Lion of the Blogosphere

Ultra-liberal ultra-rich

The heirs to the Rockefeller fortune are divesting their philanthropic fund of fossil fuels.

This demonstrates a point I’ve made many times before, which is that even when the ultra-rich are conservative, their children are almost always liberals, and if not their children then their grandchildren. Thus the billions of dollars made by the richest Americans almost always winds up being used to fund liberal causes in the long run.

This is why conservatives, if they had any common sense, would support high estate taxes and would also eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 22, 2014 at 10:17 am

Posted in Wealth

128 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. O’Sullivan’s law:

    Any organization that is not explicitly right-wing will become left-wing over time.

    All foundations should have a 30 year expiration date.

    BehindTheLines

    September 22, 2014 at 10:23 am

    • Of course there’s a generational leftward drift, especially on social issues: it’s called “progress.” The Rockefellers oppose oil, and the Ford Motor Company paid to make sure the network debut of SCHINDLER’S LIST was commercial-free.

      Vince, the Lionhearted

      September 22, 2014 at 12:47 pm

      • This argument fails for two reasons. (1) If it were true, one would expect organizations to become left-wing only by the standards of the time of the founding of the organization, not to leapfrog and become left-wing for our time. (2) Many left-wing positions, particularly environmentalism, are explicitly anti-progress. I don’t see how nationalizing health care or cutting the military to pre WWII levels constitutes progress, either.

        BehindTheLines

        September 22, 2014 at 8:03 pm

      • Your first “reason” resorts to the kind of anti-empirical intuition that libertarians love to tread in. The elite do not lag, they lead. It’s not at all surprising Bush’s daughters, for example, supported marriage equality before Barack Obama. Your second “reason,” such as it is, is even less interesting. There are different strands of environmentalism, and by far the most mainstream and ideologically appealing brand is the kind that says newer technology can replace the dirty, out-dated technology. One could argue that this is wishful thinking, but instead you insist on semantic wanking.

        Vince, the Lionhearted

        September 25, 2014 at 4:33 pm

  2. This is a very good point. The thing with this trust fund babies is, since money is completely taken care of, all that is left is social status preening.

    Even if they tried to be conservatives, they would be ripped for being born into priviledge and having been born into wealth and having not earned an honest dollar in their life. They would seem like a grade A jerk.

    Dan

    September 22, 2014 at 10:55 am

  3. “which is that even when the ultra-rich are conservative, their children are almost always liberals”

    This is actually quite “healthy”, in a sense. The children of the ultra-rich have a very noble attitude in admitting they were born privileged and in desiring to spread their wealth.

    The problem is that they do it wrong. How to spread HBD awareness among the elite?

    Thomas

    September 22, 2014 at 11:17 am

    • admitting they were born privileged and in desiring to *spread their wealth.

      *spread the other peoples wealth with progressive taxation while the non-profit foundation shields there’s from taxation.

      Toad

      September 22, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    • You’re being sarcastic, right? Wealthy leftists want the government to take money by force from the middle class and the working wealthy to fund whatever they think is a good cause. There’s nothing noble about that — that’s nothing but armed robbery by proxy.

      And based on where they choose to live and the way they live their lives, the “elite” are well aware of HBD. They’re only interested in diversity for the wrong sort of white people.

      browndar

      September 22, 2014 at 7:14 pm

      • “And based on where they choose to live and the way they live their lives, the “elite” are well aware of HBD. They’re only interested in diversity for the wrong sort of white people.”

        This sounds like conspiracy theory to me.

        Thomas

        September 23, 2014 at 9:02 am

  4. But why, Lion?

    Yakov

    September 22, 2014 at 11:30 am

  5. For a talking point

    Steven Rockefeller- Princeton undergraduate, PhD, Columbia,(owes multiple homes in New England)
    Valerie Rockefeller Wayne- undergraduate at Stanford, graduate school at Columbia, owes homes on multiple continents.
    Stephen Heintz- Yale, and used to live in Europe.

    I will guarantee everyone that these people have a much bigger environmental footprint than the average American and rarely take public transportation or even fly commercial.

    superdestroyer

    September 22, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    • Private flights are really really expensive, so it’s possible that they just travel first class on regular flight, if they are just living off their inheritance and don’t have a lot of new income coming in.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 22, 2014 at 2:14 pm

      • But they have a foundation that could fund many of the flights for business purposes. If someone is in living in Prague and having to travel the world, I would wager that they either fly on commercial or catch flights with other people. I doubt one of the founders of Demos is waiting in the first class lounge at the airport.

        superdestroyer

        September 22, 2014 at 2:50 pm

      • They may fly commercial for the same reason I ride the subway instead of taking a taxi, even though I can afford the taxi.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 22, 2014 at 3:05 pm

      • Discretionary air travel, any that is other than a dire necessity, is selfish and extremely destructive to the environment. Random internet anecdote, via Bloomberg: “……….The numbers told me otherwise. A nonstop flight from San Francisco to New York puts you on the hook for 2.23 tons of carbon dioxide. Fly first class, and the extra space you occupy bumps you to 5.59 tons — more than twice the 2.2 tons you’d emit driving a midrange car 7,500 miles. It’s not just aviation’s carbon emissions that make it so bad for the climate, it’s also factors like vapor trails and ozone as well as where a jet’s emissions occur……”

        Daniel

        September 22, 2014 at 3:36 pm

      • Did you see Al Gore at the Climate March?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 22, 2014 at 6:28 pm

      • “Discretionary air travel, any that is other than a dire necessity, is selfish and extremely destructive to the environment.”

