Keep telling yourself that. The right isn't exactly a bastion for free speech with their book bans and freakout over pronouns. But you having the gall to call anyone unCanadian is the kicker.
Should Canada merge with Trump's America?
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
[QUOTE="JohnLarue, post: 875367]#1 . the socialist experiment in Canada created far more of those who are not fed well [/QUOTE]
I agree with almost everything you can say. As far as socialist experimentation, it's pretty clear a first world country can provide fairly comfortable lives for their citizens. The question is what happens in the long-run. The real risk is the society develops sclerosis and stagnates. This is only obvious when you look outside the country.
Threads like this are only the opening salvo in the upcoming Parliamentary elections. Progressives will be aggressively on watch trying to defend the recent past. As an American, I would say it really has nothing to do with what we did this November. However, there will be likely comparisons and criticisms of the U.S.
The most devious of the Progressive lot probably know that continued government expansion will lead to dependence and likely never going back. Some are just naive that the government expansion in recent years can be simply be managed and incorporated effectively.
I agree with almost everything you can say. As far as socialist experimentation, it's pretty clear a first world country can provide fairly comfortable lives for their citizens. The question is what happens in the long-run. The real risk is the society develops sclerosis and stagnates. This is only obvious when you look outside the country.
Threads like this are only the opening salvo in the upcoming Parliamentary elections. Progressives will be aggressively on watch trying to defend the recent past. As an American, I would say it really has nothing to do with what we did this November. However, there will be likely comparisons and criticisms of the U.S.
The most devious of the Progressive lot probably know that continued government expansion will lead to dependence and likely never going back. Some are just naive that the government expansion in recent years can be simply be managed and incorporated effectively.
Last edited:
I agree with almost everything you can say. As far as socialist experimentation, it's pretty clear a first world county can provide fairly comfortable lives for their citizens. The question is what happens in the long-run. The real risk is the society develops sclerosis and stagnates. This is only obvious when you look outside the country.
Threads like this are only the opening salvo in the upcoming Parliamentary elections. Progressives will be aggressively on watch trying to defend the recent past. As an American, I would say it really has nothing to do with what we did this November. However, there will be likely comparisons and criticisms of the U.S.
The most devious of the Progressive lot probably know that continued government expansion will lead to dependence and likely never going back. Some are just naive that the government expansion in recent years can be simply be managed and incorporated effectively.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
Hey man, I can try it. If it's not working out, I can quit anytime I want. I'm not going to get hooked.
Last edited:
Everything about Canada is better than Yankistan. They're pretty much a country of fat, inbred cunts.
I speak for all True Canadians. #FuckAmerica
FED UP Canada PM ESCALATES WARNING to Trump Threats
To each their own...but Canada would have a hard time existing without the US, like it or not.
Prior to WW2, we had very little trade with the US. And I'd be happy to go right back to that. I totally support the CANZUK movement and I hope it can get off the ground. Politically, socially and culturally, true Canadians will feel closer to the UK, Australia and New Zealand with the filth to the south of us.
Fuck the USA.
No fan on MarxIsm
Trickle down economics is The return to aristocracy
Which ends up with a highly inefficient state And then a revolution With all the rich people being killed.
Everybody is happy that ceo is dead. If he does a jury trial I bet he'll get jury nullification.
We are already on that path.
Deficits are how capitalism works. Trump Famous story to his daughter was he pointed to a bomb on the street and said that man has more money than I have. At the height of his empire He was a massive debt And on paper he had no money. Deficits are fine as long as they are Put towards long-term investment. They're bad when they're spent on luxury goods and frills.
Going into debt to buy a house Make sense. Going into debt to buy a sports car does not.
Last edited:
nonsense
you have a dead CEO being tried by jury?
capital runs away from stupid
capital is required for growth , innovation and progress
everyone has the opportunity to provide a new product / service and get rich while meeting customer demand
new millionaires are made every day. and they are not aristocracy
big govt is the reason for the current highly inefficient state
if there were ever to be a revolution, the commies always brutally silence opposing views and then a strongman takes control
it has happened over and over again
[/QUOTE]
Going into debt to buy govt infrastructure which will provide benefit over the life of the loan makes sense
Going into debt to pay govt operating expenses is stupid and irresponsible and that is what govts are doing
the real cost of a new govt hire is 103.5% of the salary & benefits with compounding and the cost of borrowing the money for a new govt hire remains long after that new hire retires or moves on
the Canadian Federal govt has grown 25% since numb nus took office
.
