# Question regarding "Old Money"



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

It seems that many of the threads in this forum contain references to "old money" or phrases of similar meaning. What does this mean to this group in terms of actual worth and duration?


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

Money which was made several generations back, and usually passes forward within families, whereby the recipient has access to "the interest off of the interest" from the original wad! That is how I've understood to be the general idea. Others may have additional observations.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

That kind of depends on which country you're referring to. But in the main it refers to a fortune garnered by the current generation's grandfathers or great-grandfathers. Old Money people are used to having lots of money and it doesn't excite them so they don't (usually!) squander it on flash. There's also the traditional UK landowner attitude that if your ancestors bought really good stuff, it won't wear out so you don't need to replace it. Thus Great Houses, their furnishings and the like only get bought once. Maintenance can be a bit of a bear when you have to replace a roof that covers a half acre of house but that only happens every couple of generations. And, in some cases, even one's tweeds can be hand-me-downs. It helps with the 'heedless rich' tradition, don'tcherknow . . .


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

Oldsarge said:


> That kind of depends on which country you're referring to. But in the main it refers to a fortune garnered by the current generation's grandfathers or great-grandfathers. Old Money people are used to having lots of money and it doesn't excite them so they don't (usually!) squander it on flash. There's also the traditional UK landowner attitude that if your ancestors bought really good stuff, it won't wear out so you don't need to replace it. Thus Great Houses, their furnishings and the like only get bought once. Maintenance can be a bit of a bear when you have to replace a roof that covers a half acre of house but that only happens every couple of generations. And, in some cases, even one's tweeds can be hand-me-downs. It helps with the 'heedless rich' tradition, don'tcherknow . . .


So in your view it entails assets that remains in a family for at least two generations, and perhaps certain associated attitudes and buying patterns that arise out of having access to those assets.

Is there a threshold that you place on the amount of the assets?


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

As far as "worth", I would say sufficient that they have no real worries about the mortgage, food on the table, getting kids through college, whether or not the car should be pushed another year, where they shop, etc., plus enough cushion that vacation can mean Sienna rather than Sis in Seattle. The few I've known simply aren't concerned about day to day budgeting, though they can't go out and trade up mansions or Bentleys each year either.

"Duration" is usually at least at the grandchild level, since it takes awhile to learn the lessons, make the connections, get comfortable with them, and then pass them on naturally. I think a part of this is that it takes a generation or two to be accepted by the ones who were "old money" first.

The whole seems to be far more than the sum of the parts here, though. There's an obvious comfort level in the ones I've known: they don't feel the need to flaunt anything, and if they refer to "the boat" or "the beach house" it's because it's just a natural part of the conversation. No one needs to be impressed anymore.

Let me add that OTOH, I've known people who had money, status, and education for several generations and who were raging jerks about their "class"; no guarantees


----------



## Pale_Male (May 20, 2013)

pleasehelp said:


> It seems that many of the threads in this forum contain references to "old money" or phrases of similar meaning. What does this mean to this group in terms of actual worth and duration?


Suggest reading Nelson Aldrich's "Old Money."


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

I'm reminded of the "Hark! A Vagrant" adaptation of _The Great Gatsby,_ which I won't link to because I'm not angling for a lecture on vulgarity.

I suppose when people on here mean "old money," they mean a sort of preppy Eastern Establishment thing. I know people who've faked that.

In a way, "new money" is easier to nail down -- showy, insecure ostentation. That's not to say that people who come from money can't be insecure about status -- but they're much more coy about it, in my experience.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL. In some circles, and certainly out here in Hoosierville, old money is considered to be what's left over from last months paycheck! What is this stuff from prior generations of which so many of you speak/type? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Sometimes "old money" has no money.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Odradek said:


> Sometimes "old money" has no money.


Too true. The abundant wealth one sometimes sees is mostly very new indeed.

There is still a residual 'old money lifestyle', however. The ethos is all about tax avoidance/evasion, stealth wealth, insider knowledge, spending only when absolutely required to but making discriminating and considered purchasing decisions. The old masters (an excellent and highly tax-efficient store of wealth that can be discreetly passed down the generations) were bought when the masters were young. The wine was all bought young and laid down, but only when the vintage was good. The taxman is the implacable enemy.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I think it comes down to the tried and true, "You can pay for it now or you can pay for it again and again." Buy good stuff up front and in the long run you will spend less. That allows for generational accrual.


----------



## Pale_Male (May 20, 2013)

Odradek said:


> Sometimes "old money" has no money.


