The Rich people of the 1960s and earlier bear little resemblance to the rich today.
This is not a "how-to" book, its a "how did they" book.
For example, the name "Rich and Super Rich" from my perspective is not by any means a way for the author to insinuate that you can become super rich. It was his way of defining what we generally speak of as financially rich, e.g., "My neighbors are all rich, I live in a community full of very well-off people" is extremely distant from the actual "Super Rich" whom more or less control vast aspects of global economies.
So the idea that it's a "study in the power of money today" is just as relevant in the TODAY as it was in the 60's. As within the book you'll notice several families who continue on (DuPont, Rothschild, Warburg, Astor, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Mellon, Rokefeller, etc.) in the present day with massive wealth and power.
It's a book about history up until it's publishing, but it is also timeless. The charts, tables, math, and stories all detail the factual information that can be a real eye-opener. Far from Mustachian in the sense that it's going to help you better your finances, the book is a big time reality check.
You know how some people say "certain rich families rule the earth", and some think that's false or a conspiracy theory. Or, you know when someone might respond by saying "nobody is above the law!".... This book lays out the factual financial history that is quite contrary to popular belief. It's really extremely well written, is NOT a fast read, and is an excellent resource and conversation piece.
I'm not sure if you've heard of Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, but it was an instructional piece of literature designed to educate on how one may control societies through influence, to explain in simple terms. Leviathan is a more difficult read than this book, but regardless, the instructions are sound. In a similar way, The Rich and The Super Rich is very factual and more than theory.
It's truly interesting if that's your thing. It's also truly boring for many people and that's fine. I recommend it to anyone with the patience and comprehension to finish it. I think they'll find it shocking, interesting and very succinct.
But that is my point - how people got rich before 1960 no longer applies. None of families you named are any longer significant. Most of the rich people today are rich from tech, Walmart or Berkshire Hathaway. Heaven knows the Waltons and Buffets don’t live like the Rockefellers lived. The manufacturing and railroad tycoon families are forgotten and for the most part their descendants squandered their wealth in various ways and sold off their businesses. The only remaining Vanderbilt of note is Anderson Cooper!
In a very friendly way, I beg to differ. Rothschilds, for example, are deeply rooted in so many aspects of the economy that it's nearly impossible to account for all their assets and cash reserves. If you think they're publicly announcing their numbers or even paying taxes, I'd tend to think you'd be very wrong. With that said, I could care less to defend them. While Silicon Valley may have produced significant wealth, as well as the Waltons, etc., the length of time and the multi-national non-public connections are simply not there.
Everyone tends to count/consider the western world while also failing to speak about the immense wealth and power involved in the middle and far-east as well. We're not the center of the planet, and we're surely not the oldest country. There are many unknown (or more fairly, lesser-known) groups, families, and small conglomerates which much more power and influence than Wal-Mart or Warren Buffet.
How they got rich absolutely does still apply. It's not always the manner, it's the method. People becoming absurdly wealthy with railroads and steel companies? Already been done. The ways in which their wealth was managed, the way it was protected under trusts and inside multi-layer multinational corporations and with unknown amount of actual assets and little-to-no access to records via means of various legal procedures is the same way that anyone could do the same today. Percentages of any individual or group's wealth is often public and is direct wealth, in the same way that much if not more of the "old money" is very non-public or under what we could consider indirect ownership.
Do the Waltons have heavy leverage globally over central banks or the Bank for International Settlements? No. Does Berkshire-Hathaway answer to central banks or do they follow the orders of them? I can't answer that, but I think logic provides many obvious clues.
It's a great book. It's applicable today, and relevant today - whichever way you'd like to frame it. I think there's little doubt on that. If Wal-Mart collapsed tomorrow completely, it'd royally F the economy, but why would that happen? I assume China's highest shot-callers could make it happen if they desired (not that they'd want to slaughter a cash cow like that, but just saying).
On the other side of the coin, Jerome Powell or Janet Yellen can easily hop on TV for a minute or two and collapse global markets (or cause an upward market explosion) simply by speaking a few words - regardless of whether those words are true or not. Wouldn't you agree?
I tend to think that more often than not, it's the non-public faces and policies of industries/countries/economics that make the most difference of what lies ahead. In that sense, if you've read the book, you'd know it's still extremely relevant, applicable and significant.
Anyway I'm pretty new here to the forum as an actual user and I don't even know if this sort of conversation is something that will ruffle admin feathers or not. Although we're only talking about a book, I don't want to get overly political or get banned.
I find it all to be a fascinating subject, and that's why I posted the book here. I'd wouldn't mind hearing from others if they think it's still relevant today or not. I'd be betting the answers are a mixed bag.
Take care.
