A Handful of Elite and Powerful families that control the global economy?

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Originally posted by Masonic Light
Personally, I don't think that's any big secret. In the USA alone, 98% of the entire nation's wealth is controlled by an elite 2%. This is a staggering figure, and would probably make Adam Smith himself question the rationale of capitalism.

As I have discussed on another thread, this is one of those "Urban-myth" statistics for which no one can cite a primary source.

Sorry for not elaborating...the source I used for this statistic is a university textbook: "Sociology: A Down To Earth Approach" by Dr. James M. Henslin, 6th Edition.

Fiat Lvx.

Wealth and success is not magic. It is almost always the result of risk and hard work.

For those few that are silver spooners, who cares?

It may be comforting for those that dont want to risk what they have or sacrifice the time and energy required to be successful to blame the concentration of wealth on some sort of conspiracy.

A conspiracy of one, maybe.

Masonic Light.

I didn't mean to imply that YOU were making the number up. I remember seeing a similar statistic in MY sociology textbook twenty years ago. Could you do me a favor, and check to see if the author cites a source for that quote? I'd be interested in finding the original research.

Think about it for a second with me. Think of all the automobiles in America. The vast majority of them are owned by working-class families. Granted, those cars are not worth as much as collector's bentleys and Rolls, but there are also many times more of them.

Consider home ownership. The average home in my area is valued at something like $120,000. So if the top 2% own 98% of the homes, they must own several hundred of them a piece. A $40 million dollar home owned by a super-rich person only counterbalances 333 "average homes. And in Texas, for example, there are only a handful of homes within the "tens of millions" valuation bracket. And even if this is the case the millionaire only owns 50% of everything, and not 98% as your textbook states. So, either everyone in Texas is in the top 2%, or something is funny.

Here's my point. 2% of the people don't own 98 cars each. Nor do they own 98 homes a piece. Most skyscrapers and factories are owned by publicly traded corporations, which are in turned owned by mutual funds, held by the pension-plans of folks like you and me.

Another example is Merck. I owned some of their stock, years ago. They put out an optional questionaire with their annual ballot, and asked how many shares you owned. I remember something like 35% of the company being held by mutual funds. And the rest was held by individuals holding an average of less than 100 shares.

Do you really think the stock market is 98% owned by the super-rich? I don't, and I have worked as a broker. I think the exact opposite is true. I would guess that the top 2% might own a fifth or a quarter of all the stock. But not 98% of it. Go to a Disney or a P&G shareholders meeting, and count all the subarus and hondas and chevy scottsdale pickups in the parking lot.

I think that sociology (like most of the liberal arts) has a huge left/liberal bias, and frequently its authorities spout platitudes that just are not supported by reality. But hey, if I'm wrong, I want to know about it.

When I was in college, there was a statistic that a woman over 35 had a better chance of "being kidnapped by terrorists" than of marrying and staying married for the rest of her life. Turned out a writer for a popular news mag (Time or newsweek???) made up the stat, and no one questioned it until it made headlines.

We can all be such sheep . . . maybe I'm the sheep, for not wanting to believe things are that lopsided. But if you think about small businesses, owned by middle class people, and you think about huge corporations, again owned by middle class people, then you start to get what I'm saying.

Anyway, I'd love to look up whatever research study the author got his quote from. I would love to see the original source.

I just got done chastizing another ATS'er for questioning someone's info w/out resorting to google first.

Guess what, I just googled: "richest 2% own wealth" and found this article:

www.worldrevolution.org...

from a site called "world revolution." How impartial do THEY sound???

They Do quote some studies, and have this info:

The top 1% of households own almost 40% of the nation's wealth.
The top 10% of Americans own over 70% of nation's wealth.

While still deplorable, it is not the drastic number quoted by your textbook, that 2% own everything. Indeed these folks show the top 10% owning only 70%.

Their source is

Source: Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998," April 2000.

which was supposed to link to his research, but doesn't.

Here is a site w/ more info:

www.nccp.org...


*******

one more thing, I just noticed that they are not tabulating individuals, but "households."

That adds a huge skew to the stats, because most people in poverty are single "head-of-household" or a single parent, while most wealthy adults are married, and the income from both spouses gets counted toward the wealth.

What I'm saying is that most rich people are married to someone who is also rich.

Many poor people live alone, or are single parents. It might change the numbers even more to talk about how many American humans personally experience wealth or poverty.

But then, I suspect that many of the people who go to the effort to create these statistics are indeed hoping for, as their websites say, "world revolution."



[edit on 2-10-2004 by dr_strangecraft]

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Could you do me a favor, and check to see if the author cites a source for that quote? I'd be interested in finding the original research.

Yes, I'll dig it out and check. I remember that the author had done research into social stratification in the US personally for his Ph.D thesis, which may or may not be available online.

Fiat Lvx.

Originally posted by theron dunn
money, wealth, is a sign of success, so YES I applaude it. Hard work and dilligence can make wealth. there are more millionaires in the United States today than at any point in our history. there are also a number of billionaires (can you spell BILL GATES... self made millionaire).

I have no problem with them being wealthy, and I have absolutely no use for any group of position that calls for or advocates STEALING that wealth and giving it to the "poor". Communism is a waste of time... to each according to his ABILITIES is my credo.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but ability is not a prerequiste for wealth or success. (can you spell GEORGE BUSH)

[edit on 2-10-2004 by The Last Free Man]

Ability IS a prequisite to KEEPING your wealth.

If you try to do anything besides invest it, it slowly is destroyed by taxes and inflation.

And investing takes ability.

I know a lot of poor guys who became rich through the markets, I've also seen a lot of silver spoons get auctioned to pay for some idiot's mistakes.

As is pointed out in the "millionaire next door," less than a quarter of all millionaires in america had millionaire grandparents.

As a matter of fact, more than half of the millionaires had immigrant grandparents.

SO yes, it IS mostly about ability.

And keeping it certainly is. Sure Paris Hilton is rich, because of her Dad. But do you honestly think that money will be around for her great-grandkids? I wouldn't bet on it.

And that's where nepotism changes the dynamic of these fortunes.

I read a little about this in the book Rule By Secrecy.

A Rothschild bank provided the funds necessary to Rockefeller so that he (Rockefeller) could gain control of the US oil business. Standard Oil of Ohio was the final product. Rockefeller hated competition so he eliminated competitors by buying them out or forcing them to sell. Ten years after Standard Oil's inception, Rockefeller owned a whopping 95% of US oil production. He later received heat for his oil operation when a Miss Tarbell wrote several articles outlining the devious and immoral dealings of the Standard Oil Company. That resulted in the supposed breakup of Standard Oil Company. Then, Rockefeller created the first American corporation, Standard Oil Trust. Ten years later the Ohio Supreme Court put a stop to this trust. Rockefeller simply transferred everything over to a new "Standard Oil Company of New Jersey". Several years later Standard Oil was charged with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. This led to the creation of multiple companies, with Rockefeller owning 1/4 of each. Later, these companies became known as Mobil, Exxon, and Chevron. The (somewhat recent) merge of Exxon and Mobil has been referred to as "Rockefeller's revenge" because of that initial breakup of Standard Oil. Dividing Standard Oil into multiple oil companies only increased Rockefeller's wealth though.

Rockefeller also had his hands in the creation of the Federal Reserve Board. Several other wealthy people (Rothschild, Morgan, Warburg) were involved with creating a central bank, though they didn't want it worded as such for fear of public rejection. You see, previously, central banks were rejected due to opinions of it being unconstitutional (See: Jefferson). The first Bank of US ended in 1811 after its 20 year charter. Five years later a second bank was formed and lasted 20 years until Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill to extend its charter. I wonder why he was the first president of the US to face an assassination attempt. It didn't matter because a secret meeting took place on (JP Morgan's) Jekyll Island between representatives of different international bankers. They desperately wanted the money and power that control over a US central bank would bring them. Their first plan was immediately kicked out because people saw it as a plan created by the bankers, for the bankers.

Another plan, The Federal Reserve Act, was brought forth by someone seemingly unrelated to those international bankers. Its wording was very similar to the above plan by bankers, but supposedly gave more control to the government. The bankers appeared to oppose this Act but it was just a 'show'. If the 'bad' bankers publicly supported the Act, it might be rejected. So the bankers publicly spoke out against the Act. Woodrow Wilson was the man chosen to help further the bankers' goal. In 1913 the Federal Reserve Board was created under President Woodrow Wilson. He did it at a critical time when much of Congress was enjoying the Christmas holiday. The Federal Reserve Board isn't even a part of the government; it's privately owned. You guessed it, Rothschilds and Rockefellers are connected to it.

Apparently, a lot of shady dealings earned these families their fortunes. The Rothschilds have been known to fund both sides of a conflict, and rely on inside information, to act in their best interests. Manipulation has been a key to success for some time now. I have no doubt that a few of these wealthy families acquired that success from manipulation. I don't want to be naive.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Ability IS a prequisite to KEEPING your wealth.

If you try to do anything besides invest it, it slowly is destroyed by taxes and inflation.

And investing takes ability.

SO yes, it IS mostly about ability.

And keeping it certainly is. Sure Paris Hilton is rich, because of her Dad. But do you honestly think that money will be around for her great-grandkids? I wouldn't bet on it.

If you don't spend all of it! How hard is it to keep millions in a bank account that earns interest? How hard is it hand your money over to a money market manager?

If you mean that these people know how to function in society, than yes, the do have ability...but no more than any other person. Give me a break.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

If you don't spend all of it! How hard is it to keep millions in a bank account that earns interest? How hard is it hand your money over to a money market manager?

If you mean that these people know how to function in society, than yes, the do have ability...but no more than any other person. Give me a break.

You don't know much about the world of money and investing, Jahmun.

Actually, it is practically impossible to keep millions in a bank account that earns interest. Since only the first $200,000 is insured by the FDIC, most banks will not let you keep more than that in an account. If they do, you'll have to sign a waiver, agreeing not to hold them responsible for any losses or mismanangement.(!)

Yes, $200k is a lot of money to those of us living "on the first floor." But for someone who is worth $30 million, it is a serious problem.

Handing your money over to a money manager is financial suicide. The average financial planner cannot begin to match the DJIA or S&P 500. Most of them lost money 1998-2001, which was the last major bull market. And it is incredibly difficult to sue them. In fact, if you look in the ratings in a good financial mag, you'll see that only a few of the most famous consistently give you more than 3% return (i.e. keeping up with inflation.) And they will probably charge several percent as a commission.

What about an index fund? Well, those are fine for "little people," but they are so thinly traded that you cannot just drop 10 or 15 million into them without affecting the market for them if you want to sell. Illiquidity is a huge problem for any investment where you are richer than the average investor. You may have seen recent commercials advertizing "Spiders" (SPDR) that claims to be an S&P index fund with enough fluidity to let you actually get execution (buying in or cashing out) in something near real time. But the problem is still that if there is a stockmarket crash (like 1987 or 1997), you'll get creamed while you wait around trying to find someone who will by a million shares of Bubble.com.

Of course you could buy a lot of land. But then property taxes, rights-of-way and market collapses can get you. And you cannot sell it all at once, without flooding the market. Illiquidity again.

If you've ever seen the movies "Wall Street" or "Boiler Room," They are fictionalized but realistic portraits of what goes on at the other end of the phone line when you ask someone to handle your money for you. Caveat Emptor.

****

When I worked in a brokerage, I often saw wealthy people wipe out their money on the stupidest things, because a financial manager, or a brother-in-law, told them it couldn't fail. I saw people buy the most expensive mutual fund that was open, simply because they saw it in a magazine.

One of my best friends decided (over my objections) to buy Enron on what turned out to be the day the first allegations of fraud were published. His broker told him he was missing "the opportunity of a lifetime." I honestly believe he got the highest price ever paid for Enron's stock. Which is saying something.

I also saw first hand how a few hundred dollars could become thousands by careful management, research and planning. Again, it is ability that makes and grows wealth.

The one saying that I didn't post earlier was one I heard old farmers say: "Shirt-sleeves to shirt-sleeves in three generations." Meaning that the grandkids blow everything you work for.

I think a lot of folks imagine a kind of cartoon-like existence of the super-rich. The reality is 180 degrees around. I really would suggest "The Millionaire Next Door." It is an incredible read.

I was thinking more along the lines of bonds rather than banks. Honestly, it just does not seem hard at all to me keep millions of dollars and live off the interest. It seems your examples are dealing with people who try to make even more money off what they have.

I saw Boiler Room. When dealing with financial managers, it is a risky business, but if all of them were crooked, then there wouldn't be a market for them, and the crooked ones wouldn't last.

So, I think it's more safe than it is risky dealing with financial managers.

But what do I know, I'm just a "first-floor" loser.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

You're right, I did pick examples of people making more. When you get really rich, it's all about percentages. People living off of salary or wages don't think in percentages, because our pay feels "guaranteed." For people trying to live off the capital, the world is a very scary place.

Bonds can be a great way to keep your capital intact. The problem again is inflation. If you had bought bonds thirty years ago, you'd have been screwed by inflation during the late seventies, and now when you cash 'em in. (tax on your dividends.) Back in 1074, you could buy a brand new sportscar for $2000. Double that amount now, and you might be able to get a dependable used honda civic or an old lumina.

I assume you meant US Govt. Bonds, because any other kind might be worthless. Say for example, if you had invested in Orange County bonds, or Washington Public Power Supply system, or a corporate giant like Worldcom. Some others, though not defaulted, were downgraded enough that you'd have taken a serious financial beating. Airline bonds, or maybe Chrysler would be examples of that.

I know that I can never prove it to you, Jahmun, but I DO happen to think that the whole financial planning industry is one big rip-off. If you ever have a friend who goes into that line of work, they can tell you. Incompetence and self-interest run rampant. And famous cases of scams like the "Billionaire Boys' Club" are the staple of "Lifetime" TV.

I advise the people who will listen (both of them) to never use the services of a broker. You should only purchase stocks directly from the companies who sell them. If you read the fine print, most brokerages "hold" the stock for you in their own name. That is how 1929 happened.

Netstock Direct is a great resource, and many of the biggest companies will sell stock directly to you.

The truth is that there is no one on earth more qualified or interested in watching over your financial affairs than you yourself are. It will never matter to anyone else as much as it does to you.

I never made diddly until I started working for myself.

You really have no idea how rich some of these people and families really are. Lets take good ole Bill G he is worth $46.6 billion. This is a minor ripple on some people's screens, try this for real wealth:

Accounting for the Rothschild Wealth and Influence

Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850 (make sure you read that year correctly). Not a significant amount in today's dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!

Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:

$1.9 Trillion US (@ 4%)
$7.8 Trillion US (@ 5%)
$31.5 Trillion US (@ 6%)
$125,189.1 Trillion US (@ 7%)
$491,409.0 Trillion US (@ 8%) - this is a more likely compund rate since 1850.

To give these figures some perspective consider these benchmarks:

A little of $300 billion US buys every ounce of gold in every central bank in the world (see John Kutyn's estimate (www.gold-eagle.com...).
U.S. M3 money supply August 1997 was $5.2 trillion
U.S. debt is currently $5.4 trillion.
U.S. GDP (1997; 2nd Q.) is $8.03 trillion.
George Soros' empire is worth an estimated $20 billion.

Taken from: www.mega.nu:8080...

[edit on 2-10-2004 by lucifuge]

As to my small insignificant knowledge to this theory, it has always been that the power and the money of the world has been in the few hands of the elite.

There are good aspects to this, and bad in my opinion.

The world has survived this long, and there are more people that have more control today than yesterday.

I tend to look at the brighter side of things I guess.