"Old Money" in America means "Upper Class" and not "One-Percenter." Plenty of "Penniless Aristocrats" both here and in the UK.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Yup. That's how Jack Kennedy attracted Jackie. He had money and she was penniless upper class. Same reason she married Aristotle Onassis.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

Interesting responses. Thank you. So it seems that as used in this forum, "Old Money" generally doesn't have much to do with a family's worth, but rather a family's perceived social status (as derived from previous generations rather than the current generation's accomplishments) and buying patterns.


----------



## coase (Apr 29, 2010)

I would also note that old money in the US is usually associated with long term, usually WASPy Easterners and their cultural attitudes. Those from other groups (say Texas oil or non-white immigrants) who may have been wealthier than some of these "old money" types for over 3 generations but who have different attitudes towards spending and what constitutes "showy" or "flashy" behavior are also disparaged by those who may actually come from more recently made wealth.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

^This!


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

pleasehelp said:


> Interesting responses. Thank you. So it seems that as used in this forum, "Old Money" generally doesn't have much to do with a family's worth, but rather a family's perceived social status (as derived from previous generations rather than the current generation's accomplishments) and buying patterns.


I'd disagree somewhat with that interpretation, pleasehelp. The modifier of "Old Money" is Old. The basic principle of "Old Money" is that subsequent generations are not allowed to spend principal. They live on some part of the interest generated by well-protected Trust Funds. The principal is protected from profligate behaviors by any subsequent generation. Almost every creator of wealth is advised by lawyers that ne'er do well, subsequent generations will blow through the whole pile. Keeping any worthless scion from spending principal is what allows money to become "old." Profligacy is limited. One can be as much a doofus as one likes, but the doofus is not allowed to attack principal.

Much more likely causes of inter-generational wealth dissipation are rampant fertility, inflation and poor performance by the trust fund managers. Great entrepreneurs will always be called "nouveau riche." What the offspring are called depends on the moral fiber they possess and the obligation they acknowledge to the guy who made the original fortune. The record, in this regard, is not pretty.


----------



## Pale_Male (May 20, 2013)

coase said:


> I would also note that old money in the US is usually associated with long term, usually WASPy Easterners and their cultural attitudes. Those from other groups (say Texas oil or non-white immigrants) who may have been wealthier than some of these "old money" types for over 3 generations but who have different attitudes towards spending and what constitutes "showy" or "flashy" behavior are also disparaged by those who may actually come from more recently made wealth.


There are several groups that overlap. There's "Old Money" as in Boston Brahmin. There's WASPy Eastern-Establishment with members who started out modestly but went to good schools and either married well or worked their way up from there. There's the "Social Register Crowd" with some New Money coming in through marriages, the Boston Brahmins, remnants of the old Eastern Establishment, but also "respectable" families across the country. Texas Oil & California Real Estate sends its sons & daughters to St. Grottlesex & Yarvton. Many of the "Old" values and customs rub off and they all end up in the "Upper Class."


----------



## Pale_Male (May 20, 2013)

Billax said:


> I'd disagree somewhat with that interpretation, pleasehelp. The modifier of "Old Money" is Old. The basic principle of "Old Money" is that subsequent generations are not allowed to spend principal. They live on some part of the interest generated by well-protected Trust Funds. The principal is protected from profligate behaviors by any subsequent generation. Almost every creator of wealth is advised by lawyers that ne'er do well, subsequent generations will blow through the whole pile. Keeping any worthless scion from spending principal is what allows money to become "old." Profligacy is limited. One can be as much a doofus as one likes, but the doofus is not allowed to attack principal.
> 
> Much more likely causes of inter-generational wealth dissipation are rampant fertility, inflation and poor performance by the trust fund managers. Great entrepreneurs will always be called "nouveau riche." What the offspring are called depends on the moral fiber they possess and the obligation they acknowledge to the guy who made the original fortune. The record, in this regard, is not pretty.


Nice principle, but doesn't bear much relationship to reality. Bad decisions are common. Bad investments are even more common. Divorce takes it toll. Blanche and Stella were Old Money. So was Scarlett.

"Great entrepreneurs" will be called "nouveau riche" if they just made their money. It's what they "are." But some are socially acceptable, and others are not, though it's hard to tell these days in many cases.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

It seems that there is some disagreement on the scope of the term. Here's an ancillary question - approx how many people (and I am deliberately avoiding the term "families" for this question) are "Old Money" for purposes of how you use the phrase?


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

Pale_Male said:


> Nice principle, but doesn't bear much relationship to reality. Bad decisions are common. Bad investments are even more common. Divorce takes it toll. Blanche and Stella were Old Money. So was Scarlett.
> 
> "Great entrepreneurs" will be called "nouveau riche" if they just made their money. It's what they "are." But some are socially acceptable, and others are not, though it's hard to tell these days in many cases.


