Conquer Club

So, after researching riots in London for another, obviously thesis ready, post; it occurred to me that a similar problem appears throughout history, with a possible exception of the modern era (although F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote about the same concept so by modern I mean probably post-WWII). There is a certain amount of wealthy ruling class (the old money) that disparages the new money. A few generations later the new money becomes old money and disparages the new money. As the wealth of the country grows, the size of the wealthy ruling class grows. This is how the trickle down actually works. It doesn't make things better for the working class, it just creates a larger elite class. What do you think about this?

DoomYoshi wrote:So, after researching riots in London for another, obviously thesis ready, post; it occurred to me that a similar problem appears throughout history, with a possible exception of the modern era (although F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote about the same concept so by modern I mean probably post-WWII). There is a certain amount of wealthy ruling class (the old money) that disparages the new money. A few generations later the new money becomes old money and disparages the new money. As the wealth of the country grows, the size of the wealthy ruling class grows. This is how the trickle down actually works. It doesn't make things better for the working class, it just creates a larger elite class. What do you think about this?

There's more than one type of 'old money' though - you have the inherited aristocracy and what used to be called the nouveau riche, who will always be despised by the hereditary peerage, even when they become 'old'.
You will also find that the new money often disparages the old money. You will also find that some money is disparaged regardless of how old it is - it's more about the person who has the money. As they say - money can't buy class, and some (mentioning no stringfellows in particular, not would I add sugar to trump it) will never be highly regarded.
That said - the larger the elite grows, the more likely you are to have those inside it with an altruistic nature, so it may well benefit the working classes to a limited extent.

I'm not sure I understand your post- why is the modern era excepted? Are you talking about pre-WW2 periods? If so, what do you think caused the change?

In the modern era old money is disparaged and new money is celebrated. The Prince of Wales has a lot less fans than Khloe Kardashian. Sports players and musicians are also celebrated as if working for your money is a good thing (as opposed to every other century when working for your money was considered base).

Wipe your chin before you go out in public, it shouldn't be a problem.

-TG

After your piss, shake harder and longer.

As a general rule of thumb it's best not to base your understanding of global economic development on things like Harry Potter.

Money for nothing and your chicks for free!

---------I have 10 billion in Confederate States of America paper money. Circa 1864...Does that count as "OLD MONEY"??? The C.S.A. does not have an IRS...So I have no tax returns to release... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

DoomYoshi wrote:So, after researching riots in London for another, obviously thesis ready, post; it occurred to me that a similar problem appears throughout history, ... There is a certain amount of wealthy ruling class (the old money) that disparages the new money. A few generations later the new money becomes old money and disparages the new money.

There is a good argument for the notion of "old money" and "new money" and how the later hates the former. This is more of a generational thing. Old money generally has more political power than new money but not always. Remember "old/new" is more than just how long you have had the money; it represents how you acquired the fortune. One of the biggest sources of "old money" is the progressive bureaucracy that concentrates around Washington DC.

Very little of this trickles down. Sorry about that. It's the moderately rich whose money trickles down. They tend to be very wealthy individuals and not the family fortunes.

DoomYoshi wrote:So, after researching riots in London for another, obviously thesis ready, post; it occurred to me that a similar problem appears throughout history, with a possible exception of the modern era (although F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote about the same concept so by modern I mean probably post-WWII). There is a certain amount of wealthy ruling class (the old money) that disparages the new money. A few generations later the new money becomes old money and disparages the new money. As the wealth of the country grows, the size of the wealthy ruling class grows. This is how the trickle down actually works. It doesn't make things better for the working class, it just creates a larger elite class. What do you think about this?

Makes a lot of sense.

Somewhat related: Modern era trickle down is broken. Right now the economically efficient thing to do with your wealth is to invest in non-human capital, as human-capital, relatively, is far more expensive.

The beneficiaries of investment in non-human capital is other wealthy people. Trickle side-ways if you will.

The flip-side, though, is that quality of life improvements tend to cost less and are therefore more accessible.

So you're poorer, and you're more likely to remain so, but at least being poor isn't the burden it used to be...

Lootifer wrote:Somewhat related: Modern era trickle down is broken. Right now the economically efficient thing to do with your wealth is to invest in non-human capital, as human-capital, relatively, is far more expensive.

That's not exactly trickle down. It does actually happen, but the downspouts are strange these days.