        Carbon dioxide is not destructive to the environment at all, imbecile, no matter what five perverts in black robes say.

        browndar

        September 22, 2014 at 7:17 pm

      • Private flights become cost effective when flying a group of people. What is the difference between 7 first class tickets from NYC to ST Petersburg Russ or using a private jet. Remember, the ultra rich travel with entourages.

        superdestroyer

        September 23, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    • Rich people often fly themselves, in their own small planes.

      slithy toves

      September 22, 2014 at 6:53 pm

    • Valerie Rockefeller Wayne is the daughter of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). None of Jay’s 4 adult children have anything to do with their “home” state, but the dumb hillbillies keep electing their father. If your own children reject West Virginia, how can you represent West Virginia with a straight face?

      steve w.

      September 23, 2014 at 6:08 am

      • It’s understandable that smart, elitely educated and rich young people aren’t going to stick around in West Virginia.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 23, 2014 at 6:34 am

      • Have you looked at where the children of politicians live. Chelsea Clinton is not living in Arkansas and Jenna Bush is not living in Texas. Look at the number of politicians who never return to their home state or district once their out of office but just hang around DC or NYC.

        superdestroyer

        September 23, 2014 at 12:24 pm

  6. Look, if the trustees want to take the foundation’s money and invest in holdings that are more socially acceptable, let them do it I say. They are very likely to get a lesser return on their investments, which will leave them with less money with which to push their stupid agenda.

    I would also favor a limit on the size of tax exempt foundations. A foundation with billions in assets is a business, not a charity, and ought to be taxed on its profits the same way any other business is.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    September 22, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    • The problem is that the billions are, as you say, assets.

      They don’t have much income to tax.

      not too late

      September 24, 2014 at 12:54 am

  7. “This is why conservatives, if they had any common sense…”

    And THERE’S your problem!

    peterike2

    September 22, 2014 at 12:29 pm

  8. I think it’s a fascinating idea. One wonders, though, if the high estate taxes would then be used to fund liberal causes in the short run, for no real gain to conservatives.

    pmjones

    September 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    • Well social security and welfare are liberal causes, but taxpayers are paying for them. High estate taxes could help fund those.

      not too late

      September 24, 2014 at 12:53 am

  9. Churches had a good, several centuries long run.

    No conservative has founded anything better than a church. Certainly, Ford, Pew, Rockafeller, Carnegie would want their money back.

    Rotten

    September 22, 2014 at 12:51 pm

  10. Oh, the irony. Make yourself the richest person in the world on oil, then your heirs “divest.”

    Some_Guy

    September 22, 2014 at 1:07 pm

  11. In olden times they called it “Decadence”.

    Spending money on liberal causes is another form of “peacocking”. Playing the more liberal-than-thou game.

    jjbees

    September 22, 2014 at 1:18 pm

  12. Insightful. Now the question is why are uber rich heirs liberal? Why is it high status to be liberal?

    AsianDude

    September 22, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    • For the same reason it’s low status to be a criminal. Liberalism is perceived as being more moral than conservatism because it’s seen as anti-violence (against guns & war) & seen as supportive of the underdogs (gays, minorities, women, the poor etc). In a way being a rich republican is analogous to being a criminal because you don’t want to pay your fair share of taxes which is arguably a form of theft.

      I think there’s some truth to this & it probably explains why liberals seem to be more intelligent than conservatives (at least when you control for income & ethnicity) for perhaps the same 4 reasons why criminals are less intelligent than non-criminals (even when raised in the same home).

      And I’m not a liberal btw; I actually LOVE capitalism & inequality because it makes life more interesting & is a metaphor for the Darwinian survival of the fittest we no longer literally have. But at the same I support a generous safety net because not everyone is smart, healthy, energetic, lucky & good looking enough to compete, & I don’t want the disadvantaged to suffer, because to me it’s just a game to see who would have won if natural selection were still on (in the traditional sense).

      pumpkinperson

      September 22, 2014 at 4:36 pm

      • > liberals seem to be more intelligent than conservatives

        The Democratic party is an aliance between the most intelligent and the least intelligent strata of the American population. And Barack Obama is a perfect metaphor/symbol of this.

        Ian

        September 25, 2014 at 3:25 am

      • > The Democratic party is an aliance between the most intelligent and the least intelligent strata of the American population.

        And that includes a sizeable dumb SWPL demographic.

        Are you saying the Wall St Master of Universes, who vote Republican are less intelligent?

        JS

        September 25, 2014 at 11:43 am

      • A lot more of those Wall Street guys voted democratic than you realize (I suspect they are only Republican by a slim minority). And their wives and children are democratic.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 25, 2014 at 7:40 pm

      • Mitt Romney, a Harvard grad, received winning votes from these states that are ranked the dumbest in America.

        Here’s the list:

        Oklahoma
        Indiana
        Alabama
        Louisiana
        Kentucky
        Mississippi
        Arkansas
        West Virginia

        JS

        September 25, 2014 at 11:56 am

      • “these states that are ranked the dumbest in America.

        Here’s the list:

        Oklahoma
        Indiana”

        What! No Staten Island? I hear it’s so dumb that they’/re thinking of making it the 51st state. I wrote to someone who used to go to my church and now lives in Staten Island (true story). She emailed back that she didn’t remember who I was and then laughed “living in Staten Island is making me stupid!” I immediately thought of you and imagined you’d ask me “oooooh, can I reply to this?” Then after giving it a little though I realized that your more likely reply to me if said “go ahead, I know what you’ll want to write” would be “naah,…..too easy.”