this is not sustainable
Last edited:
No, it is very true
The US is Canada's largest trading partner, accounting for 76% of Canada's total exports.
the US economy is far more domestically oriented
Canada-U.S. trade is roughly 3% of the U.S. economy. For Canada, trade with the U.S. is roughly one-third of its economy.
wrong again.
even in the 1930's trade with the US was 3 X that of the UK
Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web
as much as you would like to romanticize about how the world should be, the reality is Canada is economically dependant on the US
A CANZAK trade movement would be fine. It does make sense to have English-speaking Commonwealth countries trade freely with each other.wrong again.
even in the 1930's trade with the US was 3 X that of the UK
View attachment 385906Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web
publications.gc.ca
View attachment 385907
as much as you would like to romanticize about how the world should be, the reality is Canada is economically dependant on the US
However, it just doesn't create a lot of symmetry. On a standalone basis, you have too many natural resource producers and not enough consumption internal to the trade organization.
Canada is very dependent on global growth. Also, we had more leverage before fracking started taking off in the U.S.
Estimating the percentage of Europe's economy reliant on timber and its transition to alternative fuels across centuries requires some inference from historical records. Here's a century-by-century breakdown, focusing on how timber's economic role evolved relative to total economic activity:
14th Century (1300s): Dominance of Timber
- Economic Share of Timber: ~60–70%
Timber was indispensable for domestic heating, cooking, and construction. Forests were abundant, and wood served as the primary energy source for almost all industries and households. Agriculture dominated the economy, and timber was integral to farming tools and infrastructure.
15th Century (1400s): Beginning of Constraints
- Economic Share of Timber: ~50–60%
Timber remained critical, but population recovery after the Black Death led to localized resource pressure. The early stages of urbanization and proto-industrialization (e.g., textile mills) began to diversify economic reliance on resources.
16th Century (1500s): Growing Scarcity
- Economic Share of Timber: ~40–50%
Rising demand for timber caused prices to surge. Deforestation in heavily populated areas like England, France, and the Low Countries marked a tipping point. Peat and coal began to supplement timber for fuel, especially in urban centers.
17th Century (1600s): Transition Begins
- Economic Share of Timber: ~20–30%
The shift toward coal as a substitute for wood became significant in countries like England, particularly for heating and industrial processes. London's reliance on coal for energy increased rapidly, signaling the broader transition.
18th Century (1700s): The Age of Coal
- Economic Share of Timber: ~10–15%
Coal overtook timber as the primary fuel source. In England, coal fueled the burgeoning Industrial Revolution, with innovations like coke-based iron smelting. Timber's role was relegated to construction and specialized industries like shipbuilding.
19th Century (1800s): Industrial Dominance
- Economic Share of Timber: ~5–10%
The rise of coal, steam power, and later oil drastically reduced timber's economic role. Timber remained essential for construction and as raw material in industries like paper, but its contribution to energy had diminished to negligible levels.
20th Century (1900s): Negligible Economic Role
- Economic Share of Timber: ~1–5%
Timber was no longer significant as a fuel source, with oil, natural gas, and electricity dominating. It continued to play a minor role in construction, furniture, and pulp industries.
21st Century (2000s): Specialty Material
- Economic Share of Timber: ~1–3%
Timber remains vital for sustainable construction, paper products, and as a renewable resource, but its role in the energy sector is limited to niche applications like biomass energy.
Summary Table: Timber's Economic Role Over Time
| Century | Economic Share of Timber |
|---|---|
| 14th | 60–70% |
| 15th | 50–60% |
| 16th | 40–50% |
| 17th | 20–30% |
| 18th | 10–15% |
| 19th | 5–10% |
| 20th | 1–5% |
| 21st | 1–3% |
This progression illustrates how technological advancements and resource scarcity reshaped Europe's economy, reducing its dependence on timber and driving the transition to more efficient energy sources.
Estimating the percentage of Europe's economy reliant on timber and its transition to alternative fuels across centuries requires some inference from historical records. Here's a century-by-century breakdown, focusing on how timber's economic role evolved relative to total economic activity:
14th Century (1300s): Dominance of Timber
- Economic Share of Timber: ~60–70%
Timber was indispensable for domestic heating, cooking, and construction. Forests were abundant, and wood served as the primary energy source for almost all industries and households. Agriculture dominated the economy, and timber was integral to farming tools and infrastructure.
