, houses will just be $25,000 more expensive"
But the silver lining is that my property would also increase from that.
And that's when I realized what's going on, have policies that look like helping but eventually just benefits people with assets.
Who has the most assets? It's an insidious plan cloaked in self-righteousness.
So would your property taxes - even though you aren't making any additional income.
Suddenly people have to fork over more across the board if they actually own property or a home.
Hmmmm...
@@ltarmenia4ever Just to clarify, since it is a Federal program, then it would not be paid for with property taxes, but as the value of the property increased, the property taxes (usually a percentage of that value) would also go up. Although if you are renting out or leasing out the property, you would merely pass those costs on to your customers. Meanwhile the Home Buyer Credit, itself, would be paid for through more deficit spending and thus inflation of the money supply, the equivalent of a regressive tax on money (since the money is devalued) which is paid by everyone who participates in the cash economy, especially the poor. Those who have their money invested in 401Ks, IRAs, equities, real estate, gold, collectibles and so forth, merely see the value of their investments go up as the value of the money goes down.
If you sell your home to capture that $25,000 the new house you buy will cost at least $25,000 more Even though you are not a first time home buyer you might be able to get the credit, who know's? If you don't buy another home you will get hit by a capitol gains tax and take a beating
Indeed, it is the democrats who can get away with the biggest transfers to the wealthy because many people cannot tie words and actions together. If the dems say they work for the poor and the middle class, it must be true, right?
you will pay more property tax, more sells tax, more capital gains tax, and your next property or rental will cost more.
The most sinister thing is that they made most people believe there isn’t a class system because everybody has a credit card and can finance things.
Financing is also inflationary by nature resulting in higher prices while indebting the financially illiterate or irresponsible.
It's a social thing. Bezos can make all the money he wants, he'll never be from a monied family, he'll never get the time of day from a Sulzberger or Astor. Same with Elon or Zuck, and it's why the east coast families hate the SV nuveau elites.
Even Gates only gets halfway acceptance after all his groveling and loyalty to their social scene
I think everyone is very aware that there is a class system, except they’re being bombarded constantly by surrogate activities (see Kaczynski). You may be aware of the elites, but at the end of the day you go home and watch sportsball, go to a concert, argue online, workout, or drink a beer. Poor people have nothing to lose, but middle-class people still believe in the system as corrupt as it is. They don’t want to lose what they have. If your people are being systematically replaced, you have to be willing to risk it all, otherwise your people will cease to exist.
Clever bunch
The most sinister thing is blaming minorities and immigrants.
Exactly. As a result, societies with low mobility don't get the fresh blood to move up to leadership positions. The old money ruling class becomes incompetent after the third generation and beyond. The system comes down like a house of cards.
The old money rulling class doesnt need to be "competent" they own assets, they make money on their sleep. They're not working for it, so they cant be competent or incompetent
The US is a society with low social mobility compared with lefty Western European countries.
Exactly. This kind of mindset eventually leads society to utter destruction.
The circulation of elites happens since existing elites do not incorporate new talent. The foxes ossify the vitality of society as a consequence of their maintained grip on power, and eventually the lions seize power through force.
@@goncalodias6402They need to be competente. Now the west oliquarchy are facing another’s oligarchy’s. The chinese and the Russian are creating a new system of paying. The rich in the west destroy their own society to stay rich with no competition but now will be very difficult to compete against Russian and Chinese oligarchy. They don’t have the best people in the west in their side, so will be very difficult to win. They destroy the best in their own side!!!
Now… they will fail. Look the companies in Germany, look the technologies in the battle field ( hipersônico míssel) . The old money west elite choose the worst to stay in the stage for them, but other elites civilizations saw an opportunity to destroy them on this. Probably they will succeed.
Pulling up the ladder. This has been something intuitive to me since I started moving from the left in adulthood, but it's good to see someone put these thoughts into a workable format.
So basically old money becomes degenerant and doesnt give up power gracefully or use their position to build on what has been given to them.
Half right. They never give up power. But they ( well some of them) do at least attempt to build upon what they inherit. This is done indirectly so it isn’t directly observable. Individually they appear to own nothing but they have acccess to everything.
@@daviddrew3372 they're legal criminals.
aka refusing and/or unable to adapt to change and find innovative ways to get ahead
Rich people
Don’t become wealthy by being given money. They do earn it, believe it or not.
Established money is managed by fear of losing authority to direct the situation,
at the expense of blinding themself to the potential for raising a greater number of people to a higher quality of life… under the mis-perception of scarcity, that does not account for fruitfulness of technological improvements ability to support broad improvement at nearly no greater expense.
They don't always support left. They support whichever party causes maximum distraction and infighting among the non aristocratic classes.
The person who made the video, answered that. Its not about left or right, its about legitimization of the system. And the legitimization process always goes to where there are more supporters. Usually centralization laws tend to be more legitimized by people who depend more on centralization, that's why old money and law makers use the left.
That’s what I do.