        Maryk

        September 25, 2014 at 9:35 pm

      • The toxic chemicals from the garbage dump?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 25, 2014 at 10:59 pm

      • Every single precinct of the UES went for Obama-san.

        First Ypres

        September 25, 2014 at 11:17 pm

      • El Momento de Verdad (again):

        First Ypres

        September 25, 2014 at 11:20 pm

      • Here’s how American politics actually works:

        A play is put on for the hoi polloi every two years.

        But instead of Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant, it’s GOP vs Dems.

        After the play the wrestlers have drinks and laugh at their supporters or rather the play’s producers laugh at their actors and their fans.

        The actors may be so dumb they can’t tell the difference between their character (tatemae) and their “honne” anymore.

        Politics IS show business for ugly people, in America.

        And of course there’s an army of drama critics and announcers.

        First Ypres

        September 25, 2014 at 11:30 pm

      • Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

        Mr. Romney won a single Manhattan precinct outright, a stretch of Park Avenue near the Waldorf-Astoria, where six voters showed up and four chose the Republican.

        Hey and one of my great gradparents lived their with his Afghans. He was a wool merchant.

        Romney strongholds were on the city’s perimeter: Manhattan Beach, Brooklyn; Belle Harbor in the Rockaways; and Howard Beach, Queens. Mr. Romney narrowly missed a victory on Staten Island, traditionally the city’s most conservative borough, where Mr. Obama won with 50.2 percent of the vote…
        Staten Island may be a swing borough, but Middle Village, Queens, is a swing neighborhood and politically centrist. In 17 precincts in the mostly white, working-class neighborhood, Mr. Obama won by fewer than four percentage points.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/nyregion/in-manhattan-largely-blue-one-bright-spot-and-a-tie-for-romney.html?_r=0

        First Ypres

        September 26, 2014 at 12:05 am

      • > Mitt Romney, a Harvard grad, received winning votes from
        > these states that are ranked the dumbest in America.

        Lower class white yokels/rednecks have a higher average intelligence (and self-control) than lower class diversities.

        Ian

        September 26, 2014 at 2:50 am

      • @Ian/Renault

        The % of blacks from the 3 states (Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas) on that list with Romney winning votes are higher than New York and Illinois.

        JS

        September 26, 2014 at 9:19 am

      • Also Romney won the votes in the black districts of those “yokel” states.

        JS

        September 26, 2014 at 9:25 am

      • I’m not sure if Obama would be a smart guy. He f*cked up more royally than Bush did. The killing of Gaddafi, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and a failed mission to rescue Jim Foley from ISIS, makes Obama look like a big time chump.

        JS

        September 26, 2014 at 9:29 am

      • White Evangelicals are probably dumber than black protestants. Evangelicals are mostly concentrated in the South. There are more blacks protestants who believe that humans have evolved over time when compared to Evangelicals.

        http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

        JS

        September 26, 2014 at 10:46 am

    • Self-awareness. People born rich with self-awareness will feel compelled to be (at least superficially) self-abnegating and “humble.” If rich kids try to play the “earned it” card, anyone in the world can see through it. The only alternative would be to turn inherited wealth into a metaphysical virtue, i.e. a system of aristocracy, which doesn’t really exist anymore. People trying to turn inherited wealth into a virtue these days do it in a way that lacks self-awareness and comes off as foolish and distasteful, like the Kochs or Mitt Romney.

      chairman

      September 22, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    • Because being a hand-wringing, do-gooding, bed wetting liberal is something that only the wealthy can afford. It’s an aspirational consumer good, not considered as tacky and gauche as wearing furs or lighting your cigar with $100 bills. But it’s peacocking nonetheless, basically saying to the world, “look at me, I have so much money I can afford to do stuff that would be considered stupid if someone of lesser means did it.”

      Sgt. Joe Friday

      September 22, 2014 at 6:09 pm

  13. Sometimes the captains of industry are themselves liberal. Take Bill Gates, whose foundation works tirelessly to augment the population explosion in Sub-Saharan Africa. Andrew Carnegie built countless free libraries for the disadvantaged. Henry Ford and other, like-minded industrialists ran paternalistic organizations that paid decent wages. Ford was even something of a pacifist.

    Mark Caplan

    September 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    • Here’s how that works:

      1. One can have a modicum of success with hard-work and talent.
      2. However talented and hard-working one is he will never be a world-beater unless he loves what it took to get there.

      If you love what you do you’ll never work a day in your life.

      So the very rich will almost invariably have pursued the path of least resistance. That is, they are self-actualizers. The upper middle class strivers aren’t. and are looked down upon as slaves by their betters in the status game, because their betters aren’t even playing the game very often.

      The very rich therefore know that they’ve been lucky. The typical GOP voter just knows he’s a buttboy to status and resents everyone who isn’t a buttboy.

      Success is really doing what you love and doing it well. It’s as simple as that. Really getting to do what you love to do everyday – that’s really the ultimate luxury…your standard of living is not equal to your cost of living. — Buffett

      It’s surprising in that light that so many Asian grinds are Dems. But not really. Even that hero of conservatards Lee Kuan Yew is a communitarian. It’s cultural.

      Eastern societies believe that the individual exists in the context of his family. He is not pristine and separate. The family is part of the extended family, and then friends and the wider society. The ruler or the government does not try to provide for a person what the family best provides.

