Graycap23 said:

Lol.................the fool actaully enjoys being a troll.

Simply amazing.

How's your KKK thread going?

RodeoSchro said:

Graycap23 said:

Lol.................the fool actaully enjoys being a troll.

Simply amazing.

How's your KKK thread going?

Same as Joe mama.

How is that dumb comment related 2 this thread?

[Edited 11/10/14 8:27am]

Graycap23 said:

RodeoSchro said:

How's your KKK thread going?

Same as Joe mama.

How is that dumb comment related 2 this thread?

[Edited 11/10/14 8:27am]

My mother is deceased, so for once you are right.

RodeoSchro said:

Graycap23 said:

Same as Joe mama.

How is that dumb comment related 2 this thread?

[Edited 11/10/14 8:27am]

My mother is deceased, so for once you are right.

Gerbils tired?

Get an update on your serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

[Edited 11/10/14 8:38am]

Graycap23 said:

RodeoSchro said:

My mother is deceased, so for once you are right.

Gerbils tired?

Get an update on your serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

[Edited 11/10/14 8:38am]

Again with the gerbils? C'mon, you can do better than that.

RodeoSchro said:

Graycap23 said:

Gerbils tired?

Get an update on your serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

[Edited 11/10/14 8:38am]

Again with the gerbils? C'mon, you can do better than that.

I'm going 2 make somme loot.

Enjoy your daily trolling. deo.

Graycap23 said:

RodeoSchro said:

Again with the gerbils? C'mon, you can do better than that.

I'm going 2 make somme loot.

Enjoy your daily trolling. deo.

Good luck! I hope you're more successful than the Chicago Bears!

i didn't realize this was a private party BUT let me drop this partin note.

when the time spent at having the most wealth is four times that of a newbie

you'd do well to factor in other things before callin it smoke.

before we go to the meat, lets work on the salad.

when you are in the forefront of bankin and create the rules of bankin,

you have already set the capitalist line of thinkin. and that thinkin is

about profit and settin the standard of debt. your dressin will be a taste

of crcedit/debt and interest on debt.

for your side i give you the financing of about every major conflict as well as

the control of media and information. there is a reason the term 'silent partner' was created.

and for the main course i give you the "complete need for secrecy". again, when forbes won't

speak on your capital (except in passin) somethin needs to be seen.

by the argument of them "not bein relevant" out of the names given on a list they'd

have to be mentioned in the top three, yet they get no mention. they get mentioned

only with their permission and by their rule. since the portrayal in the books and other

things are of them bein more rich and powerful than god, most cases it is through cartoon

and comedy because that kind of wealth can't be unnastood at a common level.

to say that one should know or have knowledge of such things like it was common knowledge

is to say there are no secret societies in the world that can control the info

output on them....

KingBAD said:

i didn't realize this was a private party BUT let me drop this partin note.

when the time spent at having the most wealth is four times that of a newbie

you'd do well to factor in other things before callin it smoke.

before we go to the meat, lets work on the salad.

when you are in the forefront of bankin and create the rules of bankin,

you have already set the capitalist line of thinkin. and that thinkin is

about profit and settin the standard of debt. your dressin will be a taste

of crcedit/debt and interest on debt.

for your side i give you the financing of about every major conflict as well as

the control of media and information. there is a reason the term 'silent partner' was created.

and for the main course i give you the "complete need for secrecy". again, when forbes won't

speak on your capital (except in passin) somethin needs to be seen.

by the argument of them "not bein relevant" out of the names given on a list they'd

have to be mentioned in the top three, yet they get no mention. they get mentioned

only with their permission and by their rule. since the portrayal in the books and other

things are of them bein more rich and powerful than god, most cases it is through cartoon

and comedy because that kind of wealth can't be unnastood at a common level.

to say that one should know or have knowledge of such things like it was common knowledge

is to say there are no secret societies in the world that can control the info

output on them....

I'm not denying the Rothschilds are rich. No doubt they are. I doubt they're collectively worth $500 trillion, but if the Walton family can build a collective net worth of $152 billion in two and a half generations by selling soap cheaply, then it's no surprise the Rothschilds could have amassed a fortune in banking over the last 222 years.

But the claim I have a problem with is that the Rothschilds control government banks. They don't, and no one has been able to show they do - despite repeated requests. So I heartily disagree with that assertion.