During apartheid in South Africa new money and middle class whites found themselves benefiting more from it while filthy rich old money was better off in less advanced extractive neighbors.
i think the major problem is the bastardization of what the “left” is
which is more often than not, the left. Seeing as how they love importing foreigners en masse
you can vote your way into socialism/communism. but you cannot vote your way out.
It depends on how deep you go that path.
@@AFNicktrue but at that point there’s no voting occurring.
@@cbrogers4614 That's absolutely not necessarily true. You're just declaring it to be true, because of the examples of Russia and China. Typically whoever the powers that be, and the muscle that props them up in some everyday free market cap society, treats it as a matter of absolute life and death to violently suppress and eliminate any socialist type government that could emerge, even in a completely democratic political process, as in Chile, and so naturally socialists arm themselves as well. What do you expect them to do, just let themselves get shot?
Correction: You will have to $hoot your way out.
It's history.
No one votes communism in lol. Communism requires revolution. You know cause people are not voting for the complete over turn of the social hierarchy. There has never been a communist party win legally through the election system. They all had to fight and defeat the army and all others who resisted. This is why communism is not a serious threat. As people will not start fighting against the government directly unless they are insanely poor and living in utter strife. The easiest way to stop communism is to simply maintain standard of living above the willingness to fight threshold.
Fascism on the other hand has and can win elections. Because despite left leaning economic support. The highly conservative pro corporate social policies make winning elections possible.
It's crazy. Sometimes I feel only I have made these analysis but there's always someone who shares your thoughts and intuitions. Subscribed. It isn't a race war it is a class war.
Makes perfect sense! That's why RFK said that 70% of national wealth voted Democrats last election.
The 30% that don't are kinda half crazy or sociopaths ngl.
@@kv4648 it appears that you don't understand what @lukaskopia was saying. What he, or RFK was saying is the vote was very close to 50/50 in 2020, but the "rich" (those holding 70% of the total wealth) typically voted for democrats and the working class/middle class (holding 30% of the nations wealth) typically voted for republicans. This makes sense based on the video because the rich like to use the government to over-regulate and block any competition from arising.
@@ThatsRight1776 ooh ok. But what I said still applies. The inequality is high enough to squeeze in a decent chunk of rich republicans too
@@kv4648 Let me re-explain that better. Rich Republicans are represented in the 30% of wealth holders. Rich Democrats are represented in the 70% of wealth holders. The Trump voters all together, rich, poor, working class, middle class etc. held 30% of the wealth....70% was held by the Biden voters poor, rich. etc.
What makes this interesting, is that 30, 40, 50 years ago, the opposite was true. The parties have changed. You can also see this in political fundraising where democrats outraise republicans like 4 to 1.
@@kv4648Or just straight up machiavellian zionists who need the goys who believe in duty, faith and heroism to fight their wars for them.
"Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self- government, or anarchy." - Niccolo Machiavelli: "The Prince"
You, Sir, are a dangerous man...
🙏
Listened to this on my way to work this morning. It answered the question that I have long asked myself. It totally changed my mindset. Thank you for the information.
You’re welcome
Very insightful! Just lost friends when I announced I lean red on politics bc I’m a business owner. It just makes sense for me.
Those are the best friends to lose.
I am seeing the same. Losing friends for sporting liberal views. I am only a middle class professional.
I was a bit confused first but then realized y'all have the colors flipped there in the US. Red is the color of socialism after all, that's why the Left uses it.
@@paavoilves5416 Interesting. Probably has to do with how our politics flipped at some point. Around the Ku Klux Klan period, which used to actually be the Democrats. It was the republicans who freed the slaves back then.
@@TheOblivionMemeGuy I mean yeah, might be. Though socialism doesn't always correlate with liberal views, N4zi Germany is a good example. I haven't actually heard where exactly the two US parties originate from...
Another important point: If you are a rich person trying to exert influence on the government and the law through lobbying, corruption, etc., it is in your interest for the government to have lots of power. You can’t abuse the power of a small government to get rich because a small government doesn’t have as much power to abuse. So the revolving door between corporation executives, lobbyists, and government officials is dependent on a large government with lots of money and arbitrary power.
Good point
That knocked the ball out of the park!
I disagree
I’ve seen small towns do shady stuff so the right people can profit and small towns don’t have a lot of power
Frequently you just need a thumb on the scale to get things to go your war
My dad's side is old money. And I can tell you, they divest. hardcore. Simply because as you point out if they made their fortune off of oil, you need to expand your portfolio so you aren't relying on one thing. Dubai is actually a really great example of this. They made a lot of money from oil. But they knew their oil was limited and even it's use was ultimately no assured. They invested in higher education, real estate and tourism. In 20 years Dubai went from a place most had never heard of and wouldn't dream of going to. To a location that rivals Singapore, Hong Kong, Miami, etc..
Good point on the importance of diversification.
Dubai doesn’t have freedom of speech.
Dubai is like Las Vegas with slavery. No bueno
Lol. Its a dirty arab shit hole.. poor people go there because there are tall towers
Nobody actually wants to visit Dubai. They are desperate to get anyone to actually vacation there.
Really the best articulation of why the rich are far left.