      Paradoxically for some, Singaporean style capitalism can work in Singapore precisely because its people are LESS individualistic.

      First Ypres

      September 26, 2014 at 11:49 pm

      • Correct, the upper middle class are your consummate corporate cogs in terms of work and consumption habits.

        JS

        September 27, 2014 at 10:35 am

  14. One thing is sure. Whatever they do won’t hurt their long-term financial stability. They have enough safeguards to ensure they will remain toos for a million generations.

    toos is god

    September 22, 2014 at 2:17 pm

  15. The Ptolemies of Egypt kept themselves pure by incest. Unfortunately Cleopatra thought infusing some Roman genes was cool. Her idea cost the dynasty.

    toos is god

    September 22, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    • Egypt was a Roman puppet state long before Cleopatra.

      Lot

      September 22, 2014 at 4:02 pm

      • The Ptolemies were descended from the army of Alex the Great, which makes them Macedonian.

        JS

        September 22, 2014 at 10:40 pm

  16. It’s an interesting evolutionary quirk that the smartest and strongest become rich, yet their children, who are born rich, become effete and biologically unfit after a few generations..

    Howitzer_Joe

    September 22, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    • What is true for families s also true for nations. The wealth created by previous generations of Americans is slowly being dissipated by the current generation through pointless foreign wars and a massive welfare state. We are no longer the productive hardworking people we once were. Most people don’t even have an intellectual understanding of how we became the wealthiest nation on earth and vote for politicians who, once elected, speed up the process of wealth destruction.

      Mark

      September 22, 2014 at 3:59 pm

      • Great comment. I like to use a credit card analogy. Prior generations were hardworking, responsible, and thrifty, and with those virtues they earned a massive line of credit, apparently to the tune of several trillion dollars, and the generation after them saw this line of credit and said, “Holy fuck! Let’s max that shit out and party like there’s no tomorrow!” Basically, the former USA is just coasting on the accomplishments of prior generations with no realistic plan for the future.

        browndar

        September 22, 2014 at 7:25 pm

    • [their children]… become effete and biologically unfit after a few generations…

      Do you mean they turn into fag-like creatures? That seems to be Liberalism, doesn’t it? To be liberal is to transform into a fag-like creature.

      thordaddy

      September 22, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    • Not true. There are quite a few toos family which will be laughing at such prole idea, although the hoi polloi won’t even be aware of their existence.

      For example, the famous Forbeses of Boston, whose most famous member decided to exclude themselves from the Rich List for ever.

      The Biddle Family is very wealthy and very toos. They had a policy of always marrying for money. Also the Lowells. And others you will see at the right yacht clubs and probably not anywhere else.

      toos is god

      September 22, 2014 at 4:44 pm

      • For example, the famous Forbeses of Boston, whose most famous member decided to exclude themselves from the Rich List for ever.

        Probably couldn’t keep up. In the 1980s it took only $100 million to make the Forbes 400. Now even $1 billion is not enough. TOOs are far too stupid to compete financially with all the computer nerds who have kicked them off the Forbes 400. In fact start calling them OOS because they’re no longer on top.

        pumpkinperson

        September 22, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    • That’s because in the days of traditional natural selection (survival of the fittest), the rich were those who could acquire the most food (not money) but since food goes bad so easily, their kids could only inherit so much & had to be smart & strong in their own right to keep eating. If they regressed to the mean, they died, so the gene pool kept improving.

      pumpkinperson

      September 22, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    • The smartest and strongest are not those who become rich.

      What amusing delusions.

      Allzen

      September 22, 2014 at 10:26 pm

      • Oh sure it’s just people who are really really lucky, right? I can tell you have great insight into how things work.

        Homer_Jordan

        September 23, 2014 at 8:53 am

      • Is pumpkinperson seriously advocating Social Darwinism? The greatest example of that “naturalistic fallacy” ever conceived? Actually most HBDers commit this fallacy all the time.

        Kant

        September 23, 2014 at 9:10 am

      • Kant, what I am saying is that the same traits that were favored during “survival of the fittest” (i.e. intelligence, hard work, personality, good looks, luck, greed, athletic talent, value transference etc) are now being favored by capitalism, so I like capitalism because it’s a fun simulation for “survival of the fittest’ with a safety net for those who fall through the cracks. Of course it needs to be managed by government to try to keep it ethical & collectively beneficial to the greater good, so the metaphor only goes so far. And of course our prehistoric ancestors didn’t have money but they compete for wealth in the form of resources (food, territory, stone tools, etc)

        And as I’ve stated, the reason I hate Ivy League schools & the SAT is they try to socially engineer a positive correlation between IQ & wealth/status, rather than just letting it happen naturally as it did prehistorically, as evidenced by the fact that our ancestral brains tripled in size via 4 million years of survival of the fittest.

        pumpkinperson

        September 23, 2014 at 2:05 pm

      • “it’s a fun simulation for “survival of the fittest’ with a safety net for those who fall through the cracks.”

        Except “survival of the fittest” applies to species, not individuals. If we look at the animal kingdom, competition between individuals is non-existent, cooperation is the norm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution). Competition between individuals, to a certain extent, is a good thing. Current American society has long hit the inflection point and is increasingly becoming a worse society because of excessive competition.

