Skinny Jeans
July 10th, 2011 at 1:07:44 PM
permalink
The Duchess of Cambridge wore these jeans three days in a row. The J Brand "811" mid-rise, skinny-leg jeans, which sell for $189, have reportedly sold out in the United States.
Give me a break, how many people can wear jeans like that. Most 8 year olds are too fat to fit in those jeans. Did women buy these jeans just to hang in their closet?
July 10th, 2011 at 1:22:19 PM
permalink
Bahaha!
Ladies, (and guys who know ladies, please pass this on) "skinny jeans" are atrocious! Other than "mom jeans" (think the pic Jessica Simpson got ragged on for) there is no single other style that is less appealing than these.
Should have made it a poll, paco. Who like's these things?
I say two thumbs down
Ladies, (and guys who know ladies, please pass this on) "skinny jeans" are atrocious! Other than "mom jeans" (think the pic Jessica Simpson got ragged on for) there is no single other style that is less appealing than these.
Should have made it a poll, paco. Who like's these things?
I say two thumbs down
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
July 10th, 2011 at 2:14:25 PM
permalink
I disagree. If you can make it work, it is a great look.
Now, skinny jeans on men -- that's another story.
Now, skinny jeans on men -- that's another story.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
July 10th, 2011 at 2:20:16 PM
permalink
Quote: teddysI disagree. If you can make it work, it is a great look.
Now, skinny jeans on men -- that's another story.
I know you don't post pics much, but I need some proof. I contend that skinny jeans CAN'T work. The Dutchess is a hottie and that look doesn't do it. If anyone can direct me to a desirable skiny jean look, I'm all eyes ;)
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
July 10th, 2011 at 2:22:35 PM
permalink
I think the pictures Paco posted are proof enough they do work. She looks great!!! I would agree that perhaps 1% of women can wear them, and 0% of men.
July 10th, 2011 at 2:26:25 PM
permalink
Paco, you're taking this obsession with the British monarchy a little too far.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 10th, 2011 at 3:23:43 PM
permalink
Quote: Joe Tex "Skinny Legs and All" 1967Now, Who'll take the woman with the skinny legs?
C'mon somebody please take the lady with the skinny legs.
Now, you all know the lady with the skinny legs got to have somebody too, now.
Will somebody please take the lady with the skinny legs, please?
video
July 10th, 2011 at 3:47:20 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedPaco, you're taking this obsession with the British monarchy a little too far.
OK, but it extends to the historic Spanish royalty as well (Juana La Loca and Charles V, etc.).
You have to admit that picture of the 6 year old cancer victim whose big wish was to meet a princess is pretty poignant.
July 10th, 2011 at 4:01:58 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinOK, but it extends to the historic Spanish royalty as well (Juana La Loca and Charles V, etc.).
You say that as if it made things better.
Quote:You have to admit that picture of the 6 year old cancer victim whose big wish was to meet a princess is pretty poignant.
I'd like a picture of a medical researcher who has a chance of finding a cure a lot better, or of the girl's oncologist. I mean people who dedicate their lives to treating and curing cancer, rather than a few minutes for symbolic photo ops that make them look good.
I'll grant that what Diana did for AIDS patients was different.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 10th, 2011 at 5:22:42 PM
permalink
Am I missing something?
Is there a difference between "Skinny jeans", and a skinny person wearing properly sized jeans?
For the record, I think she looks great.
Is there a difference between "Skinny jeans", and a skinny person wearing properly sized jeans?
So what? Maybe she can afford to own more than one pair.Quote: pacomartinThe Duchess of Cambridge wore these jeans three days in a row.
For the record, I think she looks great.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
July 10th, 2011 at 6:16:31 PM
permalink
Quote: teddysI disagree. If you can make it work, it is a great look.
A blazer with jeans? A brown belt with a blue outfit and black shoes? Please :)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 10th, 2011 at 9:18:14 PM
permalink
Jeez, a Barbie Doll has a better figure than the Stick Princess..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 10th, 2011 at 9:54:21 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearFor the record, I think she looks great.
Quote: EvenBobJeez, a Barbie Doll has a better figure than the Stick Princess..
Gah!!! That's the thing. She DOES look great, but these jeans...THESE JEANS!!!.... THEY"RE TERRIBLE!!
