pete75 wrote:Geoff.D wrote:Here is a very short statement about the Rothschild family. It's obviously biased to emphasise one particular aspect - the enormous world power it exerts through it's banking wealth and operations. Nonetheless, it does indicate just how a handful of people (like the Rothschilds) are as influential as politicians, states, electorates, etc. Hawking says as much in his article.
Have you any evidence to back up that statement?
Well, my link was one source of evidence in itself. But, you might also look at these -
https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to- ... ild-family
The actual wealth of these super rich individuals is very hard to pinpoint, even by experts in their respective fields. This is mainly because they tend to diversify and obfuscate their financial dealings. But, my point is that this small number of people wield significant influence, as Hawking suggests.
Think about the Russian oil oligarchs, and their relationship with Putin. Think about the tobacco company owners and their relationship with just about every government in the world. Think about the railway company owners in USA (as they opened up the west) and that government's policy to the indigenous peoples. Think about the relationship between ship owners and the British government and Church at the the height of the slave trade and industrial revolution.
The super rich have always had (and continue to have) significant effect on our daily lives. Arguably (and I did say that my opening link was biased, as am I) their influence is not always for society's good, let alone the individuals. They appear to be able to both hang onto their wealth (and influence) and increase the gap.