        Kant

        September 23, 2014 at 4:55 pm

      • Except “survival of the fittest” applies to species, not individuals. If we look at the animal kingdom, competition between individuals is non-existent

        I respect your opinion, but I just couldn’t disagree more.

        pumpkinperson

        September 23, 2014 at 7:05 pm

  17. Hi Lion, if I were a Rockefeller I’d spend my time and resources getting an answer to the question why the price of gasoline quadrupled in 20 years, and then publishing the findings so that people could understand one of the main determinants of the quality of their daily lives. I remember that gas could be found for $1.03
    In Northern California in January 1993. I’ve yet to see a comprehensive discussion of the matter, and I read The Prize.

    jeez

    September 22, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    • There is a finite amount of recoverable oil. Read about Peak Oil. Books have been written about it.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 22, 2014 at 3:45 pm

      • Recoverable at current prices that is. Higher prices and more is “recoverable”. SASOL can make oil for hundreds of years with coal.

        First Ypres

        September 22, 2014 at 7:50 pm

      • It’s really not finite in a human time span, just a matter of how much you want to spend to get it out of the ground. And that assumes we never find any abiogenic oil. We’ll reach peak oil when oil is replaced by something cheaper, but we’re not going to run out of it.

        J1

        September 22, 2014 at 8:46 pm

    • Read FOFOA. Gold and oil must track each other in price or else global trade shuts down (at least until a new non-dollar reserve world financial paradigm emerges). After the Euro was introduced the price of gold was allowed to rise, and oil went with it.

      Andrew E.

      September 22, 2014 at 6:48 pm

      • Gold is used mostly for jewelry and ti sit in vaults. Beanie Babies is a more rational “investment”.

        First Ypres

        September 22, 2014 at 7:51 pm

  18. OT: Jim Goad’s latest piece at Taki’s should be right up Lion’s alley…

    http://takimag.com/article/workers_of_the_world_goodbye_jim_goad#axzz3DVk27fPF

    Renault

    September 22, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    • From that article:

      Some argue that these developments are ultimately good for workers, that it will free up more time for them to get a better education and adapt to our new “knowledge economy.” This presumes that much of the populace is educable, that those whose menial skills aren’t needed anymore will suddenly and magically muster the cognitive skills necessary to cut it in a more brain-intensive vocation.

      It will be awhile that Americans get off their prole rockers and stop bitchin about lack of boring routine jobs. Besides the prole illness, we have the NAM disease which is more serious and incurable. It seems much of America needs to become a Detroit before any human evolution will take place.

      JS

      September 22, 2014 at 6:45 pm

      • I also assumes the workers are stupid enough to tolerate formal education.

        First Ypres

        September 22, 2014 at 7:53 pm

  19. The rich have fewer kids now, so the fortunes aren’t split multiple ways like they used to be when they had six or eight kids. So the wealth stays focused. And the roaring stock market, by and for the TOOS, has massively increased their wealth as well. And also, they tend to marry each other, so fortunes re-combine rather than dissipate.

    Dan above nails the “why” question: “The thing with this trust fund babies is, since money is completely taken care of, all that is left is social status preening.”

    Indeed. This is even more so since they gravitate to places like NY, San Fran, etc. where the urban scene is so utterly one-sided politically. Put more simply, this is why the Right will never, ever win — because it’s not “cool” and the arbiters of “cool” are entirely on the Progressive side, so the “cool” side has all the wealth, power and influence behind it. This is a 100% victory. There is no cultural institution remaining of any consequence in the hands of the Right, including the churches. The Left’s victory was total, like the Romans in Carthage. The only thing that can change the landscape is a crisis/calamity of massive proportions, WWII-like in scope.

    peterike2

    September 22, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    • Peterike, you are a prolific and bracing commenter! Can I find a couple of rays of sunshine?

      “The rich have fewer kids now, so the fortunes aren’t split multiple ways like they used to be when they had six or eight kids.”

      I don’t completely agree. I clicked through hundreds of names on the Forbes billionaires list once, and calculated the average number of children, since the number of children is usually listed. I found an average of something like 3 children per billionaire, with numbers as high as 6 kids being not uncommon. Take a look for yourself.

      The cohorts of these people in their home countries averaged probably 1.5 kids, meaning that you had substantially higher fertility for these men (and they are almost all men).

      Admittedly, some of those are probably adopted, but still. Also, this is a look at rich men, not rich women. A billionaire man can go through three wives with two kids each but highly placed women will not do the equivalent. That said, it seems (and maybe I am being too optimistic) that hypergamy makes the stats look overly dysgenic, since the stats focus mainly on women.

      “the Progressive side, so the “cool” side has all the wealth, power and influence behind it. This is a 100% victory.”

      The enemy of the left is not conservatives at all, it is reality. Reality smashed Communism in the face over and over again like a vicious monster, leaving only a bloody corpse in the gutter. It didn’t matter that all of the academics in America itself were completely sold.

      Crime in America is another example. The left won the conversation utterly in the 1970s and then reality just smashed the left with skull-cracking meanness over and over again, as city after city lost civilization, as city after city took its turn as murder capital of the world. The rightwing police state was then erected across American cities by Democrat mayors.

      Dan

      September 22, 2014 at 4:34 pm

      • No American city has ever been murder capital of the world.

        White Americans are also more criminal than those in Western Europe.

        First Ypres

        September 22, 2014 at 7:58 pm

      • We have a “default elite” that sells self-annihilation as “freedom” with only those on the fringes being practitioners as well.

        Mitt Romney is an example of a radical autonomist within our “default elite” that preaches self-annihilation but isn’t an actual practitioner. He is also, aesthetically-speaking, the closest national figure to “white Supremacist” that has come down the pipeline in awhile. And yet, he is ACTUALLY a radical liberationist via the corporate and Mormon mechanism.

        thordaddy

        September 22, 2014 at 8:06 pm

      • Dan, outstanding comment. Jorge, I thought you were banned. You are terribly obnoxious.

