« Remember the Half Sigma politics chart? | Main | Could the elites become racist? »

February 16, 2012

Comments

Siggie: "there is no longer any such thing as the idle rich."

You live in Manhattan? Guess you haven't run into those trust fund slobs.

If you want a Marxist analysis of a Marxist society, read "Nomenklatura" by Michael Voslensky.

Almost from it's inception the vast majority of the Republican base was skilled tradesmen and certain type of skilled professions.

What they had in common was...

1. They had the most to lose from the populist mob
2. They had the most to gain from an industrialized and growing America
3. Needed to seek their fortunes on "Main Street"

Pussy Galore,

Even the trust fund kids pretend to be "doing something". Maybe its spending a little time each week as a "lifestyle writer" (unpaid blogger). Or maybe they spent an afternoon at OWS. The point is they don't want to admit to people they do nothing at all.

"If there’s a demographic that’s most staunchly Republican, it would be those people making between $100,000 and $250,000 per year in value creation jobs who empathize with the rich bourgeoisie and whom should probably be considered petit bourgeoisie."

Yup. It more or less sincs up with Moldbug's OV vs BDH class guidelines.

OVs lost WWI and then really fell off the wagon when they latched on to Hitler in WWII out of desperation. People don't realize it but while WWI is taught as a war people got into by accident, it was ultimately the determining factor of whether OV (think Kaiser + German middlestadt) or BDH would rule.

"You live in Manhattan? Guess you haven't run into those trust fund slobs."

Even trustafarians have to do something. But yes, wastrels do inhabit that stratum.

Most trust fund kids I know of have the kind of jobs regular people wish they could get

"Most trust fund kids I know of have the kind of jobs regular people wish they could get". - Anon


Agreed. These hipster/class x trustfundarians must be a Manhattan thing. Where I live these kids are employed in cool, lucrative, and rewarding jobs. I used to wonder how people had it so easy in life while others struggled but thanks to this blog it all makes sense.

There's another aspect of the staunchly Republican petit bourgeoisie that needs to be kept in mind. While their taxable incomes range in the relatively modest low 6's, their ongoing value creation builds wealth that is ripe for confiscation through taxes on 1) phantom capital gains owing to inflation 2) bursty incomes that might be low for five to fifteen years and then extremely high for one as they experience a "liquidity" event.

When Obama talks about soaking the $250k class, he scares the crap out of medium sized business owners in fly-over country.

This, BTW, is a large source of Buffet's value-transfer. For a healthy cut of the profits he lets these medium sized businessmen gracefully cash out while feeling their legacy is being maintained.

The idle bourgeoisie still exists, it's called being a "hedge fund manager".

Without taking too much risk (i.e. sovereign or state companies bonds), you can easily get a 4% annual yield on your money, and with taking a bit of risk (i.e. gold, oil in times of crisis), you can get close to 15% or 20%.

So someone smart you inherited 1 million from his father can easily live a life of laziness.

"Remember that in modern times, doing nothing is not considered a mark of the rich."

The children of the rich have normally had it easy.

During the Civil War, the pro-Union Northern industrialists made sure their wealthy children - in general - were not drafted. They relied on European immigrants (frequently Irish) to do the military heavy work.

There's no way to really solve the problem of rich people cutting corners for their children; unless you want to go with a classless society.

The comments to this entry are closed.