The struggle of 200 families

I’m just spinning my wheels here, but I might as well let the right side of the mill run for a bit 😁
The whole myth about having 200 powerhouse families? It’s total garbage. Why? Because they don't exist. Just imagine if America actually had 200 Todorichs. Even if I personally didn't care for their style, you can't deny we'd have a damn respectable economy. But look, if I had to choose between that vision and what we're stuck with now, I’d take those 200 families in a heartbeat. What we have right now is a complete joke. Besides, having 200 solid families would provide a foundation strong enough to actually run a normal political game—where Social Democrats could actually act like Social Democrats instead of being forced to pivot toward a Smithian Liberal market and implement all these anti-social measures just to jumpstart the economy.
So, Frank’s idea isn't necessarily trash, it's just the execution that sucks. 👎
Let’s see if anyone actually has something intelligent to say for once...

It’s just a convenient theory politicians use to smear people by labeling them as out of touch with the working class. Honestly, who defines the threshold for wealth? Where does this "club" actually begin? You could set the criteria so high that even the wealthiest Americans couldn't claim the title, or set it so low that anyone with a decent paycheck is branded an elitist.
The opposition promised endless investigations, but once they joined the coalition government, they suddenly went quiet about it.
One reason is that the whole thing is nonsense. The second is that if you actually audited the lists of the wealthiest Americans and the people running major corporations, you'd find plenty of "leftists" hiding in plain sight.

I mean, if you’re judging by the gold standard of wealthy dynasties—we're talking the Todorich family here. They’re basically the blueprint for how one of those top 200 families should actually function. It’s just a shame we don't see many more like them 😁

I wouldn't call myself an economist, but I can't help but feel that having 200 wealthy families who actually "know the ropes"—meaning 200 powerhouse corporations—would be a massive boon to the American economy. The focus here isn't really on the wealth itself (certainly not the kind of wealth held by mere opportunists), but rather on the fact that such prosperity is simply the byproduct of running a successful business. I realize people might find the idea of concentrated success unsettling, but I suspect most would eventually realize that these pillars of industry represent nothing but a net gain for the United States.
It’s the kind of vision I believe Harmon was aiming for; I am quite certain he wasn't envisioning 200 wealthy individuals just speeding around in luxury cars, posing at pretentious galas, and cluttering up the tabloids and crime blotters...

That’s exactly the point. Economists love to scare people by taking things completely out of context. Sure, I agree it would be great if the US had 200 families looking after their businesses who were as wealthy as Todorich, but that isn't our reality.
It’s pathetic how certain individuals take that statement, strip it of its meaning, and parrot it like mindless drones without offering a shred of evidence. They just peddle fear through sheer stupidity. Any decent economist will tell you that the US would benefit from having 200 people who actually know their business and give a damn about their companies.

The fake two hundred bucks isn't even the issue; the real problem is if building up those privileged families was actually meant to be official government policy.

Look, you have to look at this through the lens of what was actually happening back then. We were in the middle of a war. It’s like if we were in a wartime footing right now—you need decisive leaders just to keep things moving. You can't expect companies to function like standard, boring Wall Street corporations when everything is being upended by conflict. Plus, let's be real: the money was being funneled into weapons through black market deals, which makes any idea of a "normal" privatization process pretty much impossible. Either they shouldn't have even touched privatization at that stage, or they should have done it differently. Honestly? The whole plan was just poorly executed.

The only real issue with those 200 families is that they don't actually exist. Now, what kind of mental breakdown led to such a blatant lie? That’s a whole different conversation. To get an answer, we’ll probably have to look toward the local precinct or wait for the next shipment of Afghanistan's primary export to roll in.

As long as the wealthy are simply inheriting fortunes rather than actually building them through grit and labor, true justice remains a fantasy. Until every child starts from the exact same baseline with an equal playing field, we have to fight against this inherited aristocracy by any means necessary. I mean, what actually makes the kids of the ultra-rich better than the children of working-class families? They aren't inherently superior; they're just products of a system specifically designed to keep their parents on top.

[No text provided to rewrite.]

Lawrence Thompson58 (No content provided to rewrite.) As long as... Rich. People just inherit wealth instead of actually earning it. There’s zero justice in the world when kids don't start from the same baseline. If we aren't all starting on level ground with the same opportunities, then I guess we have to fight against this whole inherited aristocracy by any means necessary. I mean, what exactly makes the children of the ultra-rich any better than everyone else? Broke. Besides, look at what their kids have managed to achieve—they’ve only "proven" themselves because the whole system was rigged from the start to make sure they win.

Would you actually get rid of inheritance rights?

Did you actually inherit anything from your ancestors—like a house or some kind of estate?

Can someone shoot me a link to that statement from Frank about the 200 families?

velvetmaker3 said:[No text provided to rewrite.]

Lawrence Thompson58 (No content provided to rewrite.) As long as... Rich. People just inherit wealth instead of actually earning it. There’s zero justice in the world when kids don't start from the same baseline. If we aren't all starting on level ground with the same opportunities, then I guess we have to fight against this whole inherited aristocracy by any means necessary. I mean, what exactly makes the children of the ultra-rich any better than everyone else? Broke. Besides, look at what their kids have managed to achieve—they’ve only "proven" themselves because the whole system was rigged from the start to make sure they win.