        Homer_Jordan

        September 23, 2014 at 8:55 am

      • “I clicked through hundreds of names on the Forbes billionaires list once, and calculated the average number of children, since the number of children is usually listed. I found an average of something like 3 children per billionaire, with numbers as high as 6 kids being not uncommon. Take a look for yourself.”

        Very true. I wrote about doing something similar a couple of months ago.

        https://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/the-return-of-the-iron-law-of-wages/#comment-48326

        A while back, I compiled and analyzed some data from the forbe’s list of billionaires — North American with a net worth over $3B. There were several interesting trends. For 171 men. the average was 3.42 children and for 22 women the average was 2.5 children. Both are higher than the national average. A surprising number of billionaires had from 6 to 10 children.

        In case anyone is wondering why billionaire men and women have different fertility it’s because I separated them based on who actually had the money. When men make the bucks they usually have lots of kids. But nearly all the women inherited it. Still, I noticed there were a few women with higher fertility. When I looked closer I noticed that they either came from large families and/or their siblings tended to have larger families.

        So what can we deduce from all this? First, that confident, successful men tend have more children. And that for women pregnancy is contagious!

        destructure

        September 23, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    • “There is no cultural institution remaining of any consequence in the hands of the Right”

      Strictly speaking, there is– Islam in its various modern gradations of fundamentalism– which is far more conservative than any so-called intolerant western conservative. Even though liberals oddly seem to always side with the Islamists, eventually the two forces will have to come to loggerheads in the west as muslims gain ground demographically & politically. Perhaps that will be the crisis you describe, though it’s not likely to occur in our lifetimes.

      slithy toves

      September 22, 2014 at 4:43 pm

      • A self-annihilating act of mass murder in order to obtain 72 virgins for eternal exploitation? That’s conservative? That reads like radical sexual autonomy to me. And what do you know… Radical sexual autonomy of the homosexual variant is exactly the West’s “highest value.” So we have two deeply embedded collectives driven by an insatiable desire for radical sexual autonomy and no one seems to understand why they are rarely at each other’s throats.

        thordaddy

        September 23, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    • And such calamity will NEVER happen. Since toos owns virtually everyting.

      Even Napoleon could not end the famous families of Vienna such as Schwarzenbergs, who survived both world wars and are still going strong now. (The Habsburg, more accurately Habsburg-Lotharingen, is a relative upstart since the current family only dates from around 1740. They had to marry the heir to the lowly merchant August Thyssen’s granddaughter, making all future Habsburgs morganatic and ineligible from succession forever).

      toos is god

      September 22, 2014 at 4:50 pm

      • Eternal peace or near it in the developed world and in most of the developing world has resulted from the globalization of trade and finance.

        And this has resulted ultimately from the container ship and the computer.

        Argue over ideas until the cows come home, but the base determines the superstructure.

        It’s funny how this quintessential idea of Marx is so obvious and yet above the heads of all but the toos.

        First Ypres

        September 22, 2014 at 8:03 pm

      • And, of course, from the bomb. Again base determines superstructure.

        First Ypres

        September 22, 2014 at 8:04 pm

      • “Eternal peace or near it in the developed world and in most of the developing world has resulted from the globalization of trade and finance. ”

        First Ypres, most of the reduction in purposeful killing has come from discarding Marxist governments, which killed 17 holocausts worth of people (100 million) in the 20th century.

        Dan

        September 23, 2014 at 12:09 pm

      • That “quintessential idea of Marx” is above the heads of mine – can you elaborate a bit?

        toos is god

        September 23, 2014 at 2:40 pm

      • “Eternal peace or near it in the developed world and in most of the developing world has resulted from the globalization of trade and finance.
        And this has resulted ultimately from the container ship and the computer.”

        You see the container ship as representing the globalization of trade” while omitting a key element of that globalization — free trade. Something marxists oppose. Friedman was making the argument that free trade promotes peace decades ago. He has a famous video about it called “I, Pencil.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67tHtpac5ws)

        But we haven’t achieved “eternal peace” and never will. In fact, leftists are desperately trying to ensure plagues, slavery, war, economic collapse and a return to the dark ages with everything they do. Of course, they don’t realize it. They think they’re enlightened.

        destructure

        September 24, 2014 at 12:25 am

      • Franz I was the heir of the House of Lorraine, which is about as old as the House of Habsburg itself. Also, House Laws are subject to modification or granting of exceptions by whoever is head of the dynasty at any given time. Otto von Habsburg approved of his son’s marriage to the Thyssen-Bornemisza heiress, so the descendants are not considered morganatic.

        nebbish

        September 25, 2014 at 7:34 pm

      • Right now the Habsburgs are nowhere near the throne, but if times change and they are once again in contention for the throne the descendants of Franz Ferdinand will challenge it, since Sophia Chotek was more ‘noble’ than August Thyssen ever was (his barony was bought).

        toos is god

        September 29, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    • NY is far from a rich haven. Pockets of it cater to the wealthy, but NYC is mostly undesirable. San Francisco and the surrounding areas is SWPL land with the exception of Oakland, which is the only NAM hole left. Further, much of the housing stock in Manhattan is subpar, almost unlivable and inhumane. Solution, let’s have the global elites take over de Blasio and his gang as we’ve mentioned before. It’ll be quite refreshing!