Term limits.
The rich aren't far left. Funding democrats doesn't make you a leftist
There are billionaires on the left and right. Neither side gives a damn about you. Only when people understand that it's not just "the other side" that screws you over, only then change can happen.
@@laaaliiiluuu it's good that we have a third candidate this year. Prabowo will bring us to greater heights.
@@laaaliiiluuu it's good that we have a third candidate this year. Prabowo will bring us to greater heights.
There are term limits in India? Modi is on his third term.
I'm 65 and saying this for years. Good to hear it from the younger generation
Thanks
Voting Democrat keeps poor people in their place. No competition for the rich!
I guess you can call the middle-class as poor now
Yeah of course let's ignore how the Republican states that have been in full rebublican control for ages are normally found in the bottom in everysingle metric.
If you genuinely believe that either party are the good guys and the other the bad guys, congratulations on playing the game of the wealthy and focusing on tearing eachother up instead of focusing on the elite.
@@jdargui1537 there is a reason the 'middle-class' has essentially disappeared in California.
Not really, voting Republicans mean not competition. The elite use the dichotomy of the Left and Right to take control over everything. They use the left to open the markets and destroy their competition and then they use the right to avoid new competition enter the game.
Better to vote for trickle down economics, over and over again? The wealth used to flow downward when we had strong labor unions.
Because those who inherit wealth are disconnected from reality and most likely never worked a day in their lives.
Reminds me of "millionaire goes broke for a month" to see what he can earn or hustle up over the month.
Didnt watch much of the video.
But there is always the knowledge that everything can go to hell and he wont be destitute at the end of it.
Im sure he didnt lay block or swing hammers or something on the hour.
How is he "disconnected from reality"?
What you mean is he disconnected from YOUR "reality" - just as you are disconnected from his.
The saddest part is, people think they know how much money the wealthy have. But the truth is, they have no idea. Middle class people cannot comprehend just how much money the elites truly have...
Short answer to the title: old money goes left because the descendants of those wealthy owners never had to work a day in their life. They don’t understand the value of money they don’t know what hard work is they just live after their ancestor.
A famous story is from a foreign observer during the last days of the Romanovs. He saw that while the Capital has soldiers and civilians alike wreaking havoc in the city, he found the Romanov women in the palace with red arm bands in solidarity with the Bolsheviks.
Yes! And who favorished bolcheviks?
crazy how women's politics revolves around "the poor dears"
@@hengineer women and free masons with their friends...
As a stupidly stupid rich person I wish to declare, this is on point exactly. 1.Stay rich. 2.Prevent competition. 3.Keep a desperate impoverished class willing to suffer for our mere entertainment. 4.Get away with attending Squid Games as a spectator.
😂
@@AFNick HAHA! its so funny people like this are enslaving other human beings!
New money does it too... look up Sili Valley donations for instance. The safest way to keep control is to stop merit from being able to rise.
Machiavelli writes in the Prince that there are two groups of people in every society: peasants whose only desire is to live out their lives without being oppressed, and nobles whose only desire is to oppress the peasants.
Many people are poor because they're uneducated/stupid. However, that lowers the overall bar, damages new potential/evolution, and degrades/trashes everything adjacent.
I know subject based intelligence is something real, and *needs* to be thoroughly discussed and acted upon [on all levels]. I believe someone stupid [has lots of money], and someone stupid [given lots of money]; are very similar. The more resources, the more you are able to pour into human advancements/evolution. The unwilling to change stupid people, will naturally be phased out with time; the focus are new generations.
Not sure how I stumbled on your video. You are on to the crux of the scenario. The aristocracy never really died. Kudos
Dumb Aristocrats did died specially in France and other unstasble country in past centuries, smart ones just married with Bourgueois and some later even my New Money. That was good because this made still influential and also avoid inbreeding.
It's impossible to tax the super rich. Progressive taxation falls on the back of the middle class.
Not impossible, just steal from them in subversive ways
Bill Gates and his father have campaigned to impose an income tax on the state of Washington for decades. His father actually wrote a book on the subject. Bill Gates does NOT pay income taxes, so in other words he wants to increase taxes on the middle class. In fact Bill Gates pays very little taxes at all because he puts money into his foundation, which partially funds his lifestyle and increases his power and sphere of influence.
What about tax credits that target the middle class?
@@shiccup I guess that's alright but would we ever see something like that come about?
@@mackijs1 in Minnesota we have tax credits for electric cars and for having kids. Just doing a quick search we have sustainable energy tax credits and military service credit working family credit. The sustainable energy credit might only be available for wealthier people that can both afford to buy sustainable and pay enough for the credit to have a big impact. But as sustainable energy gets cheaper I'm sure it'll be more beneficial.
The 8 wealthy families who bailed Newsom out of two recalls. Now you know why.
Because big government means more control.
The government is smaller than ever. Most governments in the west and the world are bankrupt, most middle class people are going bankrupt, whos getting the money? The super rich. Why do they keep getting richer? Because theres no taxation to redestribute the money.