RodeoSchro said:

KingBAD said:

i didn't realize this was a private party BUT let me drop this partin note.

when the time spent at having the most wealth is four times that of a newbie

you'd do well to factor in other things before callin it smoke.

before we go to the meat, lets work on the salad.

when you are in the forefront of bankin and create the rules of bankin,

you have already set the capitalist line of thinkin. and that thinkin is

about profit and settin the standard of debt. your dressin will be a taste

of crcedit/debt and interest on debt.

for your side i give you the financing of about every major conflict as well as

the control of media and information. there is a reason the term 'silent partner' was created.

and for the main course i give you the "complete need for secrecy". again, when forbes won't

speak on your capital (except in passin) somethin needs to be seen.

by the argument of them "not bein relevant" out of the names given on a list they'd

have to be mentioned in the top three, yet they get no mention. they get mentioned

only with their permission and by their rule. since the portrayal in the books and other

things are of them bein more rich and powerful than god, most cases it is through cartoon

and comedy because that kind of wealth can't be unnastood at a common level.

to say that one should know or have knowledge of such things like it was common knowledge

is to say there are no secret societies in the world that can control the info

output on them....

I'm not denying the Rothschilds are rich. No doubt they are. I doubt they're collectively worth $500 trillion, but if the Walton family can build a collective net worth of $152 billion in two and a half generations by selling soap cheaply, then it's no surprise the Rothschilds could have amassed a fortune in banking over the last 222 years.

But the claim I have a problem with is that the Rothschilds control government banks. They don't, and no one has been able to show they do - despite repeated requests. So I heartily disagree with that assertion.

i can give you two different reports that speak to the issue of this fed reserve. in one you get no names regardin who the 'foreign investors' are. in the other it names the rothschild...

in lookin into anything dealin with the affairs of govs one would do good to use decernment

in the info they get. the mere absents of the name in any of these reports is a tellin statement.

http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

this old report put them at 100 trill.

think about it. JUST THE INTEREST on just 500 billion compounded quarterly.

now move up to just 50 trillion. now a hunnit trill.

if you go back that fitty years that the waltons (?) been gettin money.

if all the rchilds was half of the 500 billion, they would have what the waltons have

just in intrest as a bankin consumer. THEY OWN THE BIGGEST BANKIN SYSTEM.

their monies have been used to finance the biggest corporations on the planet.

when they wrote "render unto caesar" it means, you come to me for startup and there will be a hefty fee and in some cases a partnership (secret investor)

http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/11/03/the-money-changers-rothchild-banking-dynasty-said-to-be-worth-100-trillion/

forgive me if i don't put a lot of trust in "freedom of information" bein freely given. bullshit is the main menu to those who wish to remain anonymous

RodeoSchro said:

PurpleJedi said:

The thing is, if you can return 7% on your investments and put all those returns back into your portfolio, it will double in 10 years.

If you can return 10%, it will double in 7 years. And triple in 11 years.

That simple math is why the rich keep getting richer. It's not because they are earning new money by creating new things. It's just compounding interest. And there's nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is how it's taxed. The reason most rich people were able to amass their original fortune is the way we tax it. We were taxing it just fine until George W. Bush came along. He screwed everything up and led us into what is now $17,000,000,000,000 of debt.

Had he not messed with the tax rates, we could easily be totally debt-free today.

Think about that.

think about this: the concept of compound interest is bogus, as it does not carry the weight of true currency: that which has been bought, sold or bartered as a thing of value, be it goods or services.

KingBAD said:

RodeoSchro said:

I'm not denying the Rothschilds are rich. No doubt they are. I doubt they're collectively worth $500 trillion, but if the Walton family can build a collective net worth of $152 billion in two and a half generations by selling soap cheaply, then it's no surprise the Rothschilds could have amassed a fortune in banking over the last 222 years.

But the claim I have a problem with is that the Rothschilds control government banks. They don't, and no one has been able to show they do - despite repeated requests. So I heartily disagree with that assertion.

i can give you two different reports that speak to the issue of this fed reserve. in one you get no names regardin who the 'foreign investors' are. in the other it names the rothschild...

in lookin into anything dealin with the affairs of govs one would do good to use decernment

in the info they get. the mere absents of the name in any of these reports is a tellin statement.

http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

this old report put them at 100 trill.

think about it. JUST THE INTEREST on just 500 billion compounded quarterly.

now move up to just 50 trillion. now a hunnit trill.

if you go back that fitty years that the waltons (?) been gettin money.

if all the rchilds was half of the 500 billion, they would have what the waltons have

just in intrest as a bankin consumer. THEY OWN THE BIGGEST BANKIN SYSTEM.