I don't know what it is. I'm usually a "to each his own" kinda guy, but something about this item is just unacceptable to me. If I were single, skinny jeans would be an immediate dealbreaker. In 10 years, they're the only things of which I've ever said to my wife "no". I'd rather my wife strut around in Gaga's meat suit. True story.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
July 10th, 2011 at 10:12:59 PM
permalink
Quote: FaceGah!!! That's the thing. She DOES look great,
She looks anorexic, no thanks. I dated a skin and bones girl in my youth, its like making love to a fence post.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 11th, 2011 at 12:15:31 AM
permalink
If you have fit body, you can wear almost anything and look good. She has a bank account that allows her to wear anything she wants, and maybe she's trying to dress down for a photo op with the commoners, and picked jeans that she normally wouldn't wear. $186/pair? hmmmm... maybe pick low-rise slutty jeans instead. And get a tramp stamp to fill out the image. Otherwise, you're a princess, so dress the part.
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
July 11th, 2011 at 12:19:49 AM
permalink
Odd amount of fashion talk however if they fit into skinny jeans and do not look like the sausage stand at the St Joe's fest said skinny jeans will look even better on the floor or casually tossed across the steering wheel.
Edit BTW $200 a pair of jeans is not a lot. If you have some Levi's from the 70's or early 80's they can get over 1k.
Edit BTW $200 a pair of jeans is not a lot. If you have some Levi's from the 70's or early 80's they can get over 1k.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
July 11th, 2011 at 2:22:49 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearAm I missing something?
Is there a difference between "Skinny jeans", and a skinny person wearing properly sized jeans?
So what? Maybe she can afford to own more than one pair.
For the record, I think she looks great.
This is how a hot chick should look in a pair of jeans!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/justfab/2341593041/
Skinny jeans(aka get SUPER narrow at the bottom/cuff) are for Emo chicks and dudes. and are a HORRIBLE style to say the least!
July 11th, 2011 at 3:00:58 AM
permalink
The girl has the bod of a 16 year old boy. If that turns you on, hey, what can I say. No boobs, no hips, no butt. Yeehaa....
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 11th, 2011 at 3:41:37 AM
permalink
Well each to his own EvenBob. Jabba the Hut love you long time.
I guess I'll take that "fence post."
I guess I'll take that "fence post."
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
July 11th, 2011 at 5:40:22 AM
permalink
Quote: Wavy70Edit BTW $200 a pair of jeans is not a lot. If you have some Levi's from the 70's or early 80's they can get over 1k.
It seems like she wears things that are on the high end of what many people can afford. This dress is $400. Everything she wears sells out immediately.
I assume she is permitted to accept clothes from designers. Royals are not paid a salary.
July 11th, 2011 at 5:58:43 AM
permalink
Yet they usually do have the income from various hereditary real estate holdings.Quote: pacomartinRoyals are not paid a salary.
July 11th, 2011 at 8:35:33 AM
permalink
Quote: Wavy70Odd amount of fashion talk
Yes, well, it seems none of you have ever run into a fashion fad before :P
There are trends in fashion, and within the trends there are fads. For example, the trend for the last decade and a half in women's formal wear is towards sleeveless gowns. A fad within this trend is bare legs. Look at pictures and you'll find few women wearing stockings of any kind, regardless of whether or not they're wearing open or closed-toe shoes.
When a celebrity is well-liked by many, she may inspire copy-cat fads from time to time. Now it's the latest Brit royal. In the past there have been others. When the series "Friends" debuted, Jennifer Aniston's hairstyle was all the rage.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 11th, 2011 at 9:04:19 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinIt seems like she wears things that are on the high end of what many people can afford. This dress is $400. Everything she wears sells out immediately.
I assume she is permitted to accept clothes from designers. Royals are not paid a salary.
In the world of celebrities she is rather modest in her expenses. At least what she is wearing is nice. Look what happened a few years back when the Celebs started wearing Ed Hardy.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
July 11th, 2011 at 1:01:45 PM
permalink
Quote: Wavy70
Quote: pacomartin
It seems like she wears things that are on the high end of what many people can afford. This dress is $400. Everything she wears sells out immediately.
I assume she is permitted to accept clothes from designers. Royals are not paid a salary.
In the world of celebrities she is rather modest in her expenses. At least what she is wearing is nice. Look what happened a few years back when the Celebs started wearing Ed Hardy.
