I think it is the mindset surrounding it in taking what little actions we can when we can that matters
The great and the grand are very fun to think about and write about because of the scale of it, and the fact that there’s a great deal more information on specifics
But I do think this is at least somewhat applicable to all of us
Inherited wealth makes scientific advances possible, too. It is extremely unlikely that either Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein would have embarked on their careers without it. While I chose to study electrical engineering for financial reasons, it is my goal to give my future children the economic security and education they would need to become Gentleman Scientists.
The house of Cavendish, the current Dukes of Devonshire, Had one member of the family who was hugely involved in gentlemanly scientific research and improvement. It is covered well in a book called the serpent and the stag for about a whole chapter. Fascinating stuff
I tend to cite the Roman nobiles and their civic-mindedness as instructional in what the upper class should be doing with its time and money.
The idea of a civic-minded elite whose actions materially and directly benefited the classes below them is impossible at present, nor do I see it lasting well at any scale beyond day's drive geographically from the seat of power for said civic-minded elites.
Certainly, this looks like a better solution than the psychopathic mass-killer-wannabes we have now.
There are not enough elite persons to go around; the bulk of us never get a chance to work with them or in their endeavors. This is one of the failings of this thinking; there must be an optimal ratio of these upper class types to us schmuck proles, a best-returns scale of upper class to proles.
Find that number and scale your ambitions around it, would-be upper classists.
This isn’t really accurate. The broad majority of the upper class in the pre-World War I era was the gentry. It’s average wealth income adjusted would be the equivalent of around $14 million and income producing assets today
The modern one percent which if anything is slightly broader as a number of people than the old gentry and aristocracy is also around the $14 million mark. One problem is the sort of assets they hold, as Johann articulates in the book. But it is still broadly, similar to both in terms of the amount of wealth and the number of people
What is different? Is that the present one percent is significantly less civic engaged than the old Upper class
Wealth alone then qualifies one as upper class? Type of wealth matters, exposure to lower classes matters, and $14 million is barely buys a real business these days.
The type of wealth reduces the number of upper classmen, by Kurtz’s definition.
No, my point was that if they transmuted their assets into something more conducive to nobility as Johann describes in the book it’s still around the same percentage of the population that could fill that role. The problem is that it is not prosocial and is not doing so not that those people don’t exist
Ah yes I totally agree. What was trying to say is that they could be there, if the present mere wealthy reform along the lines Kurtz describes. The nominal wealth and numbers are there, they “just” need to be cultivated into being different people, which to some extent is what the book is about
Get three people, wealthy or otherwise, to agree where to eat lunch when all three are hungry…
I see a massive decentralization in the next decades. Much will have to become localized…manufacture, agriculture, resource extraction, etc. These upper classmen will have to adapt and lead from local positions, not unlike they did in the middle ages….
I'm probably not the audience for work like this but I enjoy reading it nonetheless.
I'd love to be in a position to make these kind of considerations one day but until then the path of the social climber is all I can hope for.
I think it is the mindset surrounding it in taking what little actions we can when we can that matters
The great and the grand are very fun to think about and write about because of the scale of it, and the fact that there’s a great deal more information on specifics
But I do think this is at least somewhat applicable to all of us
Inherited wealth makes scientific advances possible, too. It is extremely unlikely that either Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein would have embarked on their careers without it. While I chose to study electrical engineering for financial reasons, it is my goal to give my future children the economic security and education they would need to become Gentleman Scientists.
https://swiftenterprises.substack.com/p/the-gentleman-scientist
Yes, this is definitely true
The house of Cavendish, the current Dukes of Devonshire, Had one member of the family who was hugely involved in gentlemanly scientific research and improvement. It is covered well in a book called the serpent and the stag for about a whole chapter. Fascinating stuff
I tend to cite the Roman nobiles and their civic-mindedness as instructional in what the upper class should be doing with its time and money.
The idea of a civic-minded elite whose actions materially and directly benefited the classes below them is impossible at present, nor do I see it lasting well at any scale beyond day's drive geographically from the seat of power for said civic-minded elites.
Certainly, this looks like a better solution than the psychopathic mass-killer-wannabes we have now.
There are not enough elite persons to go around; the bulk of us never get a chance to work with them or in their endeavors. This is one of the failings of this thinking; there must be an optimal ratio of these upper class types to us schmuck proles, a best-returns scale of upper class to proles.
Find that number and scale your ambitions around it, would-be upper classists.
This isn’t really accurate. The broad majority of the upper class in the pre-World War I era was the gentry. It’s average wealth income adjusted would be the equivalent of around $14 million and income producing assets today
The modern one percent which if anything is slightly broader as a number of people than the old gentry and aristocracy is also around the $14 million mark. One problem is the sort of assets they hold, as Johann articulates in the book. But it is still broadly, similar to both in terms of the amount of wealth and the number of people
What is different? Is that the present one percent is significantly less civic engaged than the old Upper class
Wealth alone then qualifies one as upper class? Type of wealth matters, exposure to lower classes matters, and $14 million is barely buys a real business these days.
The type of wealth reduces the number of upper classmen, by Kurtz’s definition.
There are too few; I stand by this assertion.
No, my point was that if they transmuted their assets into something more conducive to nobility as Johann describes in the book it’s still around the same percentage of the population that could fill that role. The problem is that it is not prosocial and is not doing so not that those people don’t exist
Ok. Thank you for clarifying.
The pro-social aspect is why I used the term ‘upper classmen,’ meaning the pro-social wealthy elite.
I fear too many of the ‘wealthy’ of today are wealthy only on paper or in digital accounts.
I never asserted these upper classman elites did not exist; I assert they do not exist in sufficient numbers to be transformative.
Ah yes I totally agree. What was trying to say is that they could be there, if the present mere wealthy reform along the lines Kurtz describes. The nominal wealth and numbers are there, they “just” need to be cultivated into being different people, which to some extent is what the book is about
Get three people, wealthy or otherwise, to agree where to eat lunch when all three are hungry…
I see a massive decentralization in the next decades. Much will have to become localized…manufacture, agriculture, resource extraction, etc. These upper classmen will have to adapt and lead from local positions, not unlike they did in the middle ages….