their monies have been used to finance the biggest corporations on the planet.

when they wrote "render unto caesar" it means, you come to me for startup and there will be a hefty fee and in some cases a partnership (secret investor)

http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/11/03/the-money-changers-rothchild-banking-dynasty-said-to-be-worth-100-trillion/

forgive me if i don't put a lot of trust in "freedom of information" bein freely given. bullshit is the main menu to those who wish to remain anonymous

My friend, thank you once again for providing back-up for your position. I can't tell you what a change of pace that is! And I must say - the first link you provided is very well-written. Dr. Flaherty did an EXCELLENT job! But did you notice this passage regarding Eustace Mullins' claim that the Rothschilds own the banks that own the Federal Reserve?

Unfortunately, Mullins' source for the stockholders of the New York Fed could not be verified. He claimed his source was the Federal Reserve Bulletin, although it has never included shareholder information, nor has any other Federal Reserve periodical.....

Are these eight banks on Mullins' list of stockholders owned by foreigners, what Mullins termed the London Connection? The SEC requires the name of any individual or organization that owns more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded firm be made public. If foreigners own any shares of Mullins' eight banks, then their portions are not greater than 5 percent at this time. With no significant holdings of the major New York area banks, it does not seem likely that foreign conspirators could direct their actions.

Dr. Flaherty goes on to detail more reasons why it is impossible for the Rothschilds to own or control the Federal Reserve. FULL DISCLOSURE - My family has owned several banks. I can absolutely, positively guarantee you that the author's description of Federal Reserve stock and ownership is 100% on the money.

Then, Dr. Flaherty examines Kah's claims of Fed ownership, which Kah says consists of foreign entities. Specifically, Dr. Flaherty says:

The discrepancies in the two lists mean that at least one of them is wrong, and possibly both. Kah's list is the bogus one because no public stock has ever been issued, so it is not possible for anyone on Kah's list other than Chase Manhatten to own shares of the New York Fed.

Dr. Flaherty does a top-notch job debunking this conspiracy claim. I could post so much more from his article, but let's just end this part with his conclusion. And I want to SINCERELY THANK YOU for linking to this great article. I promise you - it will be Exhibit A in every thread where I have to debunk the Rothschilds rumors!

Conclusion

It does not appear that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned, either directly or indirectly, by foreigners. Neither Mullins nor Kah provided verifiable sources for their allegations, nor did their mysterious sources agree on exactly who owns the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Moreover, their central assumption that control of the New York Federal Reserve is the same as control of the whole System is wrong and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the System's basic organizational structure. The profits of the Federal Reserve System, again contrary to the assertion of Kah and Schauf, are funneled back to the federal government, not to an "international banking elite." If the U.S. central bank is in the grip of a banking conspiracy, then Mullins and Kah have certainly not uncovered it.

OK, on to your second link, the article titled "The Money Changers: Rothschild Dynasty Said To Be Worth $100 Trillion" by Dean Henderson.

Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, it falls apart in the second paragraph. Why? Well, because the first link you provided - Dr. Flaherty's EXCELLENT article - totally destroys the premise of link #2, which is:

As cited in my Big Oil & Their Bankers… book and by others, the Eight Families own 52% of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, far and away the most powerful Fed Bank. Their ownership is disguised under names like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Dr. Flaherty proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Henderson's 52% ownership claim is bogus. So I can't put much stock into anything else Henderson claims (and trust me - he goes on to claim a bunch of stuff!).

I do sincerely want to thank you, my friend, for posting the article by Dr. Flaherty. It is hands-down the best article I've ever seen that debunks the "Fed is owned by the Rothschilds!" myth. Great job!

.

[Edited 11/10/14 18:49pm]

XxAxX said:

RodeoSchro said:

The thing is, if you can return 7% on your investments and put all those returns back into your portfolio, it will double in 10 years.

If you can return 10%, it will double in 7 years. And triple in 11 years.

That simple math is why the rich keep getting richer. It's not because they are earning new money by creating new things. It's just compounding interest. And there's nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is how it's taxed. The reason most rich people were able to amass their original fortune is the way we tax it. We were taxing it just fine until George W. Bush came along. He screwed everything up and led us into what is now $17,000,000,000,000 of debt.

Had he not messed with the tax rates, we could easily be totally debt-free today.

Think about that.

think about this: the concept of compound interest is bogus, as it does not carry the weight of true currency: that which has been bought, sold or bartered as a thing of value, be it goods or services.

Then I'm sure you'll happily forgo any and all interest that any investment, bank account, or other investment vehicle returns to you?