15th Century (1400s): Beginning of Constraints
- Economic Share of Timber: ~50–60%
Timber remained critical, but population recovery after the Black Death led to localized resource pressure. The early stages of urbanization and proto-industrialization (e.g., textile mills) began to diversify economic reliance on resources.
16th Century (1500s): Growing Scarcity
- Economic Share of Timber: ~40–50%
Rising demand for timber caused prices to surge. Deforestation in heavily populated areas like England, France, and the Low Countries marked a tipping point. Peat and coal began to supplement timber for fuel, especially in urban centers.
17th Century (1600s): Transition Begins
- Economic Share of Timber: ~20–30%
The shift toward coal as a substitute for wood became significant in countries like England, particularly for heating and industrial processes. London's reliance on coal for energy increased rapidly, signaling the broader transition.
18th Century (1700s): The Age of Coal
- Economic Share of Timber: ~10–15%
Coal overtook timber as the primary fuel source. In England, coal fueled the burgeoning Industrial Revolution, with innovations like coke-based iron smelting. Timber's role was relegated to construction and specialized industries like shipbuilding.
19th Century (1800s): Industrial Dominance
- Economic Share of Timber: ~5–10%
The rise of coal, steam power, and later oil drastically reduced timber's economic role. Timber remained essential for construction and as raw material in industries like paper, but its contribution to energy had diminished to negligible levels.
20th Century (1900s): Negligible Economic Role
- Economic Share of Timber: ~1–5%
Timber was no longer significant as a fuel source, with oil, natural gas, and electricity dominating. It continued to play a minor role in construction, furniture, and pulp industries.
21st Century (2000s): Specialty Material
- Economic Share of Timber: ~1–3%
Timber remains vital for sustainable construction, paper products, and as a renewable resource, but its role in the energy sector is limited to niche applications like biomass energy.
Summary Table: Timber's Economic Role Over Time
| Century | Economic Share of Timber |
|---|---|
| 14th | 60–70% |
| 15th | 50–60% |
| 16th | 40–50% |
| 17th | 20–30% |
| 18th | 10–15% |
| 19th | 5–10% |
| 20th | 1–5% |
| 21st | 1–3% |
This progression illustrates how technological advancements and resource scarcity reshaped Europe's economy, reducing its dependence on timber and driving the transition to more efficient energy sources.
Here’s a table listing the various costs of the timber shortage across different aspects of society and the economy:
| Category | Impact/Cost of Timber Shortage | Example/Details |
|---|---|---|
| Rising Fuel Costs | Increased prices for firewood and charcoal, disproportionately affecting the poor. | Firewood prices in England rose by 70% between 1550 and 1600. |
| Industrial Decline | Higher costs and reduced availability of fuel for industries reliant on charcoal (e.g., metallurgy, brewing). | English iron production faced shortages before the shift to coke in the 17th century. |
| Deforestation Relocation | Industries had to move closer to remaining forests, increasing transportation costs. | Glassmaking and smelting operations moved, raising overhead costs and reducing efficiency. |
| Energy Poverty | Limited access to affordable fuel forced rural and urban households to adopt inefficient substitutes like peat or dung. | Rural communities experienced "fuel famines," reducing quality of life and productivity. |
| Loss of Biodiversity | Deforestation degraded ecosystems, reducing agricultural productivity and timber availability. | Overexploitation of forests in France and Germany caused soil erosion and habitat destruction. |
| Military Setbacks | Scarcity of timber for shipbuilding reduced naval capabilities for maritime powers. | England and the Netherlands struggled to maintain fleets in the late 16th century. |
| Urban Energy Transition | Transition to coal required infrastructure changes, raising initial costs for urban centers reliant on traditional wood. | London saw early adoption of coal but needed new logistics and supply chains to accommodate the shift. |
| Cultural Impact | Decline in access to wood for artisans and craftsmen, impacting traditional trades. | Furniture and instrument makers faced material shortages, driving up costs and limiting production. |
| Agricultural Decline | Loss of forests led to soil degradation, reducing agricultural yields in heavily deforested areas. | Eastern Europe experienced declining grain productivity due to the loss of protective forest belts. |
| Economic Inequality | Wealthier classes could monopolize timber resources, exacerbating social disparities. | Nobles in Eastern Europe controlled forests, further marginalizing peasants reliant on wood for fuel and construction. |
| Transition Costs | Investments required to shift to coal or peat as alternative energy sources. | Mining operations in Newcastle expanded significantly, incurring labor and capital costs before profitability improved. |
This table encapsulates the multifaceted economic and societal costs incurred due to the timber shortage in Europe. It emphasizes the ripple effects that resource depletion had across various domains, prompting an eventual transition to alternative energy sources.
