Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Billionaire Rothschild Concerned About the Gap Between the Haves and Have Nots

You can't make this up.  

Eighty-one year old, lifetime billionaire bankster, Evelyn de Rothschild told the UK's Telegraph:
Sir Evelyn says an increasing personal concern is “the huge differential between the haves and the have-nots” and the growth of “impact investment” – investments aiming to generate measurable social and environmental impacts alongside financial return – to “try to help those in a difficult way”.
Rothschild also seems to have quite the spectrum when it comes to evaluating economic views. You get a choice central bank interventionist or total interventionist:
  “Inclusive capitalism is a difficult subject and I could speak for a long time on it,” he says. “But I think it’s a reflection on where capitalism was intended [to go]. 
“Whether you’re talking about Karl Marx or John Maynard Keynes, capitalism today has changed and I think inclusive capitalism is about giving a broader opportunity for people to participate.
Seeming oblivious to what Rothschild is saying here, the reporter appears a bit surprised about the turn the interview takes:
That conversation leads back to regulation and Sir Evelyn has strong views about the kind of principles that should underpin the new operations being put in place.
The Rothschilds and other banksters are all about regulation, They use regulation to build a moat around their businesses so that upstarts can't threaten. They are skilled propagandists, of course, so they are clever enough to couch their call for more regulation as a means to help the poor. But, the only poor that Rothschild is concerned about are "poor billionaires," who have to worry about new technologies that help those who attempt to break the grip of the ruling "poor billionaires." Life can be tough.


  1. We can start immediately by redistributing all of Sir Evelyn Rothschild fortune to others. I'm sure that is exactly what he would like to see happen. This man no more understands capitalism than Stalin or Marx.

    Why is it that Champagne Socialists always presume that capitalism (private property rights) is something society has to work at while its counterpart, socialism (collective property) is something that just occurs naturally. Its laughable. It takes no government/public investment to make capitalism work while it takes a ton of government and violence to implement socialism. One requires absolutely no planning while the other takes an infinite amount of planning.

    Let me translate what this guy is really saying: I am worried that as things get worse in Europe due to failed Marxists ideas that not even a capitalist society can afford, the people will start rioting and quite possibly destroy many of the government's I and my ancestors have spent untold billions buying and controlling.

  2. “But I think it’s a reflection on where capitalism was intended [to go].”

    Intended by whom?

  3. Yikes. . . Robert that is a good one. Thank you for finding and presenting this.

    - Daily Alert subscriber in Europe

  4. "Whether you’re talking about Karl Marx or John Maynard Keynes"

    Those are the two poles in the Rothschild world. Thank God this old bastard and his world are going the way of the dodo.

  5. I saw Lynn Rothschild yesterday on CSPAN saying much the same thing. It was bizarre.

  6. Socialism or any such regime only supplies the Dictator with sufficient funds to commandeer labor, resources, and human lives; with the sole purpose of world domination and conquest. That accurately describes this country, today.