But I get what you're saying. Interest is not a tangible thing until you cash out.

I've always been fascinated by the Islamic financial principal that interest does not exist. My understanding is they can neither charge nor collect interest. So if they invest in something, they have to make sure they are going to increase its value in a tangible way.

.

[Edited 11/11/14 8:56am]

I imagine that the Rothschilds do everything they can to keep themselves and any talk of their fortune and power out of the public eye. That's the difference between old money and new money, new money flaunts it, old money doesn't want anyone to know they have it. Not saying that this is proof that they do or don't own everything, but it seems to me that, especially in this day and age, they wouldn't want to show their hand.

guitarslinger44 said:

I imagine that the Rothschilds do everything they can to keep themselves and any talk of their fortune and power out of the public eye. That's the difference between old money and new money, new money flaunts it, old money doesn't want anyone to know they have it. Not saying that this is proof that they do or don't own everything, but it seems to me that, especially in this day and age, they wouldn't want to show their hand.

E v e r y t h i n g is an understatement.

Some folks think they can actually "google" information that people want kept private.

guitarslinger44 said:

I imagine that the Rothschilds do everything they can to keep themselves and any talk of their fortune and power out of the public eye. That's the difference between old money and new money, new money flaunts it, old money doesn't want anyone to know they have it. Not saying that this is proof that they do or don't own everything, but it seems to me that, especially in this day and age, they wouldn't want to show their hand.

Absolutely agree with your first point.

If you're interested in the "They own the Fed" argument, I highly recommend the first link that KingBad posted. It is the very best, most bullet-proof, easy-to-follow explanation of how it is impossible for the Rothschilds to own the Fed that I have ever seen. If you have five minutes and any interest in the subject, you will be glad you read this:

http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

.

[Edited 11/11/14 9:47am]

guitarslinger44 said:

I imagine that the Rothschilds do everything they can to keep themselves and any talk of their fortune and power out of the public eye. That's the difference between old money and new money, new money flaunts it, old money doesn't want anyone to know they have it. Not saying that this is proof that they do or don't own everything, but it seems to me that, especially in this day and age, they wouldn't want to show their hand.

'XACTLY!!!

RodeoSchro said:

guitarslinger44 said:

I imagine that the Rothschilds do everything they can to keep themselves and any talk of their fortune and power out of the public eye. That's the difference between old money and new money, new money flaunts it, old money doesn't want anyone to know they have it. Not saying that this is proof that they do or don't own everything, but it seems to me that, especially in this day and age, they wouldn't want to show their hand.

Absolutely agree with your first point.

If you're interested in the "They own the Fed" argument, I highly recommend the first link that KingBad posted. It is the very best, most bullet-proof, easy-to-follow explanation of how it is impossible for the Rothschilds to own the Fed that I have ever seen. If you have five minutes and any interest in the subject, you will be glad you read this:

http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

.

[Edited 11/11/14 9:47am]

i'm already knowin that ain't a quote from me.

though 52% is a controllin interest.

and i 'm not sure of your political bent BUT!!!

in the face of everything, you seem to be one who

has the idea that if the gov says it, it must be true OR

if they don't say it, it can't be existant.

the treasures in the coffers of tthe royals and these others

in posession of truely 'old money' consist of treasures stolen

from the beginnin. that money (wealth) doesn't even show up

on the radar of those not in those circles.

the rothschilds are only truely known by those others with

old names.

the vatican, the royals and very few others know of the exact amount of power

that they (rothschilds) wield.

maybe the next best argument you or anyone could make is

"well if they are such a big secret, why do you King Bad know of them and their power?"

i come from a truly old fam and knowledge of them and their ilk is common among us.

i listen to the inconsitancies involvin people throughout history and though these people have been around longer than they are credited for, their name suddenly drops out of anything

historical almost at the same time as this country made it illegal to have the ownnership of gold

bringin about the issuence of bank notes (pronissory notes, us dollars).

when people can/ have the ability to do research and come up empty on somethin that

is known to be existant and can only find miniscule info, they must then assume they are bein

lied to by omission (that lack of info)....

i saw that thing you did with the two sections... nice touch.

the funny part is you can find those said to have debunked the rothschild legend.

however they fail to name the names of those who are in control.

to say that this gov controls its reserves is to say this gov is somethin other than a corp

and the people of the country actually run the country

[Edited 11/11/14 19:28pm]

KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE PERSONAL CRAP YOU TWO!

RenHoek said:

KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE PERSONAL CRAP YOU TWO!