      JS

      September 22, 2014 at 6:32 pm

    • Put more simply, this is why the Right will never, ever win — because it’s not “cool” and the arbiters of “cool” are entirely on the Progressive side, so the “cool” side has all the wealth, power and influence behind it.

      Years ago the Marginal Revolution blog had a post about how it’s a struggle for free marketers to win because there’s nothing romantic about it, while The Left can spin tales of heroic struggle against The Man.

      aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)

      September 22, 2014 at 7:10 pm

    • It’s pretty clear that the Republican Party is the party of the kids who weren’t cool in high school.

      First Ypres

      September 22, 2014 at 7:55 pm

      • Actually, jocks are more likely to be Republican.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 23, 2014 at 6:27 am

      • Libertarians were definitely not the cool kids in high school.

        Kant

        September 23, 2014 at 9:11 am

  20. Here’s the issue. The upper class have long turned over the instruction of their children to top private schools, and whether by plan, or not, the teachers at those schools are almost entirely social-justice-warriors or Leftists. They indoctrinate those kids, thus each new generation of young elite grows up some form of Leftist unless they are really internally oriented towards Rightism.

    Of course, in their private lives, they all inherit the positions of wealth and influence that are eventually vacated by their parents.

    And then they turn their attacks on the middle-class to help the lower-class. They never have and never will attack their own class — not in any significant way.

    CamelCaseRob

    September 22, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    • Underclass Whites will go extinct, underclass NAMs (especially blacks) will not. The second demographic is the problem.

      JS

      September 22, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    • Have you looked up the demographics of those elite schools. About as white as the Republican national convention. There are no bigger hypocrites around today that ultra-liberal elites.

      superdestroyer

      September 23, 2014 at 12:26 pm

      • Ultra-liberal elites hate the right sector and they vehemently hate proles. It’s a form of self-hate, but justified given their difference in ideologies.

        JS

        September 23, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    • “Libertarians were definitely not the cool kids in high school.’

      …says a guy named after Kant. Sorry, you’re just making that up.

      The Libertarians deliberately spread through all classes and groups proportionately, though they bias for the high-IQ. They’re about 8 million worldwide, most in Asia.

      rob

      September 24, 2014 at 7:49 am

      • Libertarians were definitely nerds in high school.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 24, 2014 at 9:59 am

      • Here’s a picture of prominent anarcho-capitalist, Bryan Caplan….

        QED

        One could refute libertarianism is full just by the guy’s picture.

        Kant

        September 24, 2014 at 12:46 pm

      • It’s some lack of ability to understand that humans aren’t robots and simple theories of society and human nature are ipso facto wrong. Libertarians never have a sense of humor. If any of them are smart, they’re smart in a boring drone sort of way.

        But it’s also the professed worldview of those who make their living in ways criminal or formerly criminal like speculators, pornographers, pot dealers, or pay day loan people for example.

        It’s pretty clear from the content and length of libertarians’ comments here that they’re “on the spectrum”.

        And as should be obvious “libertarian” doesn’t really mean anything. Do they want to have heroin available at the supermarket? Are they in favor of open borders? If no, then they’re not libertarians, they’re just nerds.

        First Ypres

        September 25, 2014 at 7:51 pm

  21. Its a pity these fools can’t all be eaten by cannibals. Where is the dreaded diversity when you need them?

    They’re divesting from Oil? So they’re going to eschew the billions of shares of Oil Companies like Exxon/Mobil? Sure, they will. Right after they give all their billions to charity!

    Joshua Sinistar

    September 22, 2014 at 5:51 pm

  22. In addition to wealth taxes the GOP should push a la carte pricing of pay-tv to weaken the MSM, caps on tuition (and/or cutting BA degrees to 3 years) to weaken academia, and ban large firms from engaging in M&A activity (big businesses are either liberal, or cave to liberals like the NFL).

    If I were wealthy enough to afford a foundation I’d just give money to thought criminals like Jason Richwine and the Mozilla guy so people develop the balls to speak out against The Narrative.

    aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)

    September 22, 2014 at 7:13 pm

    • The Mozilla guy was not a thought criminal. He just believed marriage is between a man and a woman in 2008, like the vast majority of Americans who subscribed to reality in that ancient era. He groveled as hard as he could but unsurprisingly it was not enough.

      Since he was was going to be sentenced without a trial anyway he should have said:
      “Gays through that gross thing that they do killed hundreds of thousands of people by spreading AIDS so I think they are jerks, plus the thing that they do just gives me the willies because it makes me think of poop.”

      The result for him would have been just the same, but at least he could have given his sentencers the finger on the way out, and made them think twice about taking out the next guy.

      David

      September 22, 2014 at 8:16 pm

  23. […] at the Lion of Blogosphere, commentator “First Ypres” (as he now prefers to be known) […]

  24. In principle, I don’t like the idea of sticking it to the rich. But I’ve previously agreed that if the rich are going to support leftist causes and push wealth redistribution then we might as well give them what they want until they squeal and change their tune. HOWEVER… I see a problem with trying to out Democrat the Democrats whether it be welfare or taxing estates. Would we attract any of those billionaires? Or would we merely drive off the ones we have? The truth is that BOTH parties are the billionaire party. Neither party could survive without billionaire sponsors. So it’s pointless to even worry about trying to get the GOP to do something about billionaires. Neither party is going to do what we want. They’re both going to do what their billionaire sponsors want. Finally, I’m not even sure most children of billionaires are liberals. I think a higher percentage of billionaires are liberal than the general population. But it’s probably a 50/50 split. The general population is twice as conservative as liberal.

    destructure

    September 23, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    • If liberal is defined as one who believes in the “right” to “f$&k, screw, love” whomever one pleases then there are almost no true conservatives to speak of in the West. Even the most ardent “alt-riters” are limp on abortion, homosexuality and miscegenation. There is not a single nationally known billionaire who is anything but at least as equally limp on those issues of love and death and sex and life as your typical “alt-riter.”

      thordaddy

      September 23, 2014 at 3:50 pm

      • The Republiclowns belong on the Alt-Right altar known as the Prolesium. Spectacles that involves a prole audience.