Interesting observation. I thought the question was "Old Money." You, apparently, thought it was something else. My guess is that you gain your information from reading about it, but not from living it. Regardless of what they "are," successful entrepreneurs end up with great wealth. I've been fortunate to know dozens of great entrepreneurs. I know them, their lawyers, their children, and their families. If you think that divorce harms the trust funds, well, Sir, you must be neither a very good lawyer nor a knowledable beneficiary! As to your assertion that some "old money" is "socially acceptable" or not, duh! You are conflating two completely different phenomena. it is, nevertheless, always amusing to read your posts.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

pleasehelp said:


> Interesting responses. Thank you. So it seems that as used in this forum, "Old Money" generally doesn't have much to do with a family's worth, but rather a family's perceived social status (as derived from previous generations rather than the current generation's accomplishments) and buying patterns.


Oh, No! The emphasis is always on the "Money" part, and in this country that's always a part of the social status. The great-nephew who is just barely (economic) middle class may be "accepted", but his kids had better make some serious $$ or that branch will be referred to by the populace as "some kin, way back, so they say". They don't have to be big rich, but certain levels of housing, schooling, clubbing need to be met.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Pale_Male said:


> "Old Money" in America means "Upper Class" and not "One-Percenter." Plenty of "Penniless Aristocrats" both here and in the UK.


How do you describe someone as "old money"?


----------



## Pale_Male (May 20, 2013)

Billax said:


> Interesting observation. I thought the question was "Old Money." You, apparently, thought it was something else. My guess is that you gain your information from reading about it, but not from living it. Regardless of what they "are," successful entrepreneurs end up with great wealth. I've been fortunate to know dozens of great entrepreneurs. I know them, their lawyers, their children, and their families. If you think that divorce harms the trust funds, well, Sir, you must be neither a very good lawyer nor a knowledable beneficiary! As to your assertion that some "old money" is "socially acceptable" or not, duh! You are conflating two completely different phenomena. it is, nevertheless, always amusing to read your posts.


You're very funny, too. And whatever I "am," I can assure you I'm not a lawyer of any sort. And, as you seem to be confused on the point, my "assertion" was that some of the "Entrepreneurial Nouveau Riche" are socially acceptable. But then, again, this is what I wrote, as opposed to what you "read."


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

If you have money in your bank account (or wrapped up and sealed in Mason jars buried in your backyard) that you received from a relative in the way of inheritance or pre-death gift, that is "old money".


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

In the movie "Caddyshack," old money is The Judge. New money is Rodney Dangerfield. "Hey, that hat looks like you got a bowl of soup with it. Looks good on you, though."


----------



## WillBarrett (Feb 18, 2012)

There's a thought that old money has to be truly old - basically Eastern (and New Orleans), in the vein of the Andrew Lytle's magnificent line about a mule older than Birmingham.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Is "old money" the same as "old hat"?


----------



## Barnavelt (Jul 31, 2012)

eyedoc2180 said:


> In the movie "Caddyshack," old money is The Judge. New money is Rodney Dangerfield. "Hey, that hat looks like you got a bowl of soup with it. Looks good on you, though."


I respectfully submit that Chevy Chase's "Ty" character is more Old Money than the Judge. The latter, while wealthy, was too concerned with the impression he made with christening his sloop. Ty was loaded enough to be a gadabout, his father helped the Judge "make this club" of Bushwood and so it seems Ty was from money and influence. Plus Ty cared not a fig for what other people thought of him, and of course he got the girl.

Or perhaps I have watched this film entirely too many times.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Howard said:


> Is "old money" the same as "old hat"?


well they're both old, so you could say they are similar in that respect. But different things essentially.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

"Yes, I am 'nouveau riche.' But then, it's the 'riche' that counts, now isn't it?" - Jim Williams


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Old money is a concept, not a status. It's an archetype that resides in the mind of the user of the term.

Some criteria I like include:

- That it be at least three generations deep.
- That it be sound. After all, the term is old *money*! And after the money has departed, what's left? (This concept need not apply in Britain.)
- That it exclude those who by their behavior betray the genre. I.e., strivers!

My own experience with old money is severely limited. A relative by marriage's mother. (Think telephones.) Surprisingly, we hit it off rather well. She was a completely unaffected, open and friendly woman entirely uninterested in money. Likely because she had never needed to be, nor would she ever have to. And yours truly, AKA Trash with Flash, who shared similar attitudes based on never having had much, and a reasonable certainty of that condition persisting into infinity!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Howard said:


> Is "old money" the same as "old hat"?