Timber , the economic power house of its time ran out. Its renewable so it grew back, but energy needs will make oil obsolete sooner than latter - the pattern repeats for coke, coal, peat etc.
Pre- marget thatcher getting the world off coal was insane ...
Here’s a chart that consolidates the potential damages caused by failing to transition off fossil fuels in a reasonable timeframe, including deaths, economic costs, and associated societal impacts:
| Category | Impact | Deaths (Est.) by 2050 | Economic/Societal Damage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Air Pollution | Continued exposure to PM2.5 and toxic emissions from fossil fuels. | ~260 million | Increased healthcare costs and reduced workforce productivity. |
| Climate Change | Heatwaves, natural disasters, food insecurity, and disease outbreaks. | ~30–40 million | Damage to infrastructure, agriculture, and global supply chains. |
| Resource Conflicts | Geopolitical instability and wars over fossil fuel resources and climate-induced scarcity. | ~10–20 million | Increased military spending and displacement of populations. |
| Economic Collapse from Costs | Rising energy prices due to fossil fuel scarcity and lack of renewable infrastructure. | Indirect (linked to poverty and hardship) | Economic recessions, inflation, and loss of GDP in fossil-fuel-dependent nations. |
| Environmental Disasters | Deforestation, ocean acidification, and biodiversity loss due to fossil fuel impacts. | Indirect | Decline in fisheries, agricultural yields, and ecosystem services. |
| Heat-Related Deaths | Intensified heatwaves from global warming caused by continued fossil fuel use. | ~10 million | Energy costs rise as air conditioning and cooling demands increase. |
| Forced Migration | Climate refugees fleeing uninhabitable regions and resource-scarce areas. | Indirect (linked to climate effects) | Political instability and economic strain on receiving nations. |
- Total Deaths (Direct and Indirect): ~300–330 million by 2050.
- Economic Costs: Estimated in trillions of dollars due to healthcare, infrastructure damage, migration, and loss of productivity.
- Societal Impact: Exacerbation of inequality, loss of biodiversity, and destabilized economies worldwide.
This chart highlights how inaction on fossil fuels has catastrophic human, environmental, and economic consequences.
That being said, both energy pools need to be exploited. The goal of free power like Geo-thermal should be the end goal, with a small f free as maintenance , expansion etc costs.
Cars for years where toys, and computers toys from 1900 to the 2nd world war.
It takes time to evolve new technologies.
The internet took many decades with major support of the world...
We are 30 years behind in serious R&D in this tech - timber is still used today, and oil will always have a place -airplanes for one - but this support for oil company profits is insane.
Last edited:
Going into debt to buy govt infrastructure which will provide benefit over the life of the loan makes sense
Going into debt to pay govt operating expenses is stupid and irresponsible and that is what govts are doing
the real cost of a new govt hire is 103.5% of the salary & benefits with compounding and the cost of borrowing the money for a new govt hire remains long after that new hire retires or moves on
the Canadian Federal govt has grown 25% since numb nus took office
.
this is not sustainable
[/QUOTE]
nonsense
you have a dead CEO being tried by jury?
Your either straw manning here or suffer from lack of experience
On the subway Penny killed someone - legally this might be murder -however, he was found not guilty
If he should have be convicted for murder by the current facts and laws -but a jury dosnt care
this is called Jury nullification.
if Luigi Mangione has a decent lawyer he should get the same result.