@@goncalodias6402Utter nonsense. How much money are we spending on the military and on social welfare programs?
@@goncalodias6402 "The government is smaller than ever. Most governments in the west and the world are bankrupt, most middle class people are going bankrupt, whos getting the money? The super rich. Why do they keep getting richer? Because theres no taxation to redestribute the money"
You are so wrong dude. What else explains the giant DEBT from the US treasury, inflation and the destruction of the dollar since the FED's creation? that's right, your big "WELFARE STATE" .
@@juventinocasillas3023 much less than the few decades after the world war two, you know, the time that we had trade unions, high taxes and a regular worker could afford a house.
Also, welfare programs are being cut time after time with successive governments, of both parties.
Just to mention that weapon manufacturers are private companies, the corruption of government by private companies is an indictment on corruption, not on government.
The thruth is governments are mote bankrupt than ever, therefore are smaller, the middle class is more bankrupt than ever, who do they are in dept to? The super rich and the corporations.
If you want to be a direct subject to a corporation, with no freedom at al, just say so, since you hate so much the thing that, being democratic is the only force against the practical enslavement of 99 percent of the population.
Just read Charles Dickens about how free those people were when the government was small, how free they were to go work at five years old and die before reaching thirty.
Borderline communist
Whoa.. this is the most succinct, cogent, and eye opening explication of these ideas that I've ever heard 😯
Nick is right. I have friends and family in Sweden and it’s largely known that the highest wage most people can earn is less than $70k USD, where anything higher than that is taxed away. Most people earn less than this. While they have a robust social safety net, it’s not quite enough to “move up” in society above the middle class-it’s enough to save up to buy a home, but not to live in lavish luxury... especially since things like clothes, food, real estate can be quite expensive. Meanwhile most of Sweden’s aristocracy lives abroad in London as they can afford to do so, usually only moving back when they get married and start a family. They still work a job to keep themselves busy but they are not doing so because they need to earn a living; they work because this is the socially expected thing to do in a socialist state.
I have friends in Austria and they tell me that the average income is $30k plus social benefits. Same scenario. But imagine moving from a lower or middle class into the upper class (monetarily, not in terms of aristocracy) on $30k before tax and expenses. It’s a non reality.
I think this is one of reasons America is the destination for so much of Europe’s brain drain. It makes more sense to try your hand at starting a company in the US where capital is abundant and taxes are lower once you exit than to build a company only to have most of your profit taxed upon exit. It’s why IKEA’s founder lives in Switzerland (among other European billionaires) and pays a very low tax in his specific canton.
Europeans also seem trained to direct all their criticisms at the U.S. instead of reflecting on problems in their own societies.
What's the problem with being "average" in Sweden, or Denmark, or any other Nordic country for that matter?
There's no poverty. There's no illiteracy. There's probably no homelessness.
Why would you want to live in lavish luxury if actually everyone already does, according to the rest of the world's standards?
I can tell you why. Because you're selfish and greedy. And jealous of that 1% (made up that number) richer then you.
There are no resources for everyone on earth to have 5 mansions, a private jet and a yacht and 10 exotic cars, bro.
There's also nothing wrong with trying to provide a decent living standard for everyone else.
@@whateverrandomnumber European cultures celebrate mediocrity. But wanting to earn income commensurate to the economic value you are creating is not selfishness or greed. It's actually normal human nature in most parts of the world. The only type of person who would disagree is a happy serf.
@@whateverrandomnumber I’m sorry that you are projecting. I never said there was anything wrong with providing a good quality life for people. Education, healthful foods, and urban planning are some of my main causes for philanthropy and advocacy. I firmly believe everyone should live in a healthy society with ample opportunity. That is not the topic of this video. This video speaks to how the old money set in the US and Europe tend to support large government with an ample social net and high progressive taxes because this keeps people in a stable social position with difficult upward mobility above the middle class. The general population is equally as unlikely to revolt as they are to be entrepreneurial under such circumstances, which maintains the status quo and therefore protects their quality of life and their position at the top of society’s hierarchy. It is difficult to create actual political change and increase actual social mobility under such conditions. This is especially true when the establishment class has more opportunities to corrupt the regulatory bodies within a large government when compared to a more streamlined system-regulatory capture, again, to reduce economic competition and keep their position safe at the top of the hierarchy, no matter the cost to society. Even if, like in the US, it means being at war for over 90% of the country’s existence and bombing Western Asia into oblivion for the past 30 years just to keep the profits of the military-industrial complex alive. This is an issue of bi-partisan consensus-the “liberals” want it just as much as any hawkish conservative. Meanwhile the billionaires off-shore their cash and therefore often leave much of the burden of taxation on the general population to find anything from social programs to education to wars. Trusts and shell corporations are a dime a dozen.
Idk why you were so triggered by my comment and tried to moralize me to be a selfish and greedy person. It’s entirely unnecessary and doesn’t help the spirit of public discourse online. You would do better if you made reasonable points, used proper grammar, and didn’t insult the character or intelligence of some stranger you’ve never met online. And as for the projection, I must say that whatever you find ugliest in others is usually that which you are suppressing in yourself. Maybe you are looking at the world from a position of greed and selfishness because you feel the desire for more within yourself, or maybe you view the world as there not being enough to go around? I don’t know, but please don’t be so ugly when speaking with others in the future. Xx
Wow, someone deleted my comment. For apparently no reason.
