To start, you mentioned the founding fathers, Plato, and Socrates were weary of democracies. That’s why ancient Greece and the United States were set up as Republics. This put a layer of protection against the whims of the crowd with pure democracy. Also, the concept in the US of federalism was supposed to be the experiment stage of civilization. Instead, it has become the cold culture war of today.
Someone in the video’s comment section posted, ‘“Democracy breeds Tyranny" ~ Plato.’ by Carlos-sd6cz. While that may be true, I posit, “Royalty breeds smugness.” History has shown the wealth of those like the robber barons of the 19th century and the fortunes of the early 20th century ended in a few ways.
Most likely, the progeny of the wealthy person spent away the fortune on frivolities losing most to all the inherited wealth within 3-4 generations. Wealth left to charitable organizations usually was taken over by activists within that same time frame to be spent in a way antithetical to the original donor’s wishes. And yes, some small percentage of businesses stayed in the family and lasted into the present.
I believe most of those businesses more likely lasted longer due to survivorship bias and the Lindy effect. Some number of businesses will survive a few generations. I don’t believe it is due to family ties in many cases like that of monarchies. I think those businesses had much better transition practices to quality leaders than their competitors. Also, the Lindy effect is where the longer something has been around, the longer it is likely to continue existing and thriving. I first read about this in Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book, Antifragile.
I believe Warren Buffet buys more out of tradition – in the sense of business experiments that have worked over the years – than by some sense of a traditional family leadership and inheritance process. Additionally, family-owned companies are more likely to be privately owned and therefore have less competition regarding investment opportunities than a publicly traded company.
For my less modern argument, if the aristocracy could remove the figure head (King), then the king wasn’t really in charge. The oligarchy of aristocrats was in charge. Your life as a peasant was tied to the benevolence of the landlord/local aristocrat than it was the king. If your local lord was a dictator, your life was barely better than that of a slave. The only reason your local aristocrat kept anyone alive and well was to raise an army if necessary.
A modern corporation does not need an army. The state takes care of that along with the power of conscription. Instead, your corporate lord/manager can get the next school dropout, recent immigrant, or foreign workforce to work for lower wages instead. Only the activism of the people created an environment where the elites of society provided protection against some forms of exploitation.
Before Republicanism with democratic institutions, the peasants had to wait for the neighboring tribe to conquer and hope they were more benevolent. Sometimes, the lower classes would turn tide and help their future conquerors, thereby making a bet on a better life.
If monarchy was so great, how has the world become exponentially wealthier with over 8 billion people, especially within the last 80 years? In fact, it has been argued that colonialism of the European monarchies pre-world wars at best broke even for the empires and may have cost them more to administer than it was worth in the long run. The monarchies of the last few millennia didn’t accomplish what a more decentralized government structure did over the last 250ish years.
To start, you mentioned the founding fathers, Plato, and Socrates were weary of democracies. That’s why ancient Greece and the United States were set up as Republics. This put a layer of protection against the whims of the crowd with pure democracy. Also, the concept in the US of federalism was supposed to be the experiment stage of civilization. Instead, it has become the cold culture war of today.
Someone in the video’s comment section posted, ‘“Democracy breeds Tyranny" ~ Plato.’ by Carlos-sd6cz. While that may be true, I posit, “Royalty breeds smugness.” History has shown the wealth of those like the robber barons of the 19th century and the fortunes of the early 20th century ended in a few ways.
Most likely, the progeny of the wealthy person spent away the fortune on frivolities losing most to all the inherited wealth within 3-4 generations. Wealth left to charitable organizations usually was taken over by activists within that same time frame to be spent in a way antithetical to the original donor’s wishes. And yes, some small percentage of businesses stayed in the family and lasted into the present.
I believe most of those businesses more likely lasted longer due to survivorship bias and the Lindy effect. Some number of businesses will survive a few generations. I don’t believe it is due to family ties in many cases like that of monarchies. I think those businesses had much better transition practices to quality leaders than their competitors. Also, the Lindy effect is where the longer something has been around, the longer it is likely to continue existing and thriving. I first read about this in Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book, Antifragile.
I believe Warren Buffet buys more out of tradition – in the sense of business experiments that have worked over the years – than by some sense of a traditional family leadership and inheritance process. Additionally, family-owned companies are more likely to be privately owned and therefore have less competition regarding investment opportunities than a publicly traded company.
For my less modern argument, if the aristocracy could remove the figure head (King), then the king wasn’t really in charge. The oligarchy of aristocrats was in charge. Your life as a peasant was tied to the benevolence of the landlord/local aristocrat than it was the king. If your local lord was a dictator, your life was barely better than that of a slave. The only reason your local aristocrat kept anyone alive and well was to raise an army if necessary.
A modern corporation does not need an army. The state takes care of that along with the power of conscription. Instead, your corporate lord/manager can get the next school dropout, recent immigrant, or foreign workforce to work for lower wages instead. Only the activism of the people created an environment where the elites of society provided protection against some forms of exploitation.
Before Republicanism with democratic institutions, the peasants had to wait for the neighboring tribe to conquer and hope they were more benevolent. Sometimes, the lower classes would turn tide and help their future conquerors, thereby making a bet on a better life.
If monarchy was so great, how has the world become exponentially wealthier with over 8 billion people, especially within the last 80 years? In fact, it has been argued that colonialism of the European monarchies pre-world wars at best broke even for the empires and may have cost them more to administer than it was worth in the long run. The monarchies of the last few millennia didn’t accomplish what a more decentralized government structure did over the last 250ish years.