She seems to rather intentionally wear things that are at the high end of "normal" without straying into the realm of extravagance. Part of me wonders if it's specifically because people can (kind-of) afford to buy those clothes to mimic her.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
July 11th, 2011 at 1:05:52 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffYet they usually do have the income from various hereditary real estate holdings.
Hmm, I read just now with interest that the Civil List income is pretty much a thing of the past. Jolly good.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 11th, 2011 at 2:30:08 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitHmm, I read just now with interest that the Civil List income is pretty much a thing of the past. Jolly good.
I am not sure what the difference is between giving them a percentage of the earning of the crown estate and giving them a civil list. It is just more politically savvy. I think that the royal household will push the big ticket building maintenance (Buckingham, St James, and Kensington Palace) off to parliament anyway.
I think Charles wants a jet. At a minimum an Airbus 319 configured for executive use.
July 11th, 2011 at 2:46:28 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusShe seems to rather intentionally wear things that are at the high end of "normal" without straying into the realm of extravagance. Part of me wonders if it's specifically because people can (kind-of) afford to buy those clothes to mimic her.
As fashion works within weeks the lower end stores will be flooded with knock offs of what she wears.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
July 14th, 2011 at 1:47:31 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartin
I assume she is permitted to accept clothes from designers. Royals are not paid a salary.
How does that work I wonder. They aren't allowed to have a job, too dangerous. They must have an expense account thats bottomless. I remember reading about Nelson Rockefeller in the 70's. He never carried a wallet or money or credit cards. All his life he had bodyguards and 'people' with him that took care of all the incidentals. Its a lifestyle we can't even imagine, to be surrounded by other people who look out for us 24/7. I suppose you get used to it, but I'd hate it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 14th, 2011 at 2:43:40 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobHow does that work I wonder. They aren't allowed to have a job, too dangerous. They must have an expense account thats bottomless. I remember reading about Nelson Rockefeller in the 70's. He never carried a wallet or money or credit cards. All his life he had bodyguards and 'people' with him that took care of all the incidentals. Its a lifestyle we can't even imagine, to be surrounded by other people who look out for us 24/7. I suppose you get used to it, but I'd hate it.
For the principals (the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh) and Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall, they receive a lot of money from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall that were set up in the 13th century. Despite being called Duchies, they resemble property holding companies today. They have assets all over the country
The Queen has the Duchy of Lancaster which generates £13.2 million per year, and Charles has the Duchy of Cornwall which generates £24.5 million per year. Prince Phillip gets £400K per year for his personal needs and staff so that he doesn't have to ask his wife for everything.
Their primary residences, Windsor Castle (WC), Buckingham Palace (BP), and Clarence House (the residence of Charles and Camilla) are properties of the state. Clarence House is roughly the size of the White House, while WC and BP are much much bigger. They get a property grant of £15.4 million a year which is supposed to maintain these buildings. The argument is that this is woefully underfunded, and Buckingham Palace is in need of serious repair.
In 1760 as King George III the traditional property of the monarch was confiscated by parliament, and came to be known as the "crown estate". Parliament agreed to assume certain government responsibilities traditionally born by the monarch. In exchange the monarch gets what is known as the "civil list" for her staff. She is paid £14.2 million a year at present. From this money she is entitled to give tax free allowances to the lesser royals.
The royal household gets additional grants for Communications, media and public relations at £400K per year to answer mail and run their website.
Royal Travel is an evolving thing. Since her silver jubilee in 1977 (25 years on the throne) she was given a royal train. They normally take out 9 train cars, which have private bedrooms, offices, dining, and living rooms. The cost of the train is usually less than £1 million per year. But they have cars for household staff, and police protection. The Train stops on the side of the tracks at secret locations for them to sleep. They used that 14 trips (roundtrip 1000 miles per trip) and slept on the train for 19 nights. Since it is so expensive, only The Queen and Prince Charles are permitted to use the train.
The royal helicopter sits 6 people comfortably, and is fully staffed for about 145 trips last year at a cost of £2.2 million. Although that is used primarily by the Queen's children as she doesn't like it very much.
They do not have a private plane, as they used to be escorted around by the Royal Air Force. However, with the loss of the passenger aircraft manufacturing base from the UK in recent decades, the VIP aircraft have never been replaced, and are 25 years old. They charter executive jets from private companies at £2.4 million per year.