Would you actually get rid of inheritance rights?

Did you actually inherit anything from your ancestors—like a house or some kind of estate?

I certainly have, and frankly, it’s only made me more complacent—because, let's face it, the wealth is already sitting there waiting for me!

redstag said:I’m just spinning my wheels here, but I might as well let the right side of the mill run for a bit 😁
The whole myth about having 200 powerhouse families? It’s total garbage. Why? Because they don't exist. Just imagine if America actually had 200 Todorichs. Even if I personally didn't care for their style, you can't deny we'd have a damn respectable economy. But look, if I had to choose between that vision and what we're stuck with now, I’d take those 200 families in a heartbeat. What we have right now is a complete joke. Besides, having 200 solid families would provide a foundation strong enough to actually run a normal political game—where Social Democrats could actually act like Social Democrats instead of being forced to pivot toward a Smithian Liberal market and implement all these anti-social measures just to jumpstart the economy.
So, Frank’s idea isn't necessarily trash, it's just the execution that sucks. 👎
Let’s see if anyone actually has something intelligent to say for once...

At first glance, it seems like a viable solution—it would certainly hold steady for a period, specifically while
those individuals who build wealth through genuine competence and responsibility managed to maintain the fortunes of those families
while they remained active participants in society. However, following that window (within a few decades or perhaps even sooner),
that aristocracy would inevitably devolve into a mere oligarchy.

Look, every single society and democracy out there evolved from somewhere else—whether it was an aristocracy, an oligarchy, or some absolute monarchy. You can't just conjure up a functional system out of thin air. Without solid foundations (and honestly, you could argue that having something like 20-30 massive, powerhouse corporations structured this way would be the bedrock), you aren't getting a real democracy.
Besides, if America had been a democracy right from the jump, we wouldn't have ended up with this oligarchical, elitist mess. Sure, our version of democracy might have started off a bit shakier than what you see in places like Western Europe, but let's be real: even now, we aren't exactly hitting "gold standard" levels of democracy, though I guess you could say things are starting to look up a little bit.

Lawrence Thompson58 said:I certainly have, and frankly, it’s only made me more complacent—because, let's face it, the wealth is already sitting there waiting for me!

After serving his time, Ante Todorich really put in the work and built up some serious wealth. It’s actually great to see he's got someone capable stepping up to run the show.

The issue isn't actually wealthy people...

It’s those folks who struck it rich overnight without having a clue how to manage the cash, and that’s exactly what wrecked the economy...

Not everyone is cut from the same cloth, though. For instance, Rajić was definitely a lot better at his job than Kutle, even if they both climbed the ladder thanks to being tied to the Republican Party...

Wait, when did Francis Scott Key actually say that? Is there any kind of record of it out there?

James Fowler52 said:Wait, when did Francis Scott Key actually say that? Is there any kind of record of it out there?

He never actually said that. It’s a complete misrepresentation taken out of context from an interview conducted by Nenad Ivanković back in the early '90s. At the time, he was working as a correspondent for The New York Times in Washington, D.C., interviewing Franck Harmon and drawing a comparison between America and Japan, where the economy is essentially controlled by just 200 families.

velvetmaker3 said:[No text provided to rewrite.]

Lawrence Thompson58 (No content provided to rewrite.) As long as... Rich. People just inherit wealth instead of actually earning it. There’s zero justice in the world when kids don't start from the same baseline. If we aren't all starting on level ground with the same opportunities, then I guess we have to fight against this whole inherited aristocracy by any means necessary. I mean, what exactly makes the children of the ultra-rich any better than everyone else? Broke. Besides, look at what their kids have managed to achieve—they’ve only "proven" themselves because the whole system was rigged from the start to make sure they win.

Would you actually get rid of inheritance rights?

Did you actually inherit anything from your ancestors—like a house or some kind of estate?

It doesn't have to be abolished, I guess. But maybe smart tax policies could "encourage" the next generation to actually work for it a bit more. Like how they do in the States. 😉

redstag said:I’m just spinning my wheels here, but I might as well let the right side of the mill run for a bit 😁
The whole myth about having 200 powerhouse families? It’s total garbage. Why? Because they don't exist. Just imagine if America actually had 200 Todorichs. Even if I personally didn't care for their style, you can't deny we'd have a damn respectable economy. But look, if I had to choose between that vision and what we're stuck with now, I’d take those 200 families in a heartbeat. What we have right now is a complete joke. Besides, having 200 solid families would provide a foundation strong enough to actually run a normal political game—where Social Democrats could actually act like Social Democrats instead of being forced to pivot toward a Smithian Liberal market and implement all these anti-social measures just to jumpstart the economy.
So, Frank’s idea isn't necessarily trash, it's just the execution that sucks. 👎
Let’s see if anyone actually has something intelligent to say for once...

The issue with the "200 families" concept isn't the concept itself... practically all Western nations run on similar models. If you look at the 200 wealthiest Germans, you'll see they essentially form the backbone of the German economy.

The real problem is that Francis thought he was the one who got to decide exactly which families made the cut.