dapperdobbs wrote:
- quote -

Larry Ellison, Richard Branson - don't know about social leadership but no lack
of flair.

--
Manage your book collection online at http://www.parchayi.net/bookshelf

dapperdobbs wrote:
- quote -

manors that said some of the owners who got in financial trouble worked
out a marriage (arranged? halfway arranged?) between their daughter and
a rich American. He brought in the money to keep things going, but in
return got the girl, the land, and his children would have titles. A
real win-win financial plan


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
This month's award winning attempt to turn an off-topic post into an Ok post with the last sentence. <grin

Tad - Thanks for your reply, and the list of men who show some
personality and public flair. "Aristocracy" was perhaps an ambiguous
word - I used it for the "leadership" and "better" qualities of the
definition. We all plan for greater wealth - and put a lot of effort
into building our nickles and dimes - it would also be personally
productive to clarify financial goals which are presumably the end to
greater means of realizing our true objectives in life. E.g. What are
we planning for?:-)

This thread has drifted afield from financial planning.

We request that future posters to this thread and others remember that
this is a personal financial planning newsgroup.

Thank you.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

dapperdobbs wrote:
- quote -


This is a really odd thread. I don't share your reverence for
aristocracy, to me it has all sorts of negative connotations. It's
something that our Founding Fathers thankfully, hopefully, left behind
in Olde Europe, and to me it is a good thing if your Renaissance never
happens with modern millionaires. It would be a step backwards in a
country that is supposed to be the model of democracy.

Free association with "aristocracy": class division, lack of economic
mobility, fiefdom, primogeniture, elitism, entitlement, apartheid,
worker exploitation, union busting, political influence, monopolistic
pricing, drinking tea with your pinky extended, and general "pompous
ass" behavior. "Let them eat cake," etc. Who wants a return of
aristocracy? Not me.

Regarding "flair"...I do enjoy it when uber-rich blow money on silly
things, I see it as a good way to redistribute wealth that might
otherwise be passed on to some dopey offspring who could buy their way
into politics. Things like Oracle's Larry Ellison, blowing countless
millions on sailboat races, faux-Asian mansions, even a fighter jet.
PeopleSoft's Dave Duffield blowing $293 million on dog rescue (in a
world with readily-addressable food and medical shortages):
http://www.maddiesfund.org/press/pre...sesMay_05.html
(Is that philanthropy? No, what's the root...Philcaninetropy?)
Publishing-heir Steve Forbes' quixotic, self-funded runs for public
office, and uninformed blathering about a flat tax. Real Estate-heir The
Donald, who excels at losing money for bondholders. And don't forget the
role model for every aspiring aristocrat-heiress, Paris Hilton! A
contemporary Victorian?

For their illustration of Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth" edict, my
nominees for responsible behavior with self-created wealth are David &
Lucile Packard. But aristocrats? I don't want to insult them...that's
not a complimentary term in the ostensibly egalitarian Bay Area. =)

-Tad

Elizabeth Richardson wrote:

- quote -

Yes, and we should also be setting good examples.

Bill Gates seems somewhat colorless, to me, and I share Elle's opinion
about the software. Steve Balmer has done a remarkable job of setting a
poor example.

Ted Turner has some color: he plays polo, I'm told is an excellent
sailor, and has an advertisement-free Turner Classic Movies channel.
President Ronald Reagan certainly had color, and set an outstanding
example. Jacqueline Onassis was classic. Who can forget Golda Meier and
Moshe Dyan? But of these, only Ted Turner qualifies as the millionaire
of the group.

Today, names that come to mind are Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Leona
Helmsley, Martha Stewart - all women. What, for goodness sakes,
happened to the men? The flamboyance? Do we no longer value
aristocracy, and so we have none, currently? Doesn't that affect our
values?

Can anyone think of other men who qualify as proverbial millionaires,
with flair, and social leadership? (I sense that Bill Gates came up for
his wealth - alone.)

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote
Another wrote
- quote -

Ya, I think Gates was being funny with a wink. I trash his
Microsoft software all the time lately, but by contrast I
really appreciate what a big philanthropist he is. I don't
care if he does have money to throw away, so he shouldn't
get so much credit. I don't care if he gets the occasional
good PR out of it, and that's even a concern for him. I
don't care if he's using how much money he gives away to
charities to also keep score. Fact is he chooses not to
throw money away and advertises the importance of helping
good causes. From what I've read about him and his
background, doing this does bring him joy.