They are aligned with everything that takes power from the middle class and lower class.
If that were true they would vote republican. Anti union rats of a feather
And convinced the people they are untaxable.
They attack the middle class they already own the lower class and lower class is not a threat.
Anybody seen "the man in the high castle" well imagine the people who won were the communist through a silent war, and people just never realized their system slowly turned into communism.
On point! This has been the reality in Britain since WWI. They first eliminated social competition through high taxation on the aristocracy, - a purification ritual of sorts - and then they moved on to the common man by saturating the system with regulation and high taxation, and eventually mass migration.
We're the Fabians in cahoots with the aristocracy? They certainly have planned to lurch the UK Leftwards.
We're the Fabians in cahoots with the aristocracy? They certainly have planned to lurch the UK Leftwards.
So high taxation on the aristicracy was a bad thing? The rich really convinced people that you cant taxed them. Maybe because they like the money only going one way, theirs
I like this video, no conspiracy, no bias, just a men talking about humanity
Although it focuses more on "new money", the book "Revolt of The Elites" by Christopher Lasch offers a great analysis of the relationship between left wing politics and the wealthy / ruling class.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
New Money - the corporate exec class is more aligned with leftist politics. The welfare they so fondly recommend doesn’t have to come from their check books.
Good discussion. It comes down to this the threat to old money is decentralization. It doesn’t matter where it comes from whether its in the business side or the government side, it’s easier to maintain your position when government becomes big and omnipresent and businesses are few and large.
That’s a good way of summarizing the existential threat to the establishment
Old money doesn't care about other old money, so long as they stay in their own lane and keep their own monopoly.
What they do care about is those uppity new money kids trying to muscle in.
The American revolution was about Old money vs New Money. The civil war as well.
Can you elaborate a little?
The American revolution was about a new, more efficient and more equitable structure arising amidst the old powers of Europe, despite their best efforts to divide and subdue it. The colonies were actually in a very fortuitous place, of more land, more people and more resources, and the best minds of Europe had already gravitated to the "new world". The economic and social "revolution" had been accomplished before it began. Of course the revolution built on a long series of legal, social and military revolutions in Britain and the Continent, it was just the next logical development.
@@lalannej Old Money controlling the ports and trade - Pro British , new money being slave plantation class - The founding fathers. The old money had control of trade with Europe and the plantation class did not.
Do research on the Salem witch trial before the American revolution. Tensions between the new money plantation class and the old money pro Europe class that owned the shipping ports.
@@nicholas77086 interesting...
Careful around that 10 minute mark. You’re getting too close to the Bushes and I don’t mean greenery.
Because they never faced a harsh world that made them grow out of youthful idealism. Their unearned wealth insulates them against bad consequences of good-sounding ideals
The rich are delusional and many democrat policies are from delusional people!
“Unearned” there are no wealthy people who earned it. All exploited the working class
I’ve always heard growing up that the only people who love and want competition are the underdogs.
Every license is a barrier to competition disguised as safety.
Hence the medieval "guilds" and the "apprenticeship" system - meant to block competition. Modern medical and legal licenses.
Yep. I was surprised when I first heard this too.
Republicans do what they can to tear down antitrust legislation
Im thankful that people need a driver license and workers and consumers are protected by safety regulations... even if it hinders people like you from competing
It seems that you just described “luxury beliefs”.
Rob Henderson talks about this
I talked about Henderson’s idea of luxury beliefs in more detail in a previous video.
@@AFNick great stuff! Thanks for this
I'm glad you got to the main points early. They are immune to the consequences and they need the misdirection.
Before 1913 no one paid taxes. The government collected money through a kind of VAT system. Because there were no taxes it was possible to build wealth. Which is no longer possible today due to a progressive tax system.
It was a tariff in the US, but revenue from a tariff had too low of a ceiling for those who wanted to expand reach of the state.
@@AFNick The truth is , taxes are much to high today and regulation is too big and government itself is too big. Massive debt (35 T )on top of massive taxes, makes it pretty obvious we have had governments that have been completely irresponsible.
@albertinsinger7443 yes These taxes, and getting premits and Bureaucracy is there to keep you in your place
@@AFNickdepending on how the selection turns out although I doubt it would be a complete elimination of personal or business income taxes I have a feeling there will be a substantial pivot back towards taxes based on consumption rather than based on production those who are Frugal and good stewards of what they have gained along the way what benefit greatly from that and certainly many will be able to accumulate substantially especially if they are able to create something that really sells or they invest their money wisely and consistently.
1913? Wait, what happened in 1912? Oh, that's right: All the opposition to the income tax and Federal Reserve went down on the RMS Titanic -- really the RMS Olympic. JP Morgan lured them to London to be finally appreciated by the European aristocracy. But on the morning of the RMS Titanic's return voyage to NY, JP Morgan was "too sick to sail." The rest is history: In 1913, we got the 70% income and estate taxes to hold down rival families; and the Rockefeller-owned F.R.
