Why do the smarter "new money" capitalists tend to be liberals?

Question

Like Gates, Buffett, and Soros?

While the clueless "old money" types like Mellon, etc. tend to be conservatives?

Sure, there are the exceptions, like the software magnates who are conservatives, and some of the Rockefellers who are liberals, and the Bechtel family members who give money to the antiwar movement.

But IN GENERAL, it's the other way around -- the longer a family has had money, the further right they go.

Is it because the "new money" built their empires on changing conditions, and see themselves as economic surfers, riding the waves of change? While "old money" depends on the status quo to preserve their fortunes?

Is it because the "new money" had a _little_ experience in the real world, before the money bubble closed around them and shut them off from real life, and they are smart enough to understand that "let them eat cake" leads to the guillotine? While "old money" has been raised and lived all their lives inside the bubble and thus has no idea about real life?

Why do smart pro-capitalists tend to be liberals, while the dullards are conservatives?

And how to explain people like John Reed, whose family were the "West Coast Rockefellers," yet who turned anti-capitalist and became the most prominent American socialist writer in history?

Are they just idealists who side-stepped their own circumstances?
.

Answer 1

Gates, Buffet and Soros are "liberals"?!! Never trust anyone who describes themselves as "liberal". In the UK our "Liberal Democrats" have openly sided with one of the most reactionary Conservative governments we have seen in years.



Gates and company are exploitative capitalists. Their "liberalism" does not extend to encouraging trade unionism or supporting worker's rights and worker's power.



All have set up "philanthropic" Foundations" - a scam for tax dodging. All encourage "entrepreneurship" and support capitalist "stockholders' rights". None give money to train and educate left wing political activists and trade unionists. The latest strike wave in China for recognition of independent trade unions received no support from these people.



http://www.economist.com/node/16693333



As a socialist you know that when the chips are down these people will not be on our side of the barricades. But individual people can use their intelligence to choose which side of the barricades they will be on. That is partially why people like Lenin, Orwell and Reed chose to identify with the struggle of the working classes.

Answer 2

The GOP represents corporate and elite interests. Their agenda works to push tax burden onto the poor, prevent the organization of labor, create cost barriers to prevent competition, and enhance the division between rich and poor. These agenda items are at least short term good for the elite.



The conservatives you describe are operating under an us vs. them mentality. They are hopelessly out of touch with the effects of their actions. They have never really had to work. Certainly never gone hungry. If they have been in jail it was not with the same significance as a middle/lower class person. Having a million dollar attorney on retainer by the time you are 13 will create a vastly different perspective on our justice system. Typically they were bred and handled from childhood to prep school to university to fancy job with securities and real estate waiting for them. It's a sheltered life of entitlement.



And they do believe themselves above taxation. So they work hard to offset the tax burden onto the poor. We hear them pushing for a flat tax. Bemoaning child credits. Furious about single mother tax breaks. It's a tug of war with the Republican party trying to raise taxes on the labor class and the Democrats trying to raise taxes on the ownership class. So it's a question of how one identifies themselves.



Underlining that discussion - who does the existence of a government most benefit? The rich or the poor? Relative to a Warren Buffet - I am extremely poor. That's perhaps why i argue that the government only benefits the rich. If we went to anarchy tomorrow - the poor wouldn't notice that big a difference. But the billionaires and the corporations of the world.... All their wealth would become absolutely worthless paper. A government structure enables contracts, deeds, corporations, shell corporations, et al to exist. They are the big winners with their 100's of billions. What does the labor class get out of it? Food stamps and public education..? Which we pay handsomely for...



The owners want the labor to pay to finance this system. The labor wants the owners to finance it. Tax burden is the foundation of the liberal vs conservative controversy.



These polarizing domestic issues are distraction for the masses.

And heck it's working out pretty well for the right wing!

Answer 3

Well, I can't speak for the folks you mention, just because it would be a guess.



From what I've seen in my little corner of the world, so many conservatives are just raised that way, liberals too. Not many people vary from that. So many people here vote the party, not the candidate, platform or anything else, just the colour of the placard they've always voted for.



Logic does make sense that people from more working class backgrounds would support parties that support labour related causes, but still...so many people here are "I was born a XXXXXX, I'll die a XXXXXX" kind of voters.



