The Patricians versus the Nouveau Riche or old money versus new money

[Douglas Carpenter]

On the surface it would seem that those who acquired their money within their lifetimes would be a more honorable sort because to at least some extent they could make a plausible claim of being "self made" and that at least most people would accept that they did by and large earned it. On the surface it would seem that the nouveau riche would be more connected to and have more empathy with the common people since in many cases that is how they started out in life.

However, there seems to be a common perception that the new moneyed class of the nouveau rich are more apt to have the attitude, "I got my money by working hard. There are no free lunches. So, if you want it - you work hard you get it yourself and don't expect any handouts." Contrasted to a perception in at least some peoples' minds that those who come from generations of wealth are more apt to feel community responsibility and noblesse oblige. There is an idea that they were the core of the old liberal Republicans many of whom are now supporters of the Democratic Party. Although I'm not sure how real that is beyond the anecdotal level.

I don't know if these perceptions are actually based in reality or if they are based on anecdote that is not necessarily consistent with the real world. I wonder if anyone else has ever thought about this. Is it more blessed to inherit your money that to acquire it through investment and wheeling and dealing?

[gordianot]

1. My Grandfather knew an influential congressman mid 20th century.

This congressman always maintained that what he called old money stays in the background has the real influence. They avoid publicity live well and pass wealth to other generations. No names given but he stated if you heard the name you would not know who they are. Sounds conspiratorial but I wonder? I doubt the Koch brothers type fit this mold they seek too much publicity.

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. there are some old wealth families that do venture into politics such as the Scranton's of

of Pennsylvania or the Gore's of Tennessee. But it does seem that most would rather influence politicians than be them. Although the Koch brother's father were also rich - I don't think they represent the old patrician wealth. Supporting extremist hate conspiracy theory groups like the John Birch society or the Tea Party movement does not seem like the Aristocratic sense of noblesse oblige. To me it smacks more of nouveau riche ostentation.

[gordianot]

3. As I recall the conversation Old Wealth owns things land, opportunities, quiet influence.

Adelson, Koch brothers are at the end of the day bag men. Even Bush, Rockefeller's and Vanderbilt's had to marry into old money to survive. My thought: Romney is in a category of his own a religious zealot and a legitimate criminal enterprise, Mitt's vile superiority is really offensive. The Sicilian mob is really old money never seems to go away just the names change of the bag men but the real owners are still there in the background and legitimate.