currency is just a convenient way of counting. remember that value is a reflection of the real economy: land, food, goods and services. go bsck to barter economies where we traded goats, wheat, salted food/meat .. and evolved into gold and currency (before central banks)
stay with basics if real economies ... today value of currencies are just people/banks/ traders evaluation of long term prospects of economic growth of US, China, Japan, UK, EU...
the driver is real economy -- goods and services, trade -- of currency which is just a way of counting
The only currency in the history of mankind that had actual intrinsic value was when people traded barley in the markets of the ancient city of Ur. Since then, we've developed currencies that depended on our faith in their value. This includes gold which is cultural and anthropological.
Every currency has faith and hope backing it. When people began to lose faith in US currency (in the Civil War), the words "In God We Trust" were put on the dollar bill to trick people into having faith in it.
$ and Fx and currency value are more a consequence of underlying economic performance and trade / money flows then a driver M.
What determines the strength of a country's currency: Supply and demand, the interest rates of each country, the trade balance of each country, and the perceived stability of the currency and the governments, plus economic factors like higher oil prices, which helps the Canadian dollar for example. F (economic and political health of country and BOP (balance of payments))
The Rothschilds did not invent banking. Before banks we had gold smiths. The first fiat paper currency came out of China as IOU notes. Marco Polo was so impressed that he brought this to Europe.
The royal family is another house that is ex
The wealth of the Saudi Royal family comes from its ownership of ARAMCO, which is the state oil company in Saudi Arabia. The $1 trillion figure that you saw for their wealth is sort of an internet pseudoscience thing based on ARAMCO's official valuation of ~$2 trillion. If ARAMCO is worth that much then, yes, the Saudi Royal family is worth $1 trillion. But ARAMCO isn't worth anywhere near that. ARAMCO is technically a "publicly traded" company, but only 5% of the company is publicly owned. That 5% of the available stock is only traded on the Saudi stock exchange. Only a handful of people are allowed to trade on the Saudi stock exchange and the amount of ARAMCO stock traded on a daily basis is usually less than $500. That means that the price that the stock trades for is fake - its essentially a show put on by the Saudi Royal family. ARAMCO is difficult to value because its revenues are about 6 times higher than the next largest oil company in the world while its costs are technically lower. That is, it costs ARAMCO almost nothing to pull oil out of the ground. The issue is that even though ARAMCO is privately owned by the Saudi Royal family, most of its
revenue is taken by the Saudi government to allow the country to function. When you look at it from that perspective, ARAMCO is actually operating at a fairly large loss. It can't do anything to reduce those "costs" because if it stops supporting the Saudi government then
the country will collapse. Given that bizarre situation, no one really believes that ARAMCO is worth very much and therefore, the Saudi royal family doesn't have the kind of wealth that would be suggested given ARAMCO's official valuation.
Say if a Saudi prince owned a pice of highway that would be counted towards his fortune, however its value is mostly that when people use this highway they increase the general
productivity meaning the prince can collect more taxes. That is something that Elon Musk or Jeff Besos does not have the ability to do. The exception to this was the Sultan of Brunei who appeared in many lists of the richest people with an estimated wealth of $20 billion. This inclusion was controversial as it was hard to say which
monarchs to include and which to exclude. So when Bill Gates and several other people passed his wealth he was dropped from such lists. These billionaires are not even comparable to what some other people not listed here hold.
Like house of Saud has at least a trillion dollars or so tremendously wealthy along with the Rockefellers, Rothschilds. The problem is they've spread the wealth between many individuals, all of them are super rich but not anywhere near as rich as a person would have been if all the wealth went to them. The wealth between family members in the house of Saud is in name only. Anytime Mohammad Bin Salman wants he can take all of his family's cash which he has.