as for aristocrats
Here’s a chart that explains how historical aristocrats were primarily ultra-wealthy individuals who gained extra-legal powers later in their respective eras:
| Era | Characteristics of Wealth | Extra-Legal Powers | Key Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early Feudal Period (9th–11th century) | Wealth based on land ownership, which provided economic and military resources. | Limited powers; relied on monarchs for titles and protection in exchange for loyalty. | Early Frankish lords under Charlemagne; English landholders pre-1066. |
| High Feudal Period (12th–13th century) | Consolidation of landholdings through inheritance, marriage, and conquest. | Gained judicial and military authority over their fiefs as vassals of monarchs. | Norman barons after the Conquest; French counts and dukes. |
| Late Feudal Period (14th–15th century) | Wealth diversified into trade, taxation of peasantry, and control over urban centers. | Extra-legal powers expanded: lords could administer laws, raise armies, and collect taxes. | Venetian merchant families; Burgundian dukes. |
| Renaissance Era (15th–16th century) | Aristocrats began investing in commerce, banking, and early industrial ventures. | Power was formalized through feudal laws but also extended via court influence. | Medici family in Florence; Spanish grandees during colonization. |
| Early Modern Period (17th century) | Wealth shifted toward trade empires, colonial holdings, and monopolies. | Aristocrats became enforcers of royal law while retaining privileges like tax immunity. | French nobles under Louis XIV; English peers post-Civil War. |
| Industrial Revolution (18th–19th century) | Aristocrats leveraged wealth to invest in industrialization, railroads, and urban real estate. | Extra-legal powers waned; replaced by economic dominance and political lobbying. | British landed gentry; Russian boyars transitioning into industrialists. |
| Modern Comparison (20th–21st century) | Ultra-wealthy individuals dominate finance, technology, and global trade. | Legal frameworks allow influence through lobbying, media control, and tax evasion. | Tech billionaires; global oligarchs in finance and energy. |
- Early Wealth: Aristocrats began primarily as ultra-wealthy individuals whose power derived from land ownership and economic control.
- Extra-Legal Powers: These powers (judicial, military, or political authority) often emerged as a byproduct of their economic status and loyalty to sovereign rulers.
- Decline of Extra-Legal Powers: Over time, formalized legal structures reduced their extra-legal powers, transitioning them into economic elites resembling today’s ultra-wealthy individuals.
Here’s a chart focusing on the pre-extra-legal power periods for aristocrats, highlighting how their wealth incidentally gave them influence before formal powers were granted:
| Period | Source of Wealth | Incidental Power | Reason for Influence | Key Examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early Medieval Period (5th–8th century) | Land ownership and control over agricultural production. | Influence over local communities due to economic dependency of peasants. | Wealth provided resources for protection, making them local leaders. | Anglo-Saxon landowners; Frankish lords. |
| Carolingian Empire (8th–9th century) | Grants of land (benefices) from kings in exchange for military service. | Wealth allowed them to raise private armies, but authority depended on kings. | Wealth created reliance from monarchs, indirectly boosting status. | Charlemagne’s vassals. |
| Viking Age (8th–11th century) | Control of trade routes, plunder, and tribute from conquests. | Economic power brought prestige and occasional informal alliances with rulers. | Trade and wealth earned respect but not formal powers. | Norse jarls; coastal traders. |
| Early Feudal Period (10th–11th century) | Consolidation of land through inheritance and marriage. | Authority arose from wealth enabling stronger local defense and influence. | Economic dependence of peasants created informal obligations of loyalty. | Norman lords before the Conquest. |
| Crusader States (11th–12th century) | Wealth from plunder, trade, and control of pilgrimage routes. | Influence through funding armies for crusades, earning favors from monarchs. | Economic contributions to campaigns indirectly granted status. | Lords of Outremer; Hospitallers. |
| City-States of Italy (12th–13th century) | Commerce and banking wealth among urban elites. | Wealth allowed informal control of councils and civic institutions. | Economic clout translated into political and social sway. | Medici family pre-Florentine Republic. |
| Hanseatic League (12th–14th century) | Trade monopolies and maritime commerce. | Economic dominance enabled informal regulation of regional trade. | Wealth ensured leverage over towns and monarchs reliant on trade. | Hanseatic merchants; Lübeck patricians. |
- Primary Basis: Aristocrats' influence during these periods stemmed from wealth rooted in land, trade, or military resources.
- Incidental Power: Their wealth often led to reliance from peasants or monarchs, granting them unofficial or informal authority.
- Pre-Extra-Legal Period: These aristocrats lacked formal powers and titles; their authority was circumstantial and economically driven rather than codified in law.
