Elon's Dad is the reason why he is successful. Almost all Elon's companies (not including PayPal because that's Thiel's baby) only made money because his dad would hire someone competent to take over and get it in a position to sell. So he's technically old money, but doesn't talk to his dad because he's a genuinely shitty person. All of Elon's behind the scene handlers are new money South African's though. The only smart business decision Elon did was get into Tesla and make part of the agreement that he founded the company and push the original founders out. SpaceX and Starlink have other backers but the only reason those make money is military money so, Trump's right that we shouldn't prop up retards with our tax dollars, even if SpaceX is actually useful.
duh chuddy, how else will I get my new iphone and tezla?
I thought SK didn't exactly have liberal and conservative parties, more a moid party and a foid party, and both of them are controlled by weird cults.
Whichever party it is, going from 14 to 30 Supreme Court justices by itself is fucked.
Retard war never changes.
Would have been a golden age of doom pilled phonk music.
It'll be back in when Elon wakes back up, realized how bad he fucked things up, and does more ketamine to cope
I don't know why you guys keep saying this wrt to Musk and Trump - it's completely wrong. Second generation money (Musk) and third generation money (Trump) isn't old money. Old money goes back multiple generations; old money considers the Musks and Trumps of this world parvenus, nouveau riche, etc. In the mid-80s - the yuppie years - Trump was derided in the NYC press as a vulgarian - not an epithet you'd direct at old money.
Old money is always relative the trump family might qualify for old money by now compared to recent tech mogals but he certainly isn’t old money compared to Rothschilds or rockafellers (who were also new money at somepoint).
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. And I'm also saying that nobody with an ounce of sense considers Trump and/or Musk to be old money. The fortunes were made too recently. Trump since he first made a name for himself has been considered an upstart, and Musk even worse. Just as there's nothing wrong with new money, there's no sense in describing Trump and/or Musk as something they manifestly aren't.
Well changing thread not to pollute more that radioactive autist's thread.
Donnie is the third gen of the trump dynasty his father really secured the family wealth with some help from his own dead father’s business and wealth, trumps kids at this point would be the 4th gen and if they have kids they allready have a 5th gen. the trump is new money is literally 80/90s thinking it’s been 40 years ,his family’s wealth line is atleast a century old at this point the family is old money even if Donnie wasn’t considered as such when he was young his grandkids certainly will qualify if their wealth doesn’t get nuked from orbit by spiteful politicians in the next decade.
They're often used interchangeably, but they're not actually synonymous. It's done to speak generally or out of ignorance. Someone can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, voting Republican, but that doesn't make them conservatives.
What about socially conservative and economically left wing? Like wants less immigration, opposes gay marriage and abortion, but supports universal healthcare and higher minimum wages.
Well that one Eurochud knows. It is populist and called extreme right or something.
They are synonyms in a way that some words losely mean the same thing but the context of the words and their origins are vastly different. For example if you said someone was a republican most people would assume they are a conservative or vice versa but republicans are actually a spectrum of right wing ideas that while largely are conservative do include some libertarians (non derogative) and some other minor factions like neo cons and religious right movements. Meanwhile conservative largely refers to a moderately traditionalist social mindset and a more frugal take on economics theory relating to government
It's a little complicated because times change, political winds shift and it's a 2-party system, but I think nowadays that'd still be considered conservative, whereas I'm not sure that'd have been quite so true under Bush.
