I saw with my own eyes

[Guildenstern]

The US upper class is not just about the money... never has been. "Upper class" people in the US have shared traditions and backgrounds, family connections and multi-generational wealth. There has traditionally been more class mobility in the USA than in Europe and Asia; however, the US upper class has always been static. Interestingly, a lot of recent research shows that social mobility is now greater in Europe than the US.

Very few rich people in the US define themselves as "upper class." Incidentally, more rich Dems than Republicans define themselves as "upper class." Theresa Heinz Kerry is upper class, but Warren Buffet or Sam Walton would not be. George H.W. Bush went out of his way to adopt populist pastimes like horseshoes, eating pork rinds and bass fishing.

You guys need to distinguish between new money and old money. Think of all the famous new money types that get snubbed by country clubs and pre-war NYC coops.

Famous rich people with ragged out cars: Sam Walton, Monroe Trout, Dave Matthews, Pierre Omidyar...

 

[Tums]

now this is of a different class


http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=163024993

 

[ElectricSavant]

Well...yes

Quote from Tums:

now this is of a different class


http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=163024993

 

[Guildenstern]

now this is of a different class


http://www.emailthis.clickability.c...lToID=163024993

That would be the super-rich class. Sociologists should update their definitions. They could replace blanket terms like "upper class," "working class," etcetera with more descriptive terms like "super-rich" and even politically correct terms like "financially challenged."

 

[ElectricSavant]

I met the chauffeur to a prince from the United Emirates in the late 70's...

Anyways..his job was to drive around the linen cladded fellow... to buy real estate...high rise buildings and such in the US...all day everyday...

During that same month I met a man that had ten times his worth and had the pleasure to study with him...in his apartment that he rented. He spoke about the Nile River at UCLA in which I was asked to be a guest at...truly fascinating.

The point is that you cannot always judge a cover by its book...

 

[marketsurfer]

wow, the maltese falcon is amazing! thanks for the link.

not to mention, TP was married to novelist Danielle Steel.


http://www.symaltesefalcon.com/

surf

 

[dagobaz]

mr. grant, i applaud you. Simple, elegant, witty hypocrisy such as yours is truly rare. sincerely sir, top hole.

Do tell me, why do you and yours speak English, rather than, say, German, or Russian, or ... French ?

The elites of England (and the rest of "civilized" Europe) have always hated America, at its very foundation, because it is a repudiation of the concept of Calvinist primogeniture: the arrogance that all wisdom is, by definition, contained in the aristocratic first-born. Given that only 2 percent are born wealthy, what is the probability that talent shall be born outside the kin of the perfumed princes ?

Why do you trade, sir ?

Trading is, by definition, an egalitarian enterprise, -- it respects no birthright, no title, no "class" and, results, not poofery, are the coin of the realm.

Perhaps this is the basis for why England, and the rest of the UK, is a back bencher on the world stage, now.

 

[Tums]

Quote from dagobaz:

...
Perhaps this is the basis for why England, and the rest of the UK, is a back bencher on the world stage, now.

that tiny island state of UK still welds wealth of unspoken proportion.

 

[Hydroblunt]

Quote from Grant:

Perhaps we should look at definitions here. In the US, high class/upper class = wealth. In the UK, upper class (we don’t use high class) = aristocracy, where wealth may be significant but so is relative poverty. If you are an impoverished earl without a pot to piss in, you are still upper class, ie at the top of the class structure. The wealthy (without titles) are upper-middle class.

European pre 20th century style. It was same in Russia, Asia and even US. It's only because of serfdom that this paradox was possible.

Now that it's done through financial means, it no longer holds true. Financial sefdom holds no labels, it's through numbers that someone from upper class becomes lower class. Just recently happen to some in the tech crash.

Old Money vs New Money is just that old family line battles brought over. Those born rich have never experienced real life problems so they create superficial ones. Plus, it's fun to create exclusive status, after all, what's the point of a country club membership if you do not get to exclude people.

 

[Guildenstern]

The concept of "high culture" changes all the time. Van Gogh sold like one painting in his lifetime. The art establishment "MOMA" of his time thought that his paintings were garbage. They might have even had valid reasons for excluding Van Gogh from what they thought was "high culture." What is in the MOMA today may not be there in 100 years.

Cultural tastes are fickle and a function of environment and shared experiences. A melting pot produces homogenous tastes. A global culture is at odds with tribal, clannish or anachronistic culture. Hence, religious extremists and the French hate globalization.