In the current era, the dynamics of wealth and influence have evolved, but the underlying principles remain similar in some respects to the early rich and pre-aristocratic periods. Today, the ultra-wealthy hold considerable power, but their influence operates through formal, institutionalized channels rather than informal or incidental means. Here's an overview of how wealth has evolved into institutional power in the modern context:
Characteristics of the Modern Ultra-Wealthy (Current Era)
- Wealth Accumulation Through Capitalism
- The ultra-wealthy today primarily accumulate wealth through investments in global markets, technology, finance, and energy sectors. Unlike the past, where wealth was mostly tied to land or tangible goods, modern wealth is often intangible (stocks, intellectual property, digital assets).
- Wealth today is more fluid, moving across borders and industries, creating a class of global elites with diversified portfolios.
- Institutional Influence and Power
- Political Influence: The ultra-wealthy wield significant power in politics through lobbying, campaign financing, and direct connections to policymakers. Unlike earlier periods, their influence is now structured within legal frameworks and political systems.
- Media and Cultural Control: Many of the ultra-wealthy own or control media outlets, which enables them to shape public opinion, cultural narratives, and even political discourse. This was impossible in earlier eras where wealth alone did not offer the means to control public perceptions on a wide scale.
- Corporate Power: The most powerful individuals today often lead or own major multinational corporations, dictating global trade, labor conditions, and environmental policies. They have institutionalized their influence by occupying key positions in the business world.
- Economic Networks and Global Capital
- Wealth today is deeply intertwined with global systems of finance. Many of the ultra-wealthy invest across borders, influencing entire economies through stock markets, hedge funds, and venture capital firms.
- Tax Loopholes and Offshore Wealth: Unlike earlier periods, where aristocrats were exempt from certain laws, modern billionaires have engineered complex legal structures to avoid paying taxes, often shifting assets into offshore accounts or using trusts to preserve their wealth across generations.
- Philanthropy as Power
- The ultra-wealthy often use their vast fortunes to fund charitable initiatives or foundations, such as those run by Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Warren Buffet. This form of philanthropy, while presenting a veneer of benevolence, can also shape policy and influence sectors such as education, healthcare, and technology.
- However, this gives rise to questions about "philanthro-capitalism"—the idea that the rich use charity to maintain their power and influence, instead of addressing systemic issues of inequality.
- Surveillance and Data Control
- With the advent of digital technology, many of the richest individuals now control vast amounts of data through platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon. Their ability to gather, analyze, and sell personal data gives them unprecedented power over individuals and entire societies.
- This new form of wealth generation—through data—has created a system of surveillance capitalism, where individuals' behaviors, preferences, and personal information are commodified, benefiting a select group of wealthy elites.
- Late 19th Century – Industrial Revolution: The rise of industrial tycoons such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan marked the first major shift where wealth allowed individuals to directly influence political systems, create monopolies, and dictate labor conditions.
- Post-World War II Era: With the expansion of global trade, financial markets, and the rise of multinational corporations, wealth transitioned from localized power to global influence. The rise of Silicon Valley further accelerated this shift.
- Late 20th to 21st Century – Digital Revolution: Tech moguls like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk have created fortunes through new industries like software, e-commerce, and space exploration, influencing economies and societies worldwide.
- Philanthro-Capitalism and the Role of Billionaires: In the 21st century, billionaires have used their wealth not just to shape business and politics but to create large-scale philanthropic initiatives. This has led to an ongoing debate about whether these philanthropic efforts truly help society or whether they merely concentrate more power in the hands of the wealthy.
| Characteristic | Historical Aristocrats | Modern Ultra-Wealthy |
|---|---|---|
| Source of Wealth | Land, agriculture, trade, military conquest. | Capital, tech companies, finance, investments, real estate. |
| Influence | Informal, based on local or regional power structures. | Formal, institutionalized power in business, politics, and media. |
| Political Influence | Dependent on monarchs, feudal systems, or informal allegiances. | Political lobbying, campaign financing, and media control. |
| Wealth’s Impact on Society | Limited to direct economic power (labor, agriculture). | Global impact via global markets, data control, and philanthropy. |
| Legal and Institutional Status | Power often unformalized or locally confined. | Wealth integrated into formal political, corporate, and legal systems. |
While wealth in earlier periods was incidentally tied to influence, it is today institutionalized. Modern ultra-wealthy individuals wield power not only through their economic resources but through their control over global markets, media, politics, and technological innovation. The transition from "early rich" to powerful elites has been solidified by the complex intersection of capitalism, digital economies, and state power, making today's ultra-wealthy similar to historical aristocrats in their ability to shape the world—though with far more global reach and far greater complexity.
Last edited:
