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

I've heard the theory that there are only a handful of extremely wealthy, powerful, and influential families that have a majority of control of the world monetary assets.

I don't remember the names of these supposedly elite families, but have any of you heard of this theory of super elite power familes before? If so, please share what you know about them.

CC

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.

Fiat Lvx.

No question it... applaude it!!

Originally posted by theron dunn
No question it... applaude it!!

You support wealth being in the hands of a few? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

chief_counsellor, two families that come to mind are Rothschild's and Rockefeller's. Also look in to the ownership of the Federal Reserve Board. That may interest you.

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.

I usually am very skeptical about conspiracies in general but where some of these ultra-elite powerful families are concerned, I do believe that a comparitively small group of people do in fact control most of the world's wealth, either directly, or indirectly. When you start looking at names like Rothchild, Rockerfeller, Morgan, and Mellon you can see some of the lines of power. When the same names start showing up in so many different seats of major financial power over many, many years and decades, you have to realize that something is indeed up, or has been until fairly recently.

It's not like this isn't normal human behavior though. It has always been this way as far as my analysis of history goes. The few have always ruled the many, in fact if not openly. However, for all their wealth and control, I can't believe that they control everything. There is just too much randomness built into reality for that. Take Bill Gates, who Theron mentioned. You can be sure that he is no part of any generations-old family bid for world domination. His wealth and the impact of his work couldn't be anticipated and couldn't be planned for if you believe the Old Families try to plan for that sort of thing.

There are too many people and too many places for one group to control it all. Things change too fast now. The sheer size of it all, and the dynamics that make it inevitable for any group that reaches a certain size to find conflict within itself and eventually factionalize, make it a certainty that these old families, while perhaps as powerful as anyone on the planet, cannot gain complete control. No one can.

As to controling the global economy, I think they ride it well and make sure they always get the best seat, but I don't think they always get to steer it.

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.

So, we are forgetting that most of the world's billionaires are not self-made? Most millionaires are most likely in the same situation. I am sure it's easy for you to say what you do since you own a corporation, that's probably why you have no use for welfare lol...but i don't agree with your assertion that money makes a man anything at all, nor do I agree that welfare programs are good.

The reason I think 98% of money is controlled by 2% is because of government regulation. Price floors, price ceilings, anti-trust (misnamed!), and copyrights, oh my!

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

I guess you need to look at it from a slightly different perspective.
Without going back very far high infant mortality would have seen off most children before the costs of educating them came in to play.
Rich families children would have survived better than poor, plus they would have then had the benefits of education.
And so it continues, until you get to the last 50 years or so, when the differences between the haves and have nots has closed. This is certainly true in the UK, it's an expensive country compared to some, but our poverty indicators are different. Most people have a roof over there heads, we don't have children dying in the streets, running water in all homes, etc.
So, yeah, they have been enjoying the ride, once in a while they had a go at steering, but now it's our turn!

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by theron dunn
No question it... applaude it!!

You support wealth being in the hands of a few? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

chief_counsellor, two families that come to mind are Rothschild's and Rockefeller's. Also look in to the ownership of the Federal Reserve Board. That may interest you.

There is nothing wrong in the two percent controlling all that wealth. I bet if you were one of those two percent you would not be making these comments. So you are saying if someone works hard, they do not deserve what they get? Sounds like communism to me.

Originally posted by IBM

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by theron dunn
No question it... applaude it!!

You support wealth being in the hands of a few? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

chief_counsellor, two families that come to mind are Rothschild's and Rockefeller's. Also look in to the ownership of the Federal Reserve Board. That may interest you.

There is nothing wrong in the two percent controlling all that wealth. I bet if you were one of those two percent you would not be making these comments. So you are saying if someone works hard, they do not deserve what they get? Sounds like communism to me.

Except it is false that the top 2% are the hardest workers. Most are just living off inherited money.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by IBM

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by theron dunn
No question it... applaude it!!

You support wealth being in the hands of a few? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

chief_counsellor, two families that come to mind are Rothschild's and Rockefeller's. Also look in to the ownership of the Federal Reserve Board. That may interest you.

There is nothing wrong in the two percent controlling all that wealth. I bet if you were one of those two percent you would not be making these comments. So you are saying if someone works hard, they do not deserve what they get? Sounds like communism to me.

Except it is false that the top 2% are the hardest workers. Most are just living off inherited money.

So what is wrong with inheriting your parents moeny? Would you decline if your parents left you a will? Would you give your money to someone you dont trust? Working hard does not mean hard as in physical. It is working smart that counts.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by IBM]

Originally posted by IBM

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by IBM

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by theron dunn
No question it... applaude it!!

You support wealth being in the hands of a few? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

chief_counsellor, two families that come to mind are Rothschild's and Rockefeller's. Also look in to the ownership of the Federal Reserve Board. That may interest you.

There is nothing wrong in the two percent controlling all that wealth. I bet if you were one of those two percent you would not be making these comments. So you are saying if someone works hard, they do not deserve what they get? Sounds like communism to me.

Except it is false that the top 2% are the hardest workers. Most are just living off inherited money.

So what is wrong with inheriting your parents moeny? Would you decline if your parents left you a will? Would you give your money to someone you dont trust? Working hard does not mean hard as in physical. It is working smart that counts.
[edit on 1-10-2004 by IBM]

Except it isn't true that these people are the hardest workers in any sense. The fact is, without the 98% this world would be nowhere. It's also untrue that just because you inherited billions of dollars that you are instantly smart and worth more idealogically than others.

I don't think there is anything wrong with it. But I am saying they don't deserve getting more respect than the janitor of an elementary school. Why should these people be controlling our economy? Just because they woke up one day to realize they are one of the most powerful people in the country because of their grandparents?

It's not fair, but it is reality. But don't expect me to give them any credit for anything. That's reserved for whoever does make things happen, rich or poor.

It is my belief that a certain level of deceit and manipulation is sometimes needed to attain such powerful, influential positions in the world. Why would I applaud that? If I was one of those 2%ers, I wouldn't be the person that I am today. I love the person that I am today!

Becoming a 2%er by being an honest, hard-working person is worthy of applause. Lying your way to the top and misleading people deserves, at the very least, a swift kick to the forehead.

How is it lying? Explain to me? Does bill gates lie when he sells software? Did Rockefeller lie when he sold oil? How is running a business lying? Hmmm?

I suppose it all boils down to ideology. It is understandable for the conservative to say that people work for they should keep...however, in response to several comments above, it should also be noted that Marx said exactly the same thing, accusing the capitalists of stealing from the workers.

Marx's argument was actually, in many cases, quite correct, but that argument is outdated since the capitalism of Marx's day was much different than it is today.

Nevertheless, the modern non-Marxian socialist or Green Party member or Left Democrat would argue that God or Providence or whatever supplied the earth to everyone, including its oil...therefore, for an individual to claim it as his own and make a profit at it at the expense of others is usury. Every moral teacher from Zoroaster to Buddha to Jesus expressed at least some criticisms of capitalism from the moral standpoint...indeed, it would often be contradictory to applaud a "morality of capitalism", while our grocery stores are filled with food and pharmacies with medicine while thousands die of starvation and treatable disease every hour.

Therefore, the real question is this: do we care more about profit or people? The answer to this question, after all, is the test of character...for Christ himself said that the lust for money is the root of all evil, and one cannot serve God and Mammon. The Prophet Joshua once said, "Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve; as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Note that here I am not condemning capitalism completely, but only its negative side effects. I believe that capital can and must be reformed, not that it should be eliminated. A system of enterprise could easily be instituted by humans (with the assumption that humans are rational beings) that would provide economic freedom and democracy for all.

Fiat Lvx.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Masonic Light]

I vote you for Way Above Top Secret Masonic Light. That was an excellent post.

wow, lots to think about, thanks for all the responses on this one so far!

CC

Originally posted by Bangin
It is my belief that a certain level of deceit and manipulation is sometimes needed to attain such powerful, influential positions in the world. Why would I applaud that? If I was one of those 2%ers, I wouldn't be the person that I am today. I love the person that I am today!

Becoming a 2%er by being an honest, hard-working person is worthy of applause. Lying your way to the top and misleading people deserves, at the very least, a swift kick to the forehead.

This is a fallacious argument. You posit a theory, without factual basis by the way, then use the fallacious argument as if it were a proven fact to support your next contention...

Because you are rich does NOT mean you are dishonest, any more than being dirt poor makes you honest.

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.

Fiat Lvx.

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

Have a look at the bestselling book "the millionaire next door" to get an accurate picture of just how prosaic the rich really are.

That said . . .

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -Honore Balzac

"History is more or less bunk" - Henry Ford

"A conspiracy is nothing but a secret agreement of a number of men for the pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public" - Samuel Clemens.

" . . . truth is so precious that she should always be
attended by a bodyguard of lies". - Winston Churchill

"The world is run by 300 Israelites, whom I know" -Benjamin Disraeli





[edit on 1-10-2004 by dr_strangecraft]

Think these are the critters. 2%



The Astor Bloodline

The Bundy Bloodline

The Collins Bloodline

The Dupont Bloodline

The Freeman Bloodline

The Kennedy Bloodline

The Li Bloodline

The Onassis Bloodline

The Reynolds Bloodline

The Rockefeller Bloodline

The Rothschild Bloodline

The Russell Bloodline

The Van Duyn Bloodline

Merovingian (European Royalty)
Windsors?

Interconnected families:

The Disney Bloodline

The Krupp Bloodline

The McDonald Bloodline

You think a networth of 50 billion is rich, there are richer. 50 billion is almost 3/4 ways to the top of the pyramid but not quite.


[edit on 1-10-2004 by project_pisces]