Having the ability to elucidate what can be quite complex in plain speech is a gift.
It can be difficult to do it because you lose many listeners so early on due to their thinking that such plain speech must indicate a lack of true understanding.
I would say that you exemplify this ability.
Nicely done, and thank you.
Always vote for the party that creates agency for entrepreneurs and gives the middle class the power. The producers, not the parasites on both ends of the economic spectrum.
So, neither party?
@laaaliiiluuu Have to find individuals. If they don't exist then we need to reform the existing parties
people with old money are lazy, earning at the expense of the working class. New rich are enterprising working class. educated, creative, and adaptive.
Thanks! This video has finally helped me to understand why the modern left is more pro-immigration than the right.
I couldn’t understand why “the left” which supposedly cares more about workers than the right is more supportive of migrants than the supposedly “corporatist right-wingers”.
I am Canadian and excess immigration is keeping wages lower than they would be with reasonable immigration levels, particularly but not exclusively, in lower skilled jobs.
Canadian politicians very openly say that their immigration policy is for business interests. It's only in the U.S. and parts of Europe where the whole thing is disguised as "empathy" bla bla bla.
Big corporations lobby the government for mass immigration to keep wages low and devalue labour, but then they push mass immigration as progressivism to not get backlash from the truth which is that it's all a ploy to destroy the working class. I consider myself an actually progressive guy, I think most so called progressives are hypocrites and like 99% of people, am for immigration, but not mass immigration and there's also the big issue with mass immigration is that to have mass immigration we forego vetting the people coming here and we end up with people who create distinctively different societies and don't want to actually be canadians. Most people coming right now to Canada are from extremely socially conservative country and their beliefs don't mesh with western liberal beliefs. The liberals pride themselves on being super open minded and progressive, but then bring in people who are against women's rights and lgbtq rights. I'm sure you heard about that 1 million march for children crap well it was mainly immigrants protesting against lgbtq rights. This is a big problem with the left right now, they live in a fantasy land where every thing is perfect and nothing can be criticized if it's from a minority.
I always knew this was the reason but very nice to have someone make a video on what should be obvious
Love this video. You did a great job answering a dilemma that I couldn’t quite understand . Now this all makes sense
This is one of the most eye opening videos. I keep coming back to it. Thank you so much. I could never make the connection until this video.
(13:37) Interesting point, I never thought about the middle class being the biggest threat to the upper class. I suppose old money is glad the middle class is shrinking.
At least upper middle class, this is an interesting insight
Think of it this way:
The rich get wealthy off of the poor, because the poor spend their money poorly - on the things the wealthy own.
However, the middle class are smart with their money - they don't give it away easily, or spend it frivolously, but they also don't really take big enough risks to make themselves wealthy.
The wealthy would fall apart from the middle class being smart with their resources.
The poor are what allow the wealthy to thrive.
Why can't be truthful because less consumers if less middle class.
Immigrants put the biggest burden on the middle class. 😊 "it all falls down" kanye west
@@apocolypse11no they dont. The asset owners do. The people who own all the houses and alk the land. Not some poor people working in construction
I think the green initiative was just to stimulate or create a different business around energy regardless if it is successful/ practical or not.
Interesting take. I think there are plenty of true believers when it comes to climate change, but I may explore this topic deeper in a future video
@@AFNickUseful idiots is more like it.
It's based around a semi-organized religious belief
@@sdrc92126 never heard of that, explain a bit more?
@@ajones8008 I wish I was allowed. It's the most censored subject on youtube. Not allowed to say much. Do you know the national socialist policies on the green movement (they kinda kicked it off).
From an 'AI summary': Eric Voegelin argued that communism, alongside other modern ideologies like National Socialism and progressivism, can be understood as a form of secularized Gnosticism, essentially claiming that communism acts as a "religion of Gnosticism" by mirroring key Gnostic beliefs in a political context; particularly the idea of achieving a utopian "heaven on earth" through revolutionary action, rather than through traditional religious practices.
I've always pondered the political leanings of the wealthy. Fascinating!
On the opposite tho, many of the Old Money do focus on investing in tech and progress to stay in Power
Im just peasant class so I don't know first hand but that sounds sensible. I naïvely thought it was they were able to get a social conscience but I suspect you are spot on with the easing of their conscience and maintaining their perceived paternal position while reducing competition. Let them eat cake
The social conscience political party has clearly proved to have become a fake narrative nowadays but I agree this is an interesting point regarding the conscience cleaning for the old money lords.
"..with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they [the rich] very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease [poverty]: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease" - Oscar Wilde 1891
The interesting thing about the UK is the way the prevented local challengers but welcome foreign elites with open arms with their non-dom program. Eventually the consequences became obvious
Non dom rules are being torn up
I’m a CPA and a republican working in NYC, and it always driving me mad to see Dems mainly talking about increasing income taxes on the rich and corp tax, when the former would generally hurt the upper middle class and small business owners rather than the rich, and the latter would mostly hurt employees of large businesses. If you want to actually tax the ultra wealthy, you’d increase the tax on capital gains (and it would also pop the stock and housing bubbles).