No. One is worn on the head, the other kept in a wallet.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Old Money can often be identified from others by their choice of personal transportation.

Typical auto Old Money would like to drive -









Auto *I* would like to drive! -


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I don't know about that choice of Old Money cars. If the information in _The Millionaire Next Door_ is correct, it's more likely either a Buick or a Dodge Dakota pickup.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Accepting the precept that "old money" is basically money earned by prior generations and passed on to one's present day heirs, is it fair to question the wisdom of such a process? Will inheriting too large a sum depress the present day generation's incentive to earn? Is not the original sense of achievement a requisite parallel to the development and exercise of a healthy, requisite sense of philanthropy? Does a family's or an individuals core depth of character erode with each successive beneficent generation of said "old money"? Admittedly any money left by the "Eagle" will be limited and but a single generation old, but I am really not sure how much of it it is healthy or desirable to leave to the next generation. I am sure I would not want my children/grandchildren to become like most of the representative recipients of "old money" that I have met in my life! And then one could also quite rightly argue that the concerns stated above are largely moot issues of concern, for all the obvious reasons! LOL.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Barnavelt said:


> I respectfully submit that Chevy Chase's "Ty" character is more Old Money than the Judge. The latter, while wealthy, was too concerned with the impression he made with christening his sloop. Ty was loaded enough to be a gadabout, his father helped the Judge "make this club" of Bushwood and so it seems Ty was from money and influence. Plus Ty cared not a fig for what other people thought of him, and of course he got the girl.
> 
> Or perhaps I have watched this film entirely too many times.


I can definitely go with this interpretation. I'll just have to watch it again! And again!


----------



## thegovteach (Dec 2, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Old Money can often be identified from others by their choice of personal transportation.
> 
> Typical auto Old Money would like to drive -
> 
> ...


Old money in Texas, that is still on the farm or ranch, will be driving a 10-12 year old pickup truck...and these are generally older guys in their 50-60+ range. They complain about crop prices, never mind the oil and gas wells that have been on their property since anyone can remember.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> Accepting the precept that "old money" is basically money earned by prior generations and passed on to one's present day heirs, is it fair to question the wisdom of such a process? Will inheriting too large a sum depress the present day generation's incentive to earn? Is not the original sense of achievement a requisite parallel to the development and exercise of a healthy, requisite sense of philanthropy? Does a family's or an individuals core depth of character erode with each successive beneficent generation of said "old money"? Admittedly any money left by the "Eagle" will be limited and but a single generation old, but I am really not sure how much of it it is healthy or desirable to leave to the next generation. I am sure I would not want my children/grandchildren to become like most of the representative recipients of "old money" that I have met in my life! And then one could also quite rightly argue that the concerns stated above are largely moot issues of concern, for all the obvious reasons! LOL.


It all depends on how you've raised the next generation. Do they understand that money will either make you lazy or give you freedom? Have they thought about what they could do if they were free . . .? What could _you_ have done if you were free?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Accepting the precept that "old money" is basically money earned by prior generations and passed on to one's present day heirs, is it fair to question the wisdom of such a process? Will inheriting too large a sum depress the present day generation's incentive to earn? Is not the original sense of achievement a requisite parallel to the development and exercise of a healthy, requisite sense of philanthropy? Does a family's or an individuals core depth of character erode with each successive beneficent generation of said "old money"? Admittedly any money left by the "Eagle" will be limited and but a single generation old, but I am really not sure how much of it it is healthy or desirable to leave to the next generation. I am sure I would not want my children/grandchildren to become like most of the representative recipients of "old money" that I have met in my life! And then one could also quite rightly argue that the concerns stated above are largely moot issues of concern, for all the obvious reasons! LOL.


These are very interesting, relevant and significant questions. And as human nature is, the answers to them are all over the map. But many from my limited experience have a surprising and extensive sense of social responsibility, entering professions such as medicine, education and the operation of charitable organizations. And this will also often extend to trying to preserve the cultural and historical wealth of our country


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

thegovteach said:


> Old money in Texas, that is still on the farm or ranch, will be driving a 10-12 year old pickup truck...and these are generally older guys in their 50-60+ range. They complain about crop prices, never mind the oil and gas wells that have been on their property since anyone can remember.


Pretty much the same in North Carolina, and border SC, areas I've known all my life. You might have any number of investments in NYC or Zurich, and a pedigree that includes American Revolution captains and Civil War colonels, but if your main business is in agriculture there isn't much "casual elegance" involved in clothing or transportation. Ford or Chevy pickup from the local dealer, and boots and khakis from the Sears catalog (or equivalent).

When I was growing up in SE NC, '50s and '60s, khaki trousers were (real) work clothes, or were worn (starched and creased) when the boss/owner wanted to look presentable but might have to go out and get on the tractor himself.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> These are very interesting, relevant and significant questions. And as human nature is, the answers to them are all over the map. But many from my limited experience have a surprising and extensive sense of social responsibility, entering professions such as medicine, education and the operation of charitable organizations. And this will also often extend to trying to preserve the cultural and historical wealth of our country


And they can because they are 'free'. What would you do if you were free?


----------



## thegovteach (Dec 2, 2012)

Oldsarge said:


> And they can because they are 'free'. What would you do if you were free?


Now that I am "free" I have become pretty much a professional irritation...( have a radio show once a week in which I discuss religion and politics....two very incendiary subjects in East Texas...)


----------



## coase (Apr 29, 2010)

One way to understand how fluid the top ranks of the wealthy are in the US is to look at the annual Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest individuals. It's striking to me how many of the richest are either first or second generation superrich. The great families of yore -- the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, etc. -- have left many fairly rich individuals, but few who can compete with the Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, or even the various descendants of Sam Walton. In addition, the superrich in the U.S. are unusual in their charitable giving. The billionaires of Asia and Eastern Europe are not in the habit of leaving anywhere from 50 to 90% of their wealth to universities and museums when they pass away. So what we see is a mix of new competition, natural dissipation, and deliberate dissipation through charitable donation at a very high level.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

I think Muffy is old money.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

coase said:


> In addition, the superrich in the U.S. are unusual in their charitable giving. The billionaires of Asia and Eastern Europe are not in the habit of leaving anywhere from 50 to 90% of their wealth to universities and museums when they pass away. So what we see is a mix of new competition, natural dissipation, and deliberate dissipation through charitable donation at a very high level.


Indeed. This is the true result of our Puritan ancestors. Garnering wealth is no sin. Flaunting it is. So the old New Englanders bequeathed to us the idea that you should work hard, make a pile and then use it for good. Look at the enormous wealth piled up in American charitable foundations. No one else on earth does anything like that.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

thegovteach said:


> Now that I am "free" I have become pretty much a professional irritation...( have a radio show once a week in which I discuss religion and politics....two very incendiary subjects in East Texas...)


I _like_ it! If you can't be a public intellectual, be a public PITA. Very good.


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> These are very interesting, relevant and significant questions. And as human nature is, the answers to them are all over the map. But many from my limited experience have a surprising and extensive sense of social responsibility, entering professions such as medicine, education and the operation of charitable organizations. And this will also often extend to trying to preserve the cultural and historical wealth of our country


I agree, Flanderian. While Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates may be among a relatively small group of entrepreneurs who, themselves, take on substantial philanthropic activities, many other entrepreneurs hope their scions will perform acts of social good in the name of the family. The Rockefeller, Mellon, and DuPont families have a long history of charitable involvement. Among the entrepreneurial Silicon Valley uber-wealthy I've had the pleasure to know, the vast majority hope their offspring will produce social good. So far, a large number do.

With regard to eagle2250s concerns, this Forum has at least two members who, by virtue of their handles, could - and I think should - weigh in on the topic. Members Hayek and Coase chose their Nobel Prize winning screen names for a reason. Now's the time to step up and defend your beliefs, gentlemen!


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

Flanderian said:


> And yours truly, AKA Trash with Flash, who shared similar attitudes based on never having had much, and a reasonable certainty of that condition persisting into infinity!


Thank you - this made me laugh.

Part of your description (i.e., it being an archetype of the particular user) also helps reconcile the many varying views that this thread shows. As the term is used in the threads on this site, it seems to range from (x) great fortunes that have remained in families for many generations to  a few generations within a family of upper-middle-class coupled with modesty. I was curious to see if there was a common understanding here, and it appears that the most common element is actually the sense of modesty that the term implies rather than the duration empassed within "old" or the amount of wealth encompassed within "money."


----------



## coase (Apr 29, 2010)

Billax said:


> I agree, Flanderian. While Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates may be among a relatively small group of entrepreneurs who, themselves, take on substantial philanthropic activities, many other entrepreneurs hope their scions will perform acts of social good in the name of the family. The Rockefeller, Mellon, and DuPont families have a long history of charitable involvement. Among the entrepreneurial Silicon Valley uber-wealthy I've had the pleasure to know, the vast majority hope their offspring will produce social good. So far, a large number do.
> 
> With regard to eagle2250s concerns, this Forum has at least two members who, by virtue of their handles, could - and I think should - weigh in on the topic. Members Hayek and Coase chose their Nobel Prize winning screen names for a reason. Now's the time to step up and defend your beliefs, gentlemen!


This is far too complicated a question for an online forum and there are no simple answers. But one must separate out the question of what makes sense from an individual family's perspective -- how much wealth can be left to children without ruining them or their initiative -- and what makes sense with respect to social policy towards inherited money (e.g. taxes or regulation). Actually the general issue of wealth depressing initiative is true even for those who have inherited no money. We in the industrial west are all the inheritors of an economic system which has given us enormous opportunities and usually starts us out much richer (especially in human and social capital) than the majority of the earth's denizens. This fact alone tends to make us complacent and lazy, as Schumpeter fretted about so many years ago. Yet because desire is hard to quench, wants seem ever expanding, and status competition is never-ending, there are always some entrepreneurs at all levels willing to step up and work in ways that ultimately redound to all our benefit. The goal of a good society is to channel those energies in productive ways without encouraging destructive rent-seeking and without trying to second-guess what the future may bring. But how to get there remains as always the 64 trillion dollar question.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

Due to historical accident it has become tradition for Old Money to support our egalitarian clothing style (during Bust Years as well as Boom), so it has become part of the advertising message (ala Ralph Lauren). If you think about it, though, it really makes no sense -- why should those who hope to recreate the inter-generational class ruts found in the Old World support an off-the-rack clothing style, one that industrialized the look of the English gentleman such that anybody with a fistful of cash could roll out of bed and into Brooks and come out an hour later well-attired?


----------



## coase (Apr 29, 2010)

Off topic, but for those who care, the one and only Ronald Coase passed away today (1910-2013). R.I.P.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Oh, I don't think it's off topic. After all, he was very old and deeply concerned with money. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

https://postimage.org/

Oh boy, is this great!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Topsider said:


> "Yes, I am 'nouveau riche.' But then, it's the 'riche' that counts, now isn't it?" - Jim Williams


Is that the same as being "stuck up"?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

xcubbies said:


> I think Muffy is old money.


Who's Muffy?


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

RE: the OP, For me, it's money I still have in my wallet from yesterday.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Oldsarge said:


> It all depends on how you've raised the next generation. Do they understand that money will either make you lazy or give you freedom? Have they thought about what they could do if they were free . . .? What could _you_ have done if you were free?


In answer to your excellent series of follow-on questions my friend, I would say to question #1) yes; 2) I don't really know and 3) judging by my reaction to the relative freedom afforded by retirement, I guess I would give my time away/volunteering, simply for something to do. (lol, I fear I may at last be being paid what my labors are worth! ). I still get up and leave the house most days, carrying a day planner with a fairly detailed to-do list for each day of the week and on those days I don't do so, I find myself twiddling my thumbs, feeling...well, I guess bored! However, all kidding aside, giving back at the local level is a very rewarding experience, as it does provide one with the opportunity to see the effects/results of your efforts! 

PS: My wife does the same. Given our incessant need to leave it, perhaps we just don't like our house? LOL. :crazy:


----------



## jddillard3 (Jun 7, 2013)

A life of privileged opportunities afforded by means of past-generational success bearing the customs and traditions of a higher social and financial stature. 

From a clothing perspective, it is a reference to the de rigueur of those in the above mentioned class.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Money should be old enough that words like "country club" are heard in your rearing, and are never truly given a second thought. A high level of education is not a question, and in several instances even the school is decided for you early in life. Children learn to work, as well as how to invest their modest high school and college summer earnings. There is an emphasis on giving back to the community through your career choice--a sort of noblesse oblige. Law, medicine, and education are all popular choices. The principal money was often made in business, however. 

Tradition is important. Land stays in the family for a century or more. Offspring are typically given the money to live comfortably along the way, but the patriarch (usually grandfather) handles all investments until death. Of course, the offspring, if intelligent, have learned to invest, and typically live according to their own earnings. The family money is what allows them to live without worry. Vacationing is often a matter of time shares or summer homes, and therefore is not as expensive as some might expect.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

universitystripe said:


> Money should be old enough that words like "country club" are heard in your rearing, and are never truly given a second thought. A high level of education is not a question, and in several instances even the school is decided for you early in life. Children learn to work, as well as how to invest their modest high school and college summer earnings. There is an emphasis on giving back to the community through your career choice--a sort of noblesse oblige. Law, medicine, and education are all popular choices. The principal money was often made in business, however.
> 
> Tradition is important. Land stays in the family for a century or more. Offspring are typically given the money to live comfortably along the way, but the patriarch (usually grandfather) handles all investments until death. Of course, the offspring, if intelligent, have learned to invest, and typically live according to their own earnings. The family money is what allows them to live without worry. Vacationing is often a matter of time shares or summer homes, and therefore is not as expensive as some might expect.


I think this is really the most idealistic view posted yet, given the current culture. Although, that really hinges on whether we're talking about the idea of old money, or modern old money in practice. Elite schools are giving less and less weight to legacy applicants, so schools really can't be predetermined unless you have a living relative with a building or major scholarship named after them. And the country club comment is just sort of ridiculous. There are plenty of folks who are new money and can easily afford the membership to one or more country clubs without giving it a second thought. I went to a way-overpriced private school full of old money kids. There are two archetypes of old money kids my age: high-earning careers in private sector business, or dropping out of college to become a ski bum. Almost all of the old-money kids I knew in college had summer jobs, if they had summer jobs, because their allowance wasn't large enough to cover their marijuana habit. Of course, we would blame those last couple points on the generation before them if we really wanted to. And I don't know where you got the idea that owning a vacation home is generally not as expensive as renting a house on the Cape for a week, because it isn't.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Tilton said:


> I think this is really the most idealistic view posted yet, given the current culture. Although, that really hinges on whether we're talking about the idea of old money, or modern old money in practice. Elite schools are giving less and less weight to legacy applicants, so schools really can't be predetermined unless you have a living relative with a building or major scholarship named after them. And the country club comment is just sort of ridiculous. There are plenty of folks who are new money and can easily afford the membership to one or more country clubs without giving it a second thought. I went to a way-overpriced private school full of old money kids. There are two archetypes of old money kids my age: high-earning careers in private sector business, or dropping out of college to become a ski bum. Almost all of the old-money kids I knew in college had summer jobs, if they had summer jobs, because their allowance wasn't large enough to cover their marijuana habit. Of course, we would blame those last couple points on the generation before them if we really wanted to. And I don't know where you got the idea that owning a vacation home is generally not as expensive as renting a house on the Cape for a week, because it isn't.


From my experience, most new money types have no interest in being members of the country club. As for a marijuana habit, that completely depends on the individual. And as far as the renting/owning argument--you're right, but only if the home wasn't already paid off in the 80's.

I'm speaking from how I was raised, and socially I am a conservative. Others may have differing opinions.

Also, I am a Southerner. Take into account all the regional differences, including our preference for state schools (UT, Alabama, etc.) over elite private ones. That explains how generation after generation goes to the same one.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

universitystripe said:


> From my experience, most new money types have no interest in being members of the country club. As for a marijuana habit, that completely depends on the individual. And as far as the renting/owning argument--you're right, but only if the home wasn't already paid off in the 80's.
> 
> I'm speaking from how I was raised, and socially I am a conservative. Others may have differing opinions.
> 
> Also, I am a Southerner. Take into account all the regional differences, including our preference for state schools (UT, Alabama, etc.) over elite private ones. That explains how generation after generation goes to the same one.


All I can say is that my wife's family fits into your definition of old money - the money was made by her great grandfather back in the 1920's and has persisted. The whole family belongs to the same country club. My wife has a modest trust fund (her male cousins get a larger allowance by virtue of being male). They all sit on the boards of local hospitals and other charities. There is a family vacation house in Palm Beach

That being said, my wife's family are painfully gaudy and lacking in manners. Just to give one example, her cousin got married wearing a dinner jacket with pinstripes (!) made of 14k gold thread (!!!). He also wears french cuff shirts and diamond cufflinks with jeans when he goes to bars.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Roycru (Apr 13, 2011)

Old money looks something like this.......


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

L-feld said:


> That being said, my wife's family are painfully gaudy and lacking in manners. Just to give one example, her cousin got married wearing a dinner jacket with pinstripes (!) made of 14k gold thread (!!!).
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


Tom James was doing those pinstripes for a while. Now you can get pinstripes from them that say something! Mubarak opted for his own name...


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tilton said:


> Tom James was doing those pinstripes for a while. Now you can get pinstripes from them that say something! Mubarak opted for his own name...


I just laughed so hard I nearly had a stroke. That is freaking amazing.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Isn't wonderful what you can afford when you have an entire Treasury to spend . . . ? :cool2:


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Oldsarge said:


> Isn't wonderful what you can afford when you have an entire Treasury to spend . . . ? :cool2:


Oh, I don't recall them being too absurdly priced, really. I first became aware of them when I saw a bank branch manager wearing one with WELLSFARGO running up and down.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

I could wear that.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I can't find a picture online, but a friend of mine and regular TJ customer said that they had a fabric sample that said "GOTOHELL." Now that's some GTH wear.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Oldsarge said:


> Isn't wonderful what you can afford when you have an entire Treasury to spend . . . ? :cool2:


Proving for the 8 billionth time that money cannot buy taste.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Pale_Male said:


> Suggest reading Nelson Aldrich's "Old Money."


Yes, indeed. I had read the first edition in 1988 and just today found the expanded 1996 edition in a university library. Such delicious terms as "effortful carelessness," "labored casualness" and "heavy-handed understatement" perfectly describe those who are trying to seem that they are not seeming to try. With regard to clothing, Aldrich's wit perfectly penetrates and illuminates the sham.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

"Mama may have, and papa may have, but God bless the child that's got his own..."


----------



## rl1856 (Jun 7, 2005)

Pale_Male said:


> Nice principle, but doesn't bear much relationship to reality. Bad decisions are common. Bad investments are even more common. Divorce takes it toll. Blanche and Stella were Old Money. So was Scarlett.


Blanche and Stella, yes. Scarlett was not. Her father won Tara in a poker game.


----------



## rl1856 (Jun 7, 2005)

phyrpowr said:


> Pretty much the same in North Carolina, and border SC, areas I've known all my life. You might have any number of investments in NYC or Zurich, and a pedigree that includes American Revolution captains and Civil War colonels, but if your main business is in agriculture there isn't much "casual elegance" involved in clothing or transportation. Ford or Chevy pickup from the local dealer, and boots and khakis from the Sears catalog (or equivalent).
> .


Your description also applies to the old money residents in the SC Lowcountry. Standard attire is a variation on hunting, fishing or sailing clothes by day and pressed khakis/ navy blazer/ club tie at night. While BMW/MB/Range Rover have made inroads, the most popular form of transporation is a Chevy Tahoe or Suburban. Main house, country home, mountain home were inherited. Occupations are either tending to ones own affairs or a combination of Real Estate Development/Law/ Finance.

It is easy to pick out the Old Money decendents from the nouveau retires who have purchased 2nd and 3rd homes in the area. While some would think that the later are the "money crowd" those in the know just sit back and laugh.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

rl1856 said:


> While some would think that the later are the "money crowd" those in the know just sit back and laugh.


Perhaps that's why Charleston is one of the more unwelcoming places to relocate.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

what kind of clothes would be considered "old money"?


----------



## rl1856 (Jun 7, 2005)

Tilton said:


> Perhaps that's why Charleston is one of the more unwelcoming places to relocate.


Actually Charleston (and Wilmington, Georgetown, Beaufort, Savannah) have welcomed newcomers. Before the RE crash, a very high % of historical homes were owned by part time residents. And in communities such as Figure 8 Island, Litchfield, Debordieu, Kiawah, Fripp Island and Skidaway Island the majority of residents are non local retires. In general low key newcomers have been welcomed and accepted in all facets of society- clubs, art boards and cultural organizations included. Those that come in brandishing open checkbooks and a maniacal desire to change the status quo are merely tolerated. It is the later group that induces the most humor, and biggest contrast to the "Old Money" crowd.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Howard said:


> what kind of clothes would be considered "old money"?


Sack design, 3R2 Jackets; OCBD shirts; Chinos and wool gaberdine trousers and penny loafers or boat shoes on the feet; would be but one of a (potential) million responses to your question!


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

But the jacket must be your father's or grandfather's by a bespoke tailor and slightly down at the heels after generations of wear. :wink2:


----------



## Ματθαῖος (Jun 17, 2011)

Here's a good guide:

If your last name appears in front of the word "Foundation" in the donor pages of the program to the opera or symphony, chances are good you're old money.

Matthew 

P.S. I want that Tom James "monogrammed" chalkstripe! I'm not old money...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Ματθαῖος said:


> Here's a good guide:
> 
> If your last name appears in front of the word "Foundation" in the donor pages of the program to the opera or symphony, chances are good you're old money.
> 
> ...


I got to check for mine.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Ματθαῖος said:


> Here's a good guide:
> 
> If your last name appears in front of the word "Foundation" in the donor pages of the program to the opera or symphony, chances are good you're old money.


Not at all true in this region.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Note the phrase "chances are good"? It's not a guarantee but if you're Old Money you probably do support The Arts. After all, your ancestors did . . .


----------