The wealth of the Saudi Royal family comes from its ownership of ARAMCO, which is the state oil company in Saudi Arabia. The $1 trillion figure that you saw for their wealth is sort of an internet pseudoscience thing based on ARAMCO's official valuation of ~$2 trillion. If ARAMCO is worth that much then, yes, the Saudi Royal family is worth $1 trillion. But ARAMCO isn't worth anywhere near that. ARAMCO is technically a "publicly traded" company, but only 5% of the company is publicly owned. That 5% of the available stock is only traded on the Saudi stock exchange. Only a handful of people are allowed to trade on the Saudi stock exchange and the amount of ARAMCO stock traded on a daily basis is usually less than $500. That means that the price that the stock trades for is fake - its essentially a show put on by the Saudi Royal family. ARAMCO is difficult to value because its revenues are about 6 times higher than the next largest oil company in the world while its costs are technically lower. That is, it costs ARAMCO almost nothing to pull oil out of the ground. The issue is that even though ARAMCO is privately owned by the Saudi Royal family, most of its
revenue is taken by the Saudi government to allow the country to function. When you look at it from that perspective, ARAMCO is actually operating at a fairly large loss. It can't do anything to reduce those "costs" because if it stops supporting the Saudi government then
the country will collapse. Given that bizarre situation, no one really believes that ARAMCO is worth very much and therefore, the Saudi royal family doesn't have the kind of wealth that would be suggested given ARAMCO's official valuation.
Say if a Saudi prince owned a pice of highway that would be counted towards his fortune, however its value is mostly that when people use this highway they increase the general
productivity meaning the prince can collect more taxes. That is something that Elon Musk or Jeff Besos does not have the ability to do. The exception to this was the Sultan of Brunei who appeared in many lists of the richest people with an estimated wealth of $20 billion. This inclusion was controversial as it was hard to say which
monarchs to include and which to exclude. So when Bill Gates and several other people passed his wealth he was dropped from such lists.
These billionaires are not even comparable to what some other people not listed here hold.
Like house of Saud has at least a trillion dollars or so
What sources are there on the Rothschilds still being ultra-rich? Most historical wealth has evaporated or has been seized or has otherwise left them. They're still in business and are by no means poor. But the only media I have seen claiming they are the richest and most powerful group on the planet are exaggerating at best and usually just shady and untrustworthy. I used to work just around the corner from their investment offices (and know someone who works there); it's literally their own personal mini sky scraper in the middle of the City of London.
They're still very much very, very rich. Trump has many skyscapers. I'd say owning a skyscraper is barely any proof of being the richest group of people on the planet. It just means they're still rich. Or have large loans. Most buildings where the tower has his name, he gets royalty by owner of said building. Their headquarters is a skyscraper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Court
The Rothschilds aren't a family like you'd think of one (a grandparent, some aunts and uncles and cousins etc) but much more of a clan, with branches all over Europe. Each of the major branches have businesses and investments worth many billions; the main reason we don't know how wealthy they are is because of how spread out they are, but when you see the number of large firms they have that still exist it would be impossible for them, as a family, not to have wealth in the many many billions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family for some background info.
UBI is likely a temporary fix. A post-labor economy is the likely longer-term future.
Money has enslaved us all. The evil Rothschilds created the banking system, and huge chunks of the land here in the UK were stolen by the church of England. There are lots of empty properties here that are owned by obscenely rich people who buy them to facilitate tax evasion and money laundering. Also many rental properties are way too expensive now due to the ever increasing cost of living and lack of social housing.
It's all a complete shitshow, because at one time everyone was free to roam freely and build a cabin in the woods etc because nobody claimed to own oŕ buy land. The land belongs to nobody and the concept of land ownership is utterly ridiculous.
You also never had to pay for food and water because people used to be hunter- gatherers.
The way humanity has become enslaved by having to work their asses off for greedy bastard companies in order to pay for things that were once abundant and free is utterly insane.
Please see my post above
Money has enslaved us all. The evil Rothschilds created the banking system, and huge chunks of the land here in the UK were stolen by the church of England. There are lots of empty properties here that are owned by obscenely rich people who buy them to facilitate tax evasion and money laundering. Also many rental properties are way too expensive now due to the ever increasing cost of living and lack of social housing.
It's all a complete shitshow, because at one time everyone was free to roam freely and build a cabin in the woods etc because nobody claimed to own oŕ buy land. The land belongs to nobody and the concept of land ownership is utterly ridiculous.
You also never had to pay for food and water because people used to be hunter- gatherers.
The way humanity has become enslaved by having to work their asses off for greedy bastard companies in order to pay for things that were once abundant and free is utterly insane.
Housing has increased in cost for many reasons. One would be regulation. The University of Washington conducted a study 20 years about the cost of housing 20 years prior to that - construction costs increased 60% due to increases in government regulations.
I can go into further detail…
I used to be a commercial building engineer, I've worked in commercial real estate brokerage and also was a real estate investment analyst both of which were focused on the hospitality sector. I have also worked in other areas of finance including hedge fund, casinos & hotels, and family offices (managing rich people's money).