Trickle down in general theory. For the sake of argument, let's suppose there exists this Rich Dude from NYC. He's got a nice apartment in Manhattan and a wonderful vacation spot in the Hampton's. Every summer weekend he takes the helicopter, right over the houses of the people on the north fork (thanks Senator Schumer for getting the FAA to allow that crap) right to the Hampton's and then to his summer home.

Now, of course, you are going to need someone to pilot that helicopter, someone to maintain that helicopter, (fortunately, there are a lot of rich people who have homes in the Hampton's so it's not like he makes his living off of one rich guy), someone to provide the gas for the helicopter, and so forth.

The vacation home needs someone to maintain the wonderful rich lawn, the wonderful rich house, especially when someone is there. It needs to be provided with weekend food (a lot of it gets thrown out, actually).

That's a lot of people. All of these people, in turn eat at their local deli, get their hair cut at the local barber, etc.

The annoying part is that it is "trickle" down. It should really should "rain" down. Cheap bastards.

I get that, but right now the incentive is to minimise the people in the process. For example you have Uber putting a lot of their effort into driverless cars, something their shareholders expect them to do, because drivers cost money.

Using your example:
- I am sure google will, at some point, try driverless helicopters
- Again, one of the key incentives for complex consumer goods (cars/helicopters/etc.) is cut down on maintenance costs, especially service technician costs
- I imagine the number of people required to get one gallon of gas into the helicopter is a fraction of what it would have been 10 years ago
- etc. etc.

Trickle down is, as you point out, the premise that there are many beneficiaries of rich folk being rich. However there is a shift in the composition of these beneficiaries.

I just had a major flashback to the last conversation I had with a 19th century seamstress. Serious deja vu.

mrswdk wrote:I just had a major flashback to the last conversation I had with a 19th century seamstress. Serious deja vu.

I never realized you were THAT OLD!

Lootifer wrote:I get that, but right now the incentive is to minimise the people in the process. For example you have Uber putting a lot of their effort into driverless cars, something their shareholders expect them to do, because drivers cost money.

Using your example:
- I am sure google will, at some point, try driverless helicopters
- Again, one of the key incentives for complex consumer goods (cars/helicopters/etc.) is cut down on maintenance costs, especially service technician costs
- I imagine the number of people required to get one gallon of gas into the helicopter is a fraction of what it would have been 10 years ago
- etc. etc.

Trickle down is, as you point out, the premise that there are many beneficiaries of rich folk being rich. However there is a shift in the composition of these beneficiaries.

That's a good thing, driverless cars. There is so much wasted assets, take your car for example. You drive to work, it sits there doing nothing for 8 hours or so. Wouldn't it be nice if while you were at work your car went out and gave people rides (and gets a few bucks for the effort) and comes back in time when you get off work a few dollars richer?

Shit, we'll need half the cars we use now, maybe less! Now those people who would have been driving those taxis, or filling up those helicopters, you think they are just going to lay down and die because they lost their (now useless) job? No! They'll go out and find something else to do! Maybe they can let their cars make them money while they sit at home improving themselves, who the hell knows?

All through history we've had jobs that have gone extinct, did the human race collapse? Of course not.

Then, with all those resources we've saved (because we don't have to build as many cars, helicopters, etc) all those resources aren't just going to go to waste and rot, they'll be re-purposed for some other valuable use. And the cycle goes on and on.

There is a book by Heinlein, I can't remember what it was called, where a guy goes to the future where human beings don't have to work at all. Everything is automated, all the food is grown and distributed by robots and automated systems, mass transport is automated, etc etc. People then spend their time pursuing their passions. Painting, the arts, reading writing, inventing, exploring, investigating, studying, and whatever else anyone has a mind to do. People can work if they so choose, doing whatever the f*ck they want to do.

Imagine if you didn't have to work to provide the roof over your head, the food in your belly, the education your children require, what would you do with your time? Would you really just sit on the couch and do absolutely nothing? Or would you use your free time to pursue things that you never had time to pursue because you were working 8 to 12 hours a day nearly everyday at a job you wish you could quit except you have bills to pay?


At that point there is no rich or poor. Being rich is merely the freedom to do what the f*ck ever you want to do that brings enjoyment and is fulfilling to you. And if you want to sit on the couch and do absolutely nothing and die of a heart attack (not likely since medical science is automated and life extending to the point of magic by this point), then it matters not one little bit to anyone else.


I don't know how the future is going to turn out, but I do know that there is no use worrying about it. Cause and effect is always going to be the rule of the universe and we human beings are very good in general at dealing with the effects of a changing world.

DoomYoshi wrote:In the modern era old money is disparaged and new money is celebrated. The Prince of Wales has a lot less fans than Khloe Kardashian. Sports players and musicians are also celebrated as if working for your money is a good thing (as opposed to every other century when working for your money was considered base).

I think you're right on the analysis, but maybe wrong on the time period. I'd push it back to the Renaissance as an era where power shifted. Not as an absolute, but as a time where old established money was giving way to new money, as well as other shifts in power.

A lot of my work is on the Early-Modern period in England. A lot of what you're talking about has long roots.

Sym, how many clicks did your last essay on Robert Louis Stevenson's passion for pre-industrial Scottish rugs get on ResearchGate?

My guess is 9.

Symmetry wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:In the modern era old money is disparaged and new money is celebrated. The Prince of Wales has a lot less fans than Khloe Kardashian. Sports players and musicians are also celebrated as if working for your money is a good thing (as opposed to every other century when working for your money was considered base).

I think you're right on the analysis, but maybe wrong on the time period. I'd push it back to the Renaissance as an era where power shifted. Not as an absolute, but as a time where old established money was giving way to new money, as well as other shifts in power.

A lot of my work is on the Early-Modern period in England. A lot of what you're talking about has long roots.

Power is always shifting though the vast majority aren't aware of it. That is the main point. The only difference is in the attitudes of those with or without power.

But what about, like, power is only there because of acceptance.

Like, if we didn't accept anything...

We could make it not exist.

DUDE

mrswdk wrote:But what about, like, power is only there because of acceptance.

Like, if we didn't accept anything...

We could make it not exist.
I
DUDE

I don't accept this post.
are you done existing yet, mrs?

Well, I exist more than your collection of territories in our last trips game! Helloooo!

show

mrswdk = teammate killer

patches70 wrote:That's a good thing, driverless cars. There is so much wasted assets, take your car for example. You drive to work, it sits there doing nothing for 8 hours or so. Wouldn't it be nice if while you were at work your car went out and gave people rides (and gets a few bucks for the effort) and comes back in time when you get off work a few dollars richer?

Shit, we'll need half the cars we use now, maybe less! Now those people who would have been driving those taxis, or filling up those helicopters, you think they are just going to lay down and die because they lost their (now useless) job? No! They'll go out and find something else to do! Maybe they can let their cars make them money while they sit at home improving themselves, who the hell knows?

All through history we've had jobs that have gone extinct, did the human race collapse? Of course not.

Then, with all those resources we've saved (because we don't have to build as many cars, helicopters, etc) all those resources aren't just going to go to waste and rot, they'll be re-purposed for some other valuable use. And the cycle goes on and on.

There is a book by Heinlein, I can't remember what it was called, where a guy goes to the future where human beings don't have to work at all. Everything is automated, all the food is grown and distributed by robots and automated systems, mass transport is automated, etc etc. People then spend their time pursuing their passions. Painting, the arts, reading writing, inventing, exploring, investigating, studying, and whatever else anyone has a mind to do. People can work if they so choose, doing whatever the f*ck they want to do.

Imagine if you didn't have to work to provide the roof over your head, the food in your belly, the education your children require, what would you do with your time? Would you really just sit on the couch and do absolutely nothing? Or would you use your free time to pursue things that you never had time to pursue because you were working 8 to 12 hours a day nearly everyday at a job you wish you could quit except you have bills to pay?


At that point there is no rich or poor. Being rich is merely the freedom to do what the f*ck ever you want to do that brings enjoyment and is fulfilling to you. And if you want to sit on the couch and do absolutely nothing and die of a heart attack (not likely since medical science is automated and life extending to the point of magic by this point), then it matters not one little bit to anyone else.


I don't know how the future is going to turn out, but I do know that there is no use worrying about it. Cause and effect is always going to be the rule of the universe and we human beings are very good in general at dealing with the effects of a changing world.

Completely agree with your Utopian optimism; but i also have an inner cynic that says this Utopia will be actively fought against by those with status (because we are fundamentally status driven animals).

Im not too worried though, more of a hobby interest.

Lootifer wrote:Completely agree with your Utopian optimism; but i also have an inner cynic that says this Utopia will be actively fought against by those with status (because we are fundamentally status driven animals).

Im not too worried though, more of a hobby interest.

Oh, I have the same cynicism about the Utopian dream. My only real point is that it's not worth worrying about the people who find themselves out of a job because their job becomes obsolete. It's just the natural process at work. The world changes, society changes, there are always people who try to fight against that change but it's a fight that is in vain as history shows us.