The Queen has a personal net worth estimated at £350 million. The bulk of that money is in two private palaces and huge estates. Balmoral Palace is in a remote area of Scotland, and Sandringham House is in Norfolk. These are "working estates" meaning that they are private businesses. They pay for themselves by tourism, stud farms, crop growing, rental of outbuildings, etc. The rest of her money is in conservative stocks and bonds, as it is not proper for her to invest in risky business ventures that could be influenced by government actions.
The lesser royals mostly have leases on properties in the various palaces and in mansions on the grounds of the Windsor Great Park just outside of London. While they do pay rent, they are not at market rates, since the only people who can rent these buildings are royals.
Prince Andrew has a special job as the United Kingdom Trade and Investment. It's a job that only exists for royals. It doesn't pay a salary, but it has a massive expense account as you can imagine.
Prince William and Prince Harry inherited a large amount of money from their mother. They have apartments in the royal palaces in London.
All in all, the expenses of the Queen and Prince Phillip are fairly small for a head of state. The castles and palaces sort of go with the territory. They do not spend a lot of money. The royal yacht that she had for 45 years was seen as important to her state duties. Everywhere she goes is by definition official business, so she does not pay for transportation. She cannot leave the country on personal travel, so there are no beaches or ski resorts. Private trips are usually too remote areas of Scotland.
Most of the big expenses are for the royal family. Her two oldest sons, and her cousins in particular.
July 14th, 2011 at 3:04:12 PM
permalink
I remember reading decades ago that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor did nothing but travel the upper crust party circuit from the time he gave up the throne, till they finally passed away. They were invited to all the best of the best events, and if they went to your party, it was a feather in your cap. But they were incredible bores, kept to themselves, and were very shallow people. They were mostly avoided at parties because they had nothing to say about anything, just them being there was enough. Thats how I picture all the Royals, insufferably boring people who mostly have nothing to do with their time, except be insufferably boring.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 14th, 2011 at 4:06:38 PM
permalink
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were packed of the Carribbean after the outbreak of WW2. I think they basically pissed their lives away after the war at various society events in Paris and the US trading off their fame, but during the war they were pretty low profile due to the associations the Duke had with Hitler.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 14th, 2011 at 4:37:14 PM
permalink
I meant after the war, from the late 40's till they were too old to do it any longer. He was a complete wus, thats why he married such a dominating woman. I'm sure the party circuit was her idea, I don't think the Duke ever had any. Ideas, that is. Or balls.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 14th, 2011 at 4:48:54 PM
permalink
I don't think what the Duke and Duchess of Windsor did with their lives should be the standard by which royals are judged. Most people consider them to be failures at their duties, and a disgrace to the family.
In the United States early 20th century, worldwide conflict cut into trade tariffs--a mainstay of federal revenues--and Congress turned to another revenue source. The Revenue Act of 1916, which introduced the modern-day income tax, also contained an estate tax with many features of today's system. They have been with us since.
I am not sure of the exact status of estate taxes in the UK, but I know that certain families are very rich as a result of land acquisitions made by their family as many centuries ago. The Duke of Westminster is the wealthiest nobleman in the UK as a result of his extensive family holdings in London. Many of these acquisitions were made before and after the great plague, and the fire of London.
The UK does not seem interested in land distribution or in breaking up this old money. So if the UK became a republic, the royal family would become just another of these old money families, and certainly not the wealthiest, but probably in the top 10.
I think most republicans in the UK concede that as a practical matter, Elizabeth II is too well fixed on the world stage to terminate the monarchy in her lifetime. I think they want to simply end the monarchy with her death. Charles could be 80 years old on her death.
The lead republicans do not want the ex-monarchs humiliated. Since none of the old aristocracy is hounded, the Windsors would be entitled to their personal property of Balmoral and Sandringham house along with vast acreage surrounding the properties. They would be given a generous 20 year pension. The older princes who are first cousins of Queen Elizabeth II could probably live out their lives in their sumptuous apartments in Kensington Palace.
The younger royals like William, Harry , Beatrice, Eugenie, and the toddlers James, and Louise could use their notoriety to get good paying jobs.