Crikey it's spilling over from p & r oh FFS.

IT WASN'T ME!!!!

KingBAD said:

RodeoSchro said:

Absolutely agree with your first point.

If you're interested in the "They own the Fed" argument, I highly recommend the first link that KingBad posted. It is the very best, most bullet-proof, easy-to-follow explanation of how it is impossible for the Rothschilds to own the Fed that I have ever seen. If you have five minutes and any interest in the subject, you will be glad you read this:

http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

.

[Edited 11/11/14 9:47am]

i'm already knowin that ain't a quote from me.

though 52% is a controllin interest.

and i 'm not sure of your political bent BUT!!!

in the face of everything, you seem to be one who

has the idea that if the gov says it, it must be true OR

if they don't say it, it can't be existant.

the treasures in the coffers of tthe royals and these others

in posession of truely 'old money' consist of treasures stolen

from the beginnin. that money (wealth) doesn't even show up

on the radar of those not in those circles.

the rothschilds are only truely known by those others with

old names.

the vatican, the royals and very few others know of the exact amount of power

that they (rothschilds) wield.

maybe the next best argument you or anyone could make is

"well if they are such a big secret, why do you King Bad know of them and their power?"

i come from a truly old fam and knowledge of them and their ilk is common among us.

i listen to the inconsitancies involvin people throughout history and though these people have been around longer than they are credited for, their name suddenly drops out of anything

historical almost at the same time as this country made it illegal to have the ownnership of gold

bringin about the issuence of bank notes (pronissory notes, us dollars).

when people can/ have the ability to do research and come up empty on somethin that

is known to be existant and can only find miniscule info, they must then assume they are bein

lied to by omission (that lack of info)....

i saw that thing you did with the two sections... nice touch.

the funny part is you can find those said to have debunked the rothschild legend.

however they fail to name the names of those who are in control.

to say that this gov controls its reserves is to say this gov is somethin other than a corp

and the people of the country actually run the country

[Edited 11/11/14 19:28pm]

King, all that is cool. But did you read the first link you posted earlier? It's an absolutely spot-on, perfectly researched, and 100% fact-based explanation of how it is impossible for the Rothschilds to own ANY controlling interest in the Federal Reserve.

You posted it, so I figured you had read it and agreed with it. And you should - it is unsassailable proof that the Rothschilds DO NOT own 52% of the Federal Reserve.

I come from an old family too, and nothing in my experience has ever shown that there are a certain number of families that control everything. It's just not true.

KingBAD said:

Not entirely true.
Show me a society with NO GOVERNMENT that ISN'T ruled by the rich & powerful???

KingBAD said:

LOL. Dude, you have a future in P&R!

RodeoSchro said:

KingBAD said:

LOL. Dude, you have a future in P&R!

i just go there to take a crap every year or two

RodeoSchro said:

KingBAD said:

http://topinfopost.com/2014/02/11/the-master-of-the-world-rothschild-banking-dynasty

http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/the-rothschilds-world-kingpins-worth-500-trillion-they-own-reuters-ap-and-fix-the-price-of-gold%E2%80%A6/

http://thebilzerianreport.com/how-much-money-do-the-rothschilds-have/

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/how-rich-is-the-rothschild-family/

NOW, HERE IS A LIST FROM FORBES, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE NAME ROTHSCHILD IS NOWHERE ON IT... WHY? YOU MAY ASK. THEIR MONEY HAS HIT THE TRILLIONS AND NO-ONE HAS PERMISSION TO SPEAK ON ROTHCHILDS CASH.

No.NameNet worth (USD)AgeCitizenshipSource(s) of wealth1 Gates, BillBill Gates$76.0 billion 58United StatesMicrosoft2 Slim, CarlosCarlos Slim & family$72.0 billion 74MexicoTelmex, América Móvil, Grupo Carso3 Ortega, AmancioAmancio Ortega$64.0 billion 77SpainInditex Group4 Buffett, WarrenWarren Buffett$58.2 billion 83United StatesBerkshire Hathaway5 Ellison, LarryLarry Ellison$48.0 billion 69United StatesOracle Corporation6 Koch, CharlesCharles Koch$40.0 billion 78United StatesKoch Industries7 Koch, DavidDavid Koch$40.0 billion 73United StatesKoch Industries8 Adelson, SheldonSheldon Adelson$38.0 billion 80United StatesLas Vegas Sands9 Walton, ChristyChristy Walton & family$36.7 billion 58-59United StatesWal-Mart10 Walton, JimJim Walton$34.7 billion 65United StatesWal-Mart

IF YOU THINK ROTHSCHILDS ARE NOT ON HERE BECAUSE THEY BROKE... WELL, YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS

King ol' buddy, ol' pal - I can't tell you what a breath of fresh air you are! Graycap had a thread about the Rothschilds on P&R and despite about a dozen requests never offered a single lick of proof for his claim. You, on the other hand. come loaded for bear the first time anyone asks!