Personally, I think that the estimates of Rothschild wealth are pretty significantly exaggerated. They are always happy to pose as the super-rich, but I personally think its just a pose. Their English firm has made some horrible financial blunders in the past couple of years, like getting out of oil(!) and gold(!) before 2001, and then not getting back in(!)

I am certain they are comfortable. But like the Krupps, their money is not actively invested in anything at the core of the economy, and the various scions of their family are seen actually working for a living, and selling off inherited estates in the Riviera. Hardly the signs of mind-numbing power.

They are the kind of people that WANT their names on the list of rich-and-powerful.

Didn't we already do this thread once recently?

Originally posted by theron dunn
money, wealth, is a sign of success, so YES I applaude it. Hard work and dilligence can make wealth. there are more millionaires in the United States today than at any point in our history. there are also a number of billionaires (can you spell BILL GATES... self made millionaire).

I have no problem with them being wealthy, and I have absolutely no use for any group of position that calls for or advocates STEALING that wealth and giving it to the "poor". Communism is a waste of time... to each according to his ABILITIES is my credo.

Not many rich are self made. But gates came from a upper middle class family, and had alot of family connections. Supposedly he also had a trust frund that he could use. So most wealthy start because they already have some, enough to make more money, or some that have the gift of patents in which they make money off of that (howard hughes).

reply to post by Masonic Light


2 are the Rockefeller and Rothschild

reply to post by IBM


Who 'deserves' to have a billion dollars?

Read 'The true story of the Bilderberg group' by Daniel estulin. This allegedly explains which families control the world basiclly

Novo Ordo Seclorum

aka. New Secular Order
aka. The Guys Behind the Screens

Tools of NOS:
-Politics (laws)
-Media (deception, indoctrination, propaganda and entertainment)
-Money (by controling the value of this substitute for goods.. other people can determine what your labor is worth..)

I will explore this last tool as it is the most visible and calculable:

People i have no say over determine how much food i can "buy" for labor i traded for this substitute? This can only mean one thing: Someone could rob my hard earned substitutes of their value!

How, why and who are questions that spring to mind.

-How: Inflation. The value of money decreases when more money enters the economy without (sufficient) collateral (feel free to step in if i'm wrong)..

-Why: So why would anyone want to lower the value of my substitutes?
If my substitutes r worth less, i'll have to get more of them. No problem, i'll just increase the price of my labor and were back to normal.

Oh really?

If everybody does this, there's going to be a big shortage on money. This in turn will lead to deflation.

Wrong again!

-Who: There is this lovely privately owned company that is happy to make us some more money because they can make a profit from doing so.
However they're not selling it to us, they allow us to borrow it.
This guarantees that whatever goes out, comes back with profit.
This reduces the value of the banks collateral (and thus your money) by sucking out money that is covered and replacing it by more money that isn't (the inflation).

It is that simple.

And all cause we were dumb enough to just let them have that power?
How stupid can we be? "They" can ruin you at will!

YOUR FUTURES ARE IN THEIR HANDS

Don't u see the pattern here? The fed always wins! if you want to do something about the misery in the usa and elsewhere in the world,

TAKE THE POWER BACK
But be careful:

"You're living at a time of revolution...people in power have misused it and now a better world has to be built."

— Malcolm X

On 21 February 1965 Malcolm X was shot dead minutes before he was about to address a rally in Harlem, New York. As with the firebombing of his home a week earlier, the finger was automatically pointed at the Nation of Islam with whom Malcolm had split the previous year.
www.socialistalternative.org...

Sure, islam did it.. sounds familiar?

""Kennedy defeated then Vice President and Republican candidate Richard Nixon in the 1960 U.S. presidential election, one of the closest in American history. He was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with the crime and was murdered two days later by Jack Ruby before he could be put on trial."" wiki

Convenient huh?
And who was in charge of the investigation?

""Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974), widely regarded as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the history of the United States also was a Republican Party Vice Presidential nominee.."" wiki

people vs republic: 0-2

Need i go on?