- quote -

Whatever his answer, you have to fill 24 hours a day doing something. He
should do what brings him joy, as should the rest of us.

Elizabeth Richardson

<<I wonder how many here remember what they want the money for>
Someone once asked Bill Gates that question - why was he still working
and making money when he already had so much more money than he could
ever spend. His answer was something like "Money is how you keep
score".

John Cowart

John -

Interesting historical perspective, especially the estimation of the
pinnacle of wealth. (In a way, your description reminds me of mutual
funds today, and the institution-dominated stock market.) I know many
of those English castles and manor houses are now open to public tours
for a small admission fee, because the owning families have to raise
money to pay maintenance and taxes.

As Elle points out, real wealth has never been money - that's just part
of being more comfortable. I don't sing well, and I often wish to heck
I could just let beautiful song roll out. I saw the tail end of a
documentary about the *very* rich, who don't spend more than a month or
so in a year at any of their multi-million dollar homes, but I wonder
if they see in their adventures, more than a poor artist sees on any
city street? Of course this is a financial forum, but I wonder how many
here remember what they want the money for, and I wonder if we, as a
society, are losing pride in who we are.

"bo peep" <cowartmisc1[at]yahoo.com> wrote
- quote -

Explains all those Jane Austen, Anthony Trollope, and
William Thackeray literary characters who strictly recreated
while speaking of what "income" (implicitly referring to
income from an inherited principal) this or that person had,
as one measure of his or her merit as a groom or bride.

<<I have not heard of anyone today building an estate-sized mansion in
the 1920's Vanderbilt or Biltmore style>
I saw a documentary some time back where they offered the opinion that
the pinacle of wealth occurred in the mid eighteenth century in
England. As huge profits from timber and cotton poured in from the new
colonies to the hands of a few families, they were able to build
estates of unprecedented expense.

They would follow this pattern: pick a nice location, buy *all* of the
land between that location and the horizon, and then have *all* of that
that area landscaped by hand labor and carefully planted in formal
gardens, all the way out to the horizon. And then build the mansion in
the middle of all that.

BTW, I am not a millionaire, just a hundredaire.

John Cowart

When the term "millionaire" was invented, what did that mean, and what
does it mean, today?

Some statistics show that 1.7% of U.S. households have a net worth of
over $1 million. That's very nice, but ... one inflation calculator
equates one million in 1898 to just over 22 million today. The $30
million-mark may be a sort of emerging new standard.

There is also the consideration that the cost of many large items has
dropped substantially since the 1900's, not to mention the rise in the
standard of living brought about by such things as refrigerators (with
icemakers), automobiles (with CD players), and the polio vaccine (sugar
coated). Infant and child mortality rates have dropped dramatically,
literacy has boomed, and life expectancy is significantly extended.

It would seem that in terms of standards of living, our society has
gained - perhaps at the expense of something, though. I have not heard
of anyone today building an estate-sized mansion in the 1920's
Vanderbilt or Biltmore style. The flamboyance and ostentation seems to
have waned (Las Vegas "whales" hardly have the class of a J.P. Morgan).
Do "we" still have the pride of a Guggenheim, who gave his seat on a
lifeboat to a woman travelling steerage? I am not sure that an
intelligent man can still look to a comfortable and secure life as a
butler. The word "servant" somehow seems to have fallen in status -
perhaps the word "secretary" has taken its place - either way, that
role is powerful, for all its discreetness.

Where have the "millionaires" gone? Are there fewer millionaires today
than there were before WW I, or is it that the "style" - the "aire" -
has gone out of it? Did the advent of that perversion of human life
named "communism", which lead to deaths approaching 100 million, and
damage incalculable, also kill a "joie de vivre"? There is a website
offering dating services for millionaires, and it defines a millionaire
as someone who makes more than $1 million a year (why would such a
millionaire need a dating service?)

Going back even further in time than the 1800's and the industrial
revolution: when, in the foreseeable future, will we see anything as
awesome as St. Peter's Cathedral? A family as influential as de Medici?
Is it that a million dollars isn't worth what it used to be, or do we
need a Renaissance, to give wealth real meaning again - pride, dignity,
distinction, and leadership in the arts and religion? Is all that to be
replaced with steel, concrete, software, and planned obsolescence?