Increasing the capital gains tax would also hurt the average American less than an increase in corp tax because we have a permanent edge in the stock market while not actually having one in labor.
Not to mention how regulations usually help massive multinationals over the competition because they actually have the money to adapt to said regulations.
Personally I would love to see the GOP embracing capital gains tax increases to go along with budget cuts to decrease the deficit.
@@relaxedleisure4766 you are totally correct, it is normal to reject the left-wing discourse on taxes if they end up falling on people who work for a living merely making a bit more. It would be great if more Republicans moved to your position. Here in Europe one of the biggest failures of the EU is not having a fiscal union that prevents tax loopholes like the ones in Ireland or Luxembourg... what is the point of union if you can not leverage that against tax avoidance?
@@soicosoirav9174 Unfortunately, a lot of people who lean more to the left (not that the average American right winger is anywhere near to be economically literate) here, don’t actually understand how taxes are structured and also fail to realize that it is much easier to move your factories to counties where labor is cheap (and therefore avoiding paying tax while also laying off people) than it is to stop investing in stocks….
@@soicosoirav9174 I honestly prefer the way taxes are structured in most of Europe (less progressive and an actual sales tax), it is much more balanced, less costly (if the eu actually tried to be less bureaucratic) and less dependent on the rich doing well.
But as a right winger, I obviously prefer lower rates. The EU should honestly tell Lux and Ireland that if they want to remain tax havens, then they should expect their access to EU funds and access to the Euro significantly curtailed (yes, I did just suggest kicking them out if they don't even try to compromise).
I’m personally an eurosceptic on most issues except for fiscal rules and financial regulations. I find it to be rather disappointing that the eu focused deepening integration in divisive areas that are alienating a lot of people like Schengen and non-financial regulations rather than fiscal rules and trade which were what the bloc was originally created for, and where one would have expected to find the most integration
@@relaxedleisure4766 yes, although some authors, mostly hard left like French professor Annie Lacroix-Riz, maintain that from the beginning European integration was a tool of capital to bypass democratic controls and popular sovereignty. But I agree, even if that vision is a bit conspiratorial it is clear that the EU has been rather disappointing on many issues. I guess that it remains stable after the Brexit damage was contained, and Eastern Europeans are into it for the development funds, but I don't think that beyond Ukrainians or similar candidates the rest of the continent is enthralled with it.
@@relaxedleisure4766 also true. In that sense, the fact that thanks to Trumpism protectionism is no longer a dirty word could have interesting repercusions.
"We're moving the town plant to mexico. Dont you like saving money buying $6 tshirts?"
"Not really of it means my neighbor doesnt have a job, he gets addicted to drugs and dies. I now have to pay hogher taxes to essentially sipprt his family too. I cant catch a break. All the homes here are worth less now. So my wealth dries up and i have less take home pay"
"Yeah but GDP go up!"
If you are pure leisure class, and live on tax-free bond coupons, do you REALLY care what the income tax rates are ? They are so detached from everyday life that they probably don't even know what their economic interests even are.
If you worked for it you support capitalism. If you inherited it you feel guilty and think everyone else should too.
I work and still don’t support capitalism
I was a progressive liberal and now enjoy right conservative values. My wealth building father kept me in the poor house until I acquired my first business to compete with him. Now he is retired and so am I. We currently compete by desiring to spend the least. My son rejects both behaviors - he is a struggling artist. WHAT FUN
1:44 That is called a luxury belief. Look it up in Wikipedia.
Civil unrest creates economic volatility which crashes asset values. Said assets are then available to stockpile at a discount.
If you already own the assets you lose
Well said, I’ve always likened it to a race. If I am not the fastest runner, but am a strong runner, I want the rules to be changed so that everyone has a 20 pound vest. This will bog down anyone who is faster than me. Now look at the corporate virtue signaling, it cost them more money than it cost us to pay these “social taxes” but it will drown us as upstarts way before it drowns them and thus allows them a larger chunk of the market because there’s no longer competition.
Ive always wondered about this without even realizing it consciously, but this is a really insightful video 👌
I've wondered about this too. You'd think with all the wealth they’d be more conservative, trying to protect what they have
I think it's more about preserving their influence. Old money already has its wealth secured, so it’s about shaping policies that maintain power structures. Plus, progressive policies don't threaten them as much because they’re not as vulnerable as the middle class
That makes sense. They can afford to back higher taxes or social reforms because their assets are diversified in ways that protect them, regardless of the political climate
Exactly. Their wealth is often tied up in investments that grow no matter who's in power. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to be much more strategic about our financial decisions. It's why I started working with Joseph Nick Cahill a few years ago
There are two basic reason why old money goes left: #1) People who have old money have been insulated from reality by that money and have never had to live and work in the real world. #2) People who have old money (which they of course never had to earn) subconsciously feel guilty for being born into such privilege, and therefore feel the need to compensate (overcompensate). They do so by advocating and supporting misguided, idealistic policies and platitudes, which are detached from reality and common sense.