At one time, the language/religion issue really divided the parties, as the conservative side was seen as the WASP party & the liberal side for french/catholic voters. I don't know if that helped galvanize the sides or what, but so many people here sadly don't concern themselves with details.

Answer 4

Back before the Progressive Era, America's "old money" scions had everything their way: no taxes, no government regulation, easy access to those in power. All of that changed around 1900-1912, and the richest families of that time became bitter against the modern liberals who brought about those changes. Later generations of "new money" people do not go through that experience, and so they do not feel like traitors within their own families for adopting more progressive attitudes.

Answer 5

Most of the problems you see with capitalism, we think are because the government regulation to fix the problem is worse than the problem. An obvious issue for Hillary Clinton is health care. We see her trying to socialize the system. Problems with the uninsured are made worse by government regulation. Example: Massachusetts has regulations that prevent charging a different price because of the person’s age. Everybody knows that health care cost more when you are older. So younger people see health insurance as too expensive. They choose not to buy because they are subsidizing retired people. In New Jersey we have all sorts of regulations requiring coverage for this thing or that. All of these regulations just make health insurance cost more. Health insurance paid for by a company and by payroll deductions are tax deductible. Health care paid for by a person is not. There are exceptions if you have a flexible spending account which you lose if you don't spend it all. Even more regulations. Just going to the doctor and getting prescriptions are a regular part of life and should not be paid for by insurance. Insurance is for out of the ordinary expenses. Having your company pay for insurance for ordinary expenses just costs more because of the added paperwork. But we do it because it is tax free money. A Hillary care single payer system is socialism. Our system has many of the problems it does because we don't control for our own health care. Our employer does. People want more health care because they are not paying and the employer wants you to have less because it is paying. The problems we in health care being too expensive are because our system is already too socialist. Conservatives and Libertarians who call the Clintons socialist really believe that they are.

Answer 6

Using lower-case l's and c's (only philosophers seem to do this anymore), someone liberal minded by nature would be talented at inventing the next new thing or in creatively marketing something. Thinking outside the box.



Someone conservative by nature would be a good maintainer of wealth -- old money. They are scared of new things, and thus would be happy with boring old bonds and such.

Answer 7

The new money liberals tend to make their money by constructively creating wealth, whereas the old money conservatives destructively extract money off others. Although where Soros falls into this theory, I'm not sure!

Answer 8

Think about the route word of Progressive: Progress. Liberals are better atuned at discovering new ways to take advantage of emerging markets. Perhaps it's a result of their openness to other cultures.



Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be masters of exploiting existing markets. Hence, their route word: Conserve. That is also why they tend to want to maintain the status quo.



When I think about it in terms of energy, conservatives want to maintain fossil fuels while liberals want to convert to more environmentally friendly sources. Conservatives need to take the same brave step that conservatives before them had to: let go of the old and embrace the new. Once conservatives get into renewable energy and really turn it into a money-making machine, they can run the liberals out of business again.

Answer 9

Um, to be fair, some of the Boston Brahmins are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.



As far as new money being liberal, I think they are just higher evolved souls who realize they are only here for a short time, and can't take their money with them...something the cons haven't figured out yet.



*googling John Reed*

Answer 10

They aren't. Those guys get huge government breaks. Clinton let Microsoft have a monopoly.



Buffet is nothing more than an electronic paper trader. How many good jobs has he created? Can you really compare him to someone who forms a company that actually does something?



George Soros is an anti-American Socialist. He should be listed as America's #1 enemy!

Answer 11

I think it has to do with varying degrees in feelings of entitlement.



I agree with shevek that many of the endowments are just tax shelters, but at least they do some good as opposed to loopholes.

Answer 12

Gates, Buffet and Soros are all old guys, hardly new money to me when Buffet made his fortune forty years ago.



The young up and comers aren't liberals, most are far from it.

Answer 13

CEO's of large corporations have no choice but to play the game with Washington. If they refuse, they get targeted.

Answer 14

Liberalism ensures their wealth by eliminating the competition through government regulations

Answer 15

You are so wrong Vermin!

Answer 16

Gates & Buffet are hardly "Liberals" sorry.



Buffett is new money? LOL how old is he?

Answer 17

Are they? If that means ruthless greedy elitists I guess they are.