- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Wealthy in Florence Today Are the Same Families as 600 Years Ago
Posted on 5/20/16 at 6:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/20/16 at 6:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
bruh our "Founding Fathers" were mostly aristocrats from upper class, European lineage
But simply being an aristocrat didn't guarantee they would be the owners of land and resources. Wouldn't you say the aristocrats were a small minority? I would say they had a worse chance of using their aristocratic powers to set aside the lesser caste in the US than in Europe. The US had so much land to explore and take over that there was a greater opportunity to assume control by those who were simply willing to brave the journey (i.e., California gold). The aristocracy was established through the socioeconomic system of Europe, and while that may help in America, it wouldn't have lasted without assuming control of the resources.
2
Posted on 5/20/16 at 6:47 pm to tiggerthetooth
Again, wealth isn't a fixed pie. It grows. You can't track one dollar staying in rich guy's bank account as one dollar you don't have.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 6:49 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
But simply being an aristocrat didn't guarantee they would be the owners of land and resources.
that is pretty much the definition of an aristocrat in the 17th and 18th centuries
quote:
The US had so much land to explore and take over that there was a greater opportunity to assume control by those who were simply willing to brave the journey (i.e., California gold).
do you think that the primary drivers of our wealth involve acquiring land?
we drive the world's best economy with banking and tech, baw
after that we produce entertainment and culture that the world eats up
Posted on 5/20/16 at 6:49 pm to tiggerthetooth
I was referring to the traditional European model of lords and fiefs. If you weren't born into money, there was no way for you earn money. You did not move beyond he station into which you were born. This concept is still prevalent in many countries: India, most African nations, China and Japan to a large degree.
Don't even try and tell me that any country on this earth rewards entrepeunership more than the US. Someone who is born a dirt poor f'er has a far greater chance of becoming wealthy in the US than any over country on this earth.
Don't even try and tell me that any country on this earth rewards entrepeunership more than the US. Someone who is born a dirt poor f'er has a far greater chance of becoming wealthy in the US than any over country on this earth.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 6:51 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
What you mean to say is the poor LAZY people get poorer.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 6:56 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
This is objectively false.
Did every family have a tv, cell phone or car 100 years ago? No, because some of that shite didn't even exist.
How the hell did they get "poorer" after accumulating these things and many others that made life easier and healthier?
I think you might want to rethink your hypothesis.
This post was edited on 5/20/16 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 5/20/16 at 6:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Florence
one of the coolest, most chill cities i've ever visited.. if i ever win the fricking lottery, i'm moving there...
Posted on 5/20/16 at 7:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Thge earliest American colonists were the dregs of society. E.G. when the French held Louisiana, they took prisoners, passed out drunks, whores, etc. and they told bullshite tales of wealth and prosperity in the "new world."
bruh our "Founding Fathers" were mostly aristocrats from upper class, European lineage
The greatest Americans were those who knew that their sweat would never make them rich, but would set their children and grandchildren up for success and prosperity.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 7:05 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
Ya know, in time, I'd argue if anyone should get pissed it's the rich or producers.
So, back in the day day, the king got the nicest shite, and you got jack shite.
There are times now, rich people and producers get nicer shite than you, but then again, everybody is basically working with the same cell phone. Zuckerberg's iPhone is the same one that you have when he buys it. That's crazy!
In time as we perhaps approach a time beyond scarcity, with rising water lifting all boats, I'd be kinda pissed the lazy bastards will probably be sharing the same experiences I am, even though generations before them did jack shite.
So, back in the day day, the king got the nicest shite, and you got jack shite.
There are times now, rich people and producers get nicer shite than you, but then again, everybody is basically working with the same cell phone. Zuckerberg's iPhone is the same one that you have when he buys it. That's crazy!
In time as we perhaps approach a time beyond scarcity, with rising water lifting all boats, I'd be kinda pissed the lazy bastards will probably be sharing the same experiences I am, even though generations before them did jack shite.
This post was edited on 5/20/16 at 7:07 pm
Posted on 5/20/16 at 7:06 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
everybody is basically working with the same cell phone. Zuckerberg's iPhone is the same one that you have when he buys it. That's crazy!
i make this point all the time (so much so that i bet you unconsciously stole it from me)
at no point in human history have the poor been able to enjoy the same luxury goods as the wealthy
...until today
Posted on 5/20/16 at 7:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
Dynastic wealth is a threat to a meritocracy.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 7:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
Oh I definitely stole it because it's an easy example that really drives home the point from where we began: they have all, we get none; to they have some better stuff, but we have some of it too; to it continuously getting harder to tell the difference.
I mean, the vacation I went on earlier this year was literally impossible 50 years ago or so. Yet no one thinks about that.
I mean, the vacation I went on earlier this year was literally impossible 50 years ago or so. Yet no one thinks about that.
This post was edited on 5/20/16 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 5/20/16 at 7:11 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
if you want crazy/basic stats, you can just look for literacy rates
Posted on 5/20/16 at 7:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
They have 600 year old people? Yeah, right!
Posted on 5/20/16 at 7:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
Gregory Clark (UC Davis) did the original study this is based off of. He concluded that social mobility doesn't really exist, or at least it doesn't exist in the way we thought. Families rise and fall, but it happens over the course of several centuries. Case in point, if you're English and you family arrived with the Norman conquest you're still doing quite well for yourself. The social mobility that other researchers saw was actually statistical noise.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 7:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
America is one of the few exceptions to this rule i'd imagine
And you would be correct.
From "The millionaire next door":
quote:
Most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich.
* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.
America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation's social system and economy.
More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."
Posted on 5/20/16 at 7:57 pm to tiggerthetooth
People that are arguing for a distribution of inheritance don't realize that one of the main reasons people have busted their arse is to provide for their families, not to take a bath in their money (for the most part). An inheritance tax of that magnitude would subvert the very reason people accumulate wealth. That's a shitty way to make someone's efforts pointless.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 8:10 pm to rintintin
I would expect many of these families to sink back into the middle class relatively quickly.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 8:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
Here's what the wales are saying.
OK. Thank you.
OK. Thank you.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 8:19 pm to HaveMercy
quote:
was referring to the traditional European model of lords and fiefs. If you weren't born into money, there was no way for you earn money. You did not move beyond he station into which you were born
While harder than it is today in America, this economic model had loosened up by the 1400s. There were wealthy merchants and successful tradesmen, those who had moved to the cities.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News