But a president would be elected, and presumably he and his staff would be housed in Buckingham palace. In many other European nations, the president is housed in the palace of the former monarch. Although it is common in the western hemisphere to have one person as head of government and head of state, such a system is almost non-existent in Europe. It is unlikely that the role of Prime Minister would be expanded to include presidential duties.
My personal feeling is that the monarchy is secure in the UK, but the role and expenses of the rest of the royal family will continue to be reduced. They seem pretty secure in Canada as well, but I think Australia will probably become a republic after Queen Elizabeth dies.
In the United States early 20th century, worldwide conflict cut into trade tariffs--a mainstay of federal revenues--and Congress turned to another revenue source. The Revenue Act of 1916, which introduced the modern-day income tax, also contained an estate tax with many features of today's system. They have been with us since.
I am not sure of the exact status of estate taxes in the UK, but I know that certain families are very rich as a result of land acquisitions made by their family as many centuries ago. The Duke of Westminster is the wealthiest nobleman in the UK as a result of his extensive family holdings in London. Many of these acquisitions were made before and after the great plague, and the fire of London.
The UK does not seem interested in land distribution or in breaking up this old money. So if the UK became a republic, the royal family would become just another of these old money families, and certainly not the wealthiest, but probably in the top 10.
I think most republicans in the UK concede that as a practical matter, Elizabeth II is too well fixed on the world stage to terminate the monarchy in her lifetime. I think they want to simply end the monarchy with her death. Charles could be 80 years old on her death.
The lead republicans do not want the ex-monarchs humiliated. Since none of the old aristocracy is hounded, the Windsors would be entitled to their personal property of Balmoral and Sandringham house along with vast acreage surrounding the properties. They would be given a generous 20 year pension. The older princes who are first cousins of Queen Elizabeth II could probably live out their lives in their sumptuous apartments in Kensington Palace.
The younger royals like William, Harry , Beatrice, Eugenie, and the toddlers James, and Louise could use their notoriety to get good paying jobs.
But a president would be elected, and presumably he and his staff would be housed in Buckingham palace. In many other European nations, the president is housed in the palace of the former monarch. Although it is common in the western hemisphere to have one person as head of government and head of state, such a system is almost non-existent in Europe. It is unlikely that the role of Prime Minister would be expanded to include presidential duties.
My personal feeling is that the monarchy is secure in the UK, but the role and expenses of the rest of the royal family will continue to be reduced. They seem pretty secure in Canada as well, but I think Australia will probably become a republic after Queen Elizabeth dies.
July 14th, 2011 at 5:01:31 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartin
I am not sure of the exact status of estate taxes in the UK, but I know that certain families are very rich as a result of land acquisitions made by their family as many centuries ago. The Duke of Westminster is the wealthiest nobleman in the UK as a result of his extensive family holdings in London. Many of these acquisitions were made before and after the great plague, and the fire of London.
The richest people in NYC are people we've never heard of. The best parts of Manhattan real estate have been in their families since the late 1600's and early 1700's. The don't own the skyscraper, they own the land it sits on. Its almost like a secret society, the old money of NY. They inherit their privacy along with the money and guard it like Fort Knox.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 14th, 2011 at 6:27:22 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThe richest people in NYC are people we've never heard of. The best parts of Manhattan real estate have been in their families since the late 1600's and early 1700's. The don't own the skyscraper, they own the land it sits on. Its almost like a secret society, the old money of NY. They inherit their privacy along with the money and guard it like Fort Knox.
You may be correct, but I've never heard of them. All of the old money in the USA started and is based on the industrialization of America which is post Civil War. Pre civil war, I've heard of the Astor family (the original moneyed family in the USA) who made their money on furs and then transferred it to property management in New York city. The primary heir died on the Titanic, and they are not considered among the wealthiest families anymore.
The DuPonts go back to before the civil war, but I don't think they made their big money until the 20th century.
| Walton family | $90 | post WWII | Retail |
| Koch Family | $40 | 1920's | Oil Engineering |
| Mars family | $35 | 1910 | Candy |
| Cargill/MacMillan family | $30 | late 19th century | Grain/crops |
| Cox family | $21 | very late 19th century | media |
| Johnson family | $20 | post WWII | fidelity |
| Pritzker family | $17 | post WWII | Hyatt hotels |
| Du Pont family | $15 | early 19th century | gunpowder |
| Hearst family | $14 | post civil war | mining |
| Johnson family | $13 | late 19th century | medical |
Although, there are clearly rich land barons in the USA,
In the UK some three of the top 6 have fortunes based on real estate in London assembled in the 1600's or 1700's.
Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor & family $13 B 59 real estate
David & Simon Reuben$8 B 68 investments, real estate
Philip & Cristina Green$7.2 B 59 Retail
Bernard Ecclestone & family $4.2 B 80 Formula One
Richard Branson $4.2 B 60 Virgin
Charles Cadogan & family $4.2 B 74 real estate
July 14th, 2011 at 6:43:31 PM
permalink
I can't even find articles on the net about it. I read one piece in the NY Times in the 80's about it, and thats it. These people are super secretive because publicity in the past has done them harm. Their kids go to the best colleges, marry into the best families and inherit billions. The Rockefellers are very secretive, we don't know much about what goes on inside the group.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 14th, 2011 at 7:18:14 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI can't even find articles on the net about it. I read one piece in the NY Times in the 80's about it, and thats it. These people are super secretive because publicity in the past has done them harm. Their kids go to the best colleges, marry into the best families and inherit billions. The Rockefellers are very secretive, we don't know much about what goes on inside the group.
Publicity is a fickle mistress. Many wealthy people crave it because it gives them the notoriety that equals their wealth, but some of the smartest know that once you unleash the green eyed monster, it can consume you.
I am just saying that wealth and land were almost synonymous with pre-industrial society. In pre-industrial America the most famous name was Astor. He built his wealth originally on furs, but transferred it to New York City real estate. But I associate old American money, not with real estate, but with the industrial revolution. Money was made in industry, chemical, railroads, shipping, steel, media, and retail. I thought that the estate tax was supposed to step out multi-generational wealth, but there seems to be ways to get around it.
IN the UK, the old money was all land. Some of it goes back to the Norman conquest. As I understand it, even today they don't know who owns great tracts of the country. Land registration is an elusive goal. As you said, the old money doesn't want the publicity.
July 14th, 2011 at 7:36:31 PM
permalink
Bits of it are coming back to me. These people never show up on Forbes lists because most of their money is tied up in trusts that go back to when trusts began. You can hide wealth so deep, if you have a long time to do it, that the only people who know whats going on are the law firms that have been with these families for generations. You could try and write a book about it, but you might not live long enough to finish it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 14th, 2011 at 10:46:39 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobBits of it are coming back to me. These people never show up on Forbes lists because most of their money is tied up in trusts that go back to when trusts began. You can hide wealth so deep, if you have a long time to do it, that the only people who know whats going on are the law firms that have been with these families for generations. You could try and write a book about it, but you might not live long enough to finish it.
Quote: F. Scott FitzgeraldLet me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different.
A few decades ago, I used to teach Calculus to wealthy kids from Manhattan area. Some of them would talk about their expectations from life and from jobs. It used to dumbfound me. They just couldn't believe that they shouldn't expect to get all that from life. One weekend some parents sent a limousine to pick up their kid. The next weekend someone sent a Rolls Royce with a driver. The third weekend a father sent a helicopter to pick up his son (it landed in the football field). The helicopter wins.
One of my favorite sayings is money doesn't stink. The writer of Old Money states that his family was long separated from the nastiness involved in the acquisition of money. (Aldrich's great-grandfather, the first Nelson, a Rhode Island grocer, entered the Senate in 1881 worth $50,000 and left 30 years later worth $12 million, thanks to the kindness of grateful monopolists.)
That's the nice thing about "old money". All the dirtiness and corruption of getting it was done long ago. Then you get to be a Kennedy or a Bush, because the grubby business was all done by a previous generation.
July 15th, 2011 at 12:36:30 AM
permalink
They weren't called Robber Baron's for nothing. My daughter currently teaches calculus to ungrateful college students in NY. The bloom is off the rose, though. She now looks forward to every semester ending, instead of beginning.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 15th, 2011 at 2:32:49 PM
permalink
Royal Helicopter (they get them on a 10 year lease) seats 6 in comfort
July 15th, 2011 at 2:40:43 PM
permalink
Royal Yacht Britannia. Its good to be the king.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 15th, 2011 at 6:35:38 PM
permalink