        But Liberals are more dangerous because they have a real intent to disrupt society.

        JS

        September 23, 2014 at 4:06 pm

      • Anyone who votes Republican and is under the age of 40 is a loser. It’s better than not to vote at all than choose some clown under the guise of “conservatism”. Conservative is as genuine as the word celibacy.

        JS

        September 23, 2014 at 4:11 pm

      • Conservative is not a dirty word. Conservatives just don’t exist in any prominent national sense. No billionaire would publicly assert that one did not have the right to love whomever he pleases. Ergo, ALL billionaires are liberal.

        thordaddy

        September 23, 2014 at 5:59 pm

  25. Lion – you will like this:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-23/gm-makes-cadillac-a-separate-business-unit-plans-new-york-base.html

    Essentially Cadillac is moving only its sales and marketing people to NYC from Detroit while keeping their prole engineers back in Michigan.

    Penthouse cities for their value transferring employees, rat-infested basements for their value creating employees.

    You are bang on when talking about STEM being a chump’s major for the most part.

    Forget bifurcation within society, there is accelerating geographic bifurcation within companies.

    This only leads to resentment and destruction.

    Short GM.

    uatu

    September 23, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    • The scenario is this: Cadillac will hire a large contingent of alpha salesman jerks and attractive marketing women who will parasitize the company resources and live the good life in NYC while the beta engineer – value creating chumps in flyover prole country will be fed chicken scraps.

      The real scenario is this: East Asians and Indians will be the large contingent of engineers who will do the heavy lifting and the SWPL demographic in NYC will reap the most benefits via value transference.

      Why do you guys think there have been an explosive growth of East and South Asians at our universities studying STEM?

      I think the SWPLs might have found a new love for them. More reasons for them to hate their prole brethren who very litlle use for their liberal masters. And if you think carefully, SWPLs have capitalize/parasitize fully everything in regards to NAMs, Proles, and Asians, who sort of have been their obedient slaves, who deliver their packages, make their pizza and their exquisite sushi, not to mention, Asians have done more for SWPLs than any other demographic while they live like kings.

      JS

      September 24, 2014 at 10:27 am

      • Very true JS. Great comment.

        This has happened a lot at bulge bracket banks as well – operations moved to places like Salt Lake City, Jacksonville, Hoboken, etc. while front office value transferers stay in choice towers in manhattan.

        uatu

        September 24, 2014 at 11:23 pm

      • I’m looking forward to that day where festering resentment turns into violence. I could see it happening within the next 10 years if America’s economy continues to be in the doldrums, where only the ones who engage in BS work in the name of prestige gets to eat all the cake.

        JS

        September 25, 2014 at 9:51 am

      • Very good points JS. One of the many reasons we need more legal immigration. NAM’s are worthless in today’s America.

        wt

        September 25, 2014 at 1:00 pm

  26. How do you know this isn’t simply shrewd investing? The non-state owned fossil fuel companies are mostly in a very dicey position. Their costs are skyrocketing and prices can’t support those costs.

    joe

    September 23, 2014 at 8:52 pm

  27. “Eternal peace or near it in the developed world and in most of the developing world has resulted from the globalization of trade and finance.
    And this has resulted ultimately from the container ship and the computer.”

    You see the container ship as representing the globalization of trade” while omitting a key element of that globalization — free trade. Something marxists oppose. Friedman was making the argument that free trade promotes peace decades ago. He has a famous video about it called “I, Pencil.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67tHtpac5ws)

    But we haven’t achieved “eternal peace” and never will. In fact, leftists are desperately trying to ensure plagues, slavery, war, economic collapse and a return to the dark ages with everything they do. Of course, they don’t realize it. They think they’re enlightened.

    destructure

    September 24, 2014 at 12:18 am

  28. A big elephant in the room that has only been touched on briefly is socialism. Is socialism cool? Does it have growing social capital? You talk to people on the far-left (say, Naomi Klein) and they’re convinced they’re losing big time because we still have an overwhelmingly private sector economy and no one, certainly not the rich, is seriously contesting that.

    Peter

    September 24, 2014 at 6:44 am

    • Well what is socialism?

      1) A command economy such as Stalin had and Castro has?

      2) State socialism?

      or

      3) the pie-in-the-sky, never realized and no way to get there from here “worker committees run everything” system?

      Naomi Klein probably believes it is the latter.

      CamelCaseRob

      September 25, 2014 at 5:06 pm

  29. Naah. If there was ever a conservative cause, it would be to invest in low-impact energy alternatives. It’s also good business to have a broad portfolio. The Rockefellers have been looking into it for decades.

    rob

    September 24, 2014 at 7:53 am

  30. “This is why conservatives, if they had any common sense, would support high estate taxes and would also eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions.”

    Why is all that necessary? Just don’t leave your money to your kids, rich conservatives. Donate it to a conservative charity of your choice.

    Truth

    September 25, 2014 at 11:58 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: