[Bman4k1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('btu2012', 'I') think that there are 3 classes of "rich":

1) The self-made rich, who usually accumulated their wealth by being frugal and owning a business. There are the majority of the "rich" with net worth in the 1 million-20 million dollar range. The anti-wealth criticism in this thread doesn't really apply well to those people

2) The "show off rich" -- mostly celebrities, windfall winners and over-paid executives, who are actually conspicuous spenders rather than rich on a net worth basis. These have a philosophy which is diametrically opposed to those in group 1)

3) The "generationally rich", which is what would properly be termed the "overclass". These are members of a small number of extremely rich families who managed to transfer and increase their hereditary wealth through generations. Examples include the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Du Ponts etc.

................

[truecougarblue]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bman4k1', '
')Some rich people aren't modest, but for the most part, well off people are modest for sure.

[Revi]

I remember when I thought that being rich meant you could eat a cheeseburger, fries and a coke every day for lunch. Now I think being rich is being able to fill the oil tank next winter.

I know some of the super wealthy. They are a really screwed up bunch of people. They never earned any of their stuff, so it has no meaning. One invited us over for dinner. She showed us a bunch of junk that she treasured. It was basically trash. It had real value to her because she cleaned up Boston Common and picked this stuff up when she was doing it. She had actually earned it, so it had real value to her.

She figured out something that mattered to her. She had some purpose because she did the clean up every day. She doesn't need the money.

We work for everything we get, so what we have has real meaning. Everything is just stuff to them. They live in a gilded cage. They are not to be envied. Maybe pitied.

[Revi]

I remember when I thought that being rich meant you could eat a cheeseburger, fries and a coke every day for lunch. Now I think being rich is being able to fill the oil tank next winter.

I know some of the super wealthy. They are a really screwed up bunch of people. They never earned any of their stuff, so it has no meaning. One invited us over for dinner. She showed us a bunch of junk that she treasured. It was basically trash. It had real value to her because she cleaned up Boston Common and picked this stuff up when she was doing it. She had actually earned it, so it had real value to her.

She figured out something that mattered to her. She had some purpose because she did the clean up every day. She doesn't need the money.

We work for everything we get, so what we have has real meaning. Everything is just stuff to them. They live in a gilded cage. They are not to be envied.

[Byron100]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bman4k1', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('btu2012', 'I') think that there are 3 classes of "rich":

1) The self-made rich, who usually accumulated their wealth by being frugal and owning a business. There are the majority of the "rich" with net worth in the 1 million-20 million dollar range. The anti-wealth criticism in this thread doesn't really apply well to those people

2) The "show off rich" -- mostly celebrities, windfall winners and over-paid executives, who are actually conspicuous spenders rather than rich on a net worth basis. These have a philosophy which is diametrically opposed to those in group 1)

3) The "generationally rich", which is what would properly be termed the "overclass". These are members of a small number of extremely rich families who managed to transfer and increase their hereditary wealth through generations. Examples include the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Du Ponts etc.

................

[hubbertspeak7777777]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cowuvula', '
')

People who don't believe in peak oil are still going to die.

Those who don't believe the Bible and have excuses will be the same, ignorance does not nullify gravity.

[mmasters]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('btu2012', 'I') think that there are 3 classes of "rich":

1) The self-made rich, who usually accumulated their wealth by being frugal and owning a business. There are the majority of the "rich" with net worth in the 1 million-20 million dollar range. The anti-wealth criticism in this thread doesn't really apply well to those people

2) The "show off rich" -- mostly celebrities, windfall winners and over-paid executives, who are actually conspicuous spenders rather than rich on a net worth basis. These have a philosophy which is diametrically opposed to those in group 1)

3) The "generationally rich", which is what would properly be termed the "overclass". These are members of a small number of extremely rich families who managed to transfer and increase their hereditary wealth through generations. Examples include the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Du Ponts etc.

It is the third group who is the proper target for the criticism in this thread. Such people rarely have to work directly for their wealth -- at least after the second or third generation, and their wealth is mostly managed by others. These are the owners of the great banks etc. They do have quite a bit of illegitimate influence on the affairs of nations, and pursue their own political and social agendas in ways which are not transparent to the public. Perhaps surprisingly for some people, they usually pursue a strategy of inclusion and co-optation rather than one of direct conflict.

The members of class 1) are poor when compared with class 3), and they are famously looked down upon by the latter.

One needs to keep these distinctions in mind when discussing inequality. Someone with a net worth in the lower millions is not a member of the hereditary over-class, whose net worth usually counts in the billions. There is a vast difference between the values and world view of someone like RedStateGreen and someone like Jacob de Rothschild.

I am sure that those posters here who work in high finance can confirm the distinctions above, which are well understood in those circles.

So in a sense both sides of the discussion in this thread are right, and both of them are wrong.

People like RedStateGreen are hardly the "class enemy" of Marxist ideology, though people like Rockefeller might be construed as such.

On the other hand, the conspicuous spenders in class 2) are largely over-compensated people, whose earnings level could hardly be justified by their contributions to society. It should be pointed out, however, that the public at large seems to allow such compensation levels to continue, for example shareholders continue to support obscene levels of executive compensation for purely selfish reasons.

Another observation concerns the generational factor. Most people in class 1) were not born into wealth, but their children will be. These children are likely to develop the pathologies pointed out by other posters, unless their parents are extremely careful and strict with their education.

It is people born into wealth who tend to look down on those who where not so born, as I am sure that RedStateGreen can confirm. This is why someone like Warren Buffett is very strict with his son.

Btu

[misterno]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joeltrout', 'W')hy do you all "hate" the "rich" so much??

joeltrout

[RedStateGreen]

Are we worth a million? I don't even know!

Probably not quite that much... unless you count life insurance.