I am a rich kid who feels guilty
@@0_Katt_0 Atone by volunteering at a charity rather than vote for political parties who's policies are to tax the f out of the middle class and pretend to help the underpriveliged by overemploying overpayed bureaucrats
I always wondered why they really hated trump on the left but considering how he speaks about raising people out of poverty and building up the middle class…your video fills in the blanks.
Thank you so much for putting this together. I will be sharing this.
You’re welcome
He literally said "wages are too high" in 2016 & more recently how he doesn't like paying overtime.
How exactly did he talk about raising people out of poverty? And how does he plan on building the middle class?
@@canesugar911they obviously don’t have an answer this channel is trump and right wing propaganda
@@canesugar911delusional people thinking he’s a 1 man army fighting the establishment
This type of thinking is unfortunately rare
Great video! Answers a lot of the questions I previously had.
The best place to hide a lie is within the truth. A lot of projection, projection, projection.
Very true and also the worst corporation is the United States government and the Democratic party.
Your channel is underrated, appreciate the thoughtful analysis. A build I’d have for this video is to tie some more specific examples of old money families and political donations, is there any research showing high net worth people whose parents were middle class differ substantially from those of some economic means but multigenerational?
Good idea, but it’s likely difficult to get reliable data. In the age of PACs, the transparency of this data is too limited to do an accurate study.
Love it, Nick! Great analysis and a return to a great series!
As a lifelong resident of Connecticut, your video hits the nail squarely on the head. Lots of old money here
My take has always been that old money controls left, preventing meaningful change that would protect the worker
like what meaningful change, also you do realize that socialism is all about "protecting the workers" right?
I’ve always thought this but never heard anyone explain it so well!
British Professor, Matt Goodwin uses the terms "Elite Class" (legacy moneyed, detached from the middle & working classes) and "Luxury Belief System" (elite class untouched by actions imposed upon middle & working classes)
I‘ve barely seen a video like this that makes so much sense
Man you earned my subscription. Thank you.
You’re welcome
Very interesting analysis, perfectly well exemplified by the letter that Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour wrote to his uncle Jean-Jacques de Sellon on February 5th, 1831. Only 20 years old, Camillo explicitly wrote that the aristocracy's only opportunity for salvation, in front of the liberal sentiment that was sweeping through Europe back then, was "putting itself at the head of the movement"! Camillo Benso, otherwise known simply as "Cavour", went on to become a very famous and powerful Italian politician, reformist and ideologically quite "flexible".
Thanks for sharing. I guess the historical record confirms my thesis.
I just realized why we support the green new deal. Because it is a path that will not realistically compete with oil.
Well put.
I virtual bridge to nowhere. We need Trump.
The Green New Deal is about syphoning billions of dollars to government related contractors, and then pulling out by declarating "bankruptcy".
By 'left' he's referring to the USA Overton Window in which Democrats are : considered left.' For those confused about context.
Exactly
Sex has a lot to do with economics. No sex no people no people no Economics.
Now with that premise in mind
We need to understand the eex and dating dynamics. The rich and powerful are gonna have access to damn near any woman they want and damn near every depravity.
And you can see that the wealth have extremely low divorce rates than the poor.
We also know that competition for woman has very strong financial and economic undertones.
We also know that high inflation correlates to low birthrates.
My arguement is that sex and money are intricately linked and play a huge role in this
The economics of the dating market is a whole another can of worms that would need a video series of its own to address
Not to mention the mass importation of economic migrants (mercenaries) needed to offset dwindling birthrates and to subsidize the social safety net of an increasing aging population
Except today when most have sex no child has a chance of being born. The pill.
Good observation. Liberal politics, disruption of family and sexual morality favor the financial elites in the sexual market.
Sex from the elites standpoint is "depopulation" efforts, planned parenthood, mass chemical sterilization, etc.
What sick, ridiculous puppets we are, and what gross little stage we dance on.
You failed to mention two major factors that contribute to left old money, Ivy League being extremely left and a religion/charity case mindset.
Further just being completely out of touch with reality and the groups they support because they don’t have live amongst them.
The main religion of many wealthy people is the following of their own desires even to their own detriment (Epstein, Diddy, etc…) they are not known to be particularly fearful of the creator.
If and when they engage in charitable activities it’s for status or cementing their legacy i.e. the many individuals names on monumental buildings around the world.
Ie being educated about social issues makes you vote for the left
@@pizz0tim384 Voting for the government to do what you as an individual, and by extension the community can do quicker and with more precision, is just laziness and shirking of the responsibility.
Start by giving charity to your relatives and other close family members so the government doesn’t have to tax you to do the same thing with less efficiency and accuracy.
Aid one another upon goodness, keep the family ties, and stay away from evil. If such things were to be done by the majority of individuals in society we wouldn’t be so reliable on the government.
The latest hurricane disaster in the US has proven the ineffectiveness of the government once again.