That is why you are the KING!

I checked out the links you posted. In order, they estimated the Rothschild's entire net worth (all families and offshoots thereof) at:

1. $300 billion - $400 billio
2. $1 trillion
3. $500 trillion
4. "Well over" $100 trillion

I have no doubt there are rich Rothschilds. But how rich are they really? Let's take the conservative estimate from your first link, and use its high estimate of $400 billion.

That is comprised of wealth created in a 222-year span (1792 - 2014, according to your first link).

Compare that with the Walton family (Wal-MArt). Their family net worth is $152 billion. But - it was created in 52 years. If you compund the Waltons' family net worth at 5% over another 170 years, they will be worth $608 trillion dollars!

So either the Rothschilds aren't that good at accumulating wealth, or the reports of their wealth have been greatly exaggerated.

Now, here is a 2007 New York Times article titled "The Man Who May Become The Richest Rothschild". http://www.nytimes.com/20...l&_r=0

You know what's interesting about it? Nathaniel Rothschild started with NOTHING. He had to beg for a job to get his start! If the Rothschilds were worth so much money, don't you think he could have founded his own investment bank with some family capital? From the article:

Puffing away in an anteroom, he ran into Timothy R. Barakett, then a 29-year-old investor who was doing the rounds trying to raise funds for Atticus, his new hedge fund. Learning that Mr. Barakett was starting up a fund, he asked for a job. Mr. Barakett turned him down.

But the two men stayed in touch, and in the fall of 1996, Mr. Barakett took Mr. Rothschild on as a minority partner in the nascent fund, then $90 million in assets, and gave him the title of director of business development with a mandate to tap his considerable connections and family connections for new capital.

Mr. Rothschild took to the new opportunity with renewed vigor. He stopped drinking, reached a divorce agreement and devoted his energies to promoting the investment talents of Mr. Barakett.

SeventeenDayze said:

RodeoSchro said:

King ol' buddy, ol' pal - I can't tell you what a breath of fresh air you are! Graycap had a thread about the Rothschilds on P&R and despite about a dozen requests never offered a single lick of proof for his claim. You, on the other hand. come loaded for bear the first time anyone asks!

That is why you are the KING!

I checked out the links you posted. In order, they estimated the Rothschild's entire net worth (all families and offshoots thereof) at:

1. $300 billion - $400 billio
2. $1 trillion
3. $500 trillion
4. "Well over" $100 trillion

I have no doubt there are rich Rothschilds. But how rich are they really? Let's take the conservative estimate from your first link, and use its high estimate of $400 billion.

That is comprised of wealth created in a 222-year span (1792 - 2014, according to your first link).

Compare that with the Walton family (Wal-MArt). Their family net worth is $152 billion. But - it was created in 52 years. If you compund the Waltons' family net worth at 5% over another 170 years, they will be worth $608 trillion dollars!

So either the Rothschilds aren't that good at accumulating wealth, or the reports of their wealth have been greatly exaggerated.

Now, here is a 2007 New York Times article titled "The Man Who May Become The Richest Rothschild". http://www.nytimes.com/20...l&_r=0

You know what's interesting about it? Nathaniel Rothschild started with NOTHING. He had to beg for a job to get his start! If the Rothschilds were worth so much money, don't you think he could have founded his own investment bank with some family capital? From the article:

Puffing away in an anteroom, he ran into Timothy R. Barakett, then a 29-year-old investor who was doing the rounds trying to raise funds for Atticus, his new hedge fund. Learning that Mr. Barakett was starting up a fund, he asked for a job. Mr. Barakett turned him down.

But the two men stayed in touch, and in the fall of 1996, Mr. Barakett took Mr. Rothschild on as a minority partner in the nascent fund, then $90 million in assets, and gave him the title of director of business development with a mandate to tap his considerable connections and family connections for new capital.

Mr. Rothschild took to the new opportunity with renewed vigor. He stopped drinking, reached a divorce agreement and devoted his energies to promoting the investment talents of Mr. Barakett.

[youtube]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/fqF-2C1JTyo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/youtube]