Rinehart goes to court over TV show

[yin-YANG]

Your link was very dodgy wokko� it would be interesting to see some references to the studies and a definition of wealth etc. Overall though it is not very convincing, especially given the article is written by an investment advisor pushing his own agenda to make more profit! His basic message is the kids and grandkids are going to squander your money on life's pleasures so let me help you with that folks�

Money comes and goes you say- well not when you think of old money - elite families and the mega-rich who have for generations if not centuries amassed fortunes - hey just look to our head of state for a heads up

[Wokko]

I thought it was pretty well known, a truism even, that wealth only lasted 3 generations. Of course there are outliers and exceptions but overwhelmingly a family will get wealthy and the grandkids end up squandering it. My own great-great-great-great grandfather was a relatively wealthy businessman who paid his own and his family's way out to Australia in the 1800s. That wealth is long gone, the business sold and my family became overwhelmingly middle class.

"THE Chinese have a saying, �Fu bu guo san dai,� or �Wealth never survives three generations.� America has its own version of this saying: �From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.�"

http://www.economist.com/node/654077

Those who dont earn it, don't value it and generally don't have the personality and drive to acquire it. Wealth makes people soft, and that applies to civilizations as well as families.

[Tannin]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/31/inheritance-britain-wealthy-study-surnames-social-mobility

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-ten-fifteen-generations

[Wokko]

Leftist rags propagandize wealth redistribution . More news at 6.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddganos/2014/02/05/how-the-wealthiest-families-make-and-lose-their-money/

Maintaining wealth into the second generation is hard enough, growing it like Reinhart and Packer for example did is very much statistically less likely and their children maintaining and not squandering it is even less likely still (of course it's still possible). Pulling out two articles from a dissenting economist is not going to change those statistics. While I find it interesting and even compelling that families of certain lineages continuously stay within the same social strata they still have their ups and downs. Social mobility for these wealthy families seems to generally have a lower limit and make it easier to bounce back, but it is not inherited wealth that allows that, it may be connections, family ethos, genetics, who knows, but inherited wealth, overwhelmingly is gone in 3 generations. Gina has built her empire on foundations of inherited wealth, a chance you and I never got, but it was still her and not Lang who built that empire. It will be interesting to see if her children tear it down as history overwhelmingly suggests they will.

[think positive]

[stui magpie]

[watt price tully]

Now David says that the topic heading "It ain't over till the ft lady sings" is fattist. I think David is utterly wrong & is applying literalism rather than the irony of using a title that owes its origins to opera & is now a soap opera (in terms of the TV show, the shenanigans that followed & Gina's ability to dictate what stays in & what doesn't).

Fiction based on fact the producers say.

Harmful & hurtful says Gina.

Now Gina who could easily be a woman singing the last song in an opera is suing:

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/gina-rinehart-to-sue-channel-nine-for-defamation-over-house-of-hancock-tv-miniseries-20150301-13rrmz.html

Fattist indeed

[David]

Geewhiz, WPT, build a bridge already.

Re: the news story, I also strongly disapprove of Rinehart's general litigiousness and attempts to silence investigative reporters. But this was a TV show made for entertainment value first and foremost, and if it misrepresents the facts, she may well have a case. Unlike those who hate her personally, I don't have a pre-ordained opinion on this.

[watt price tully]

[David]

Me too, but I've never been able to summon the vitriol that many seem to feel towards her. Perhaps people just express these thoughts in different ways. Not sure about you, but some people really do genuinely seem to hate her.

[think positive]

[David]

^ Yes, I also get the impression that her Dad was a horrific tyrant. He seems to have been a really nasty piece of work all round.

Of course, that's neither here nor there regarding this particular case, her views on underpaying workers or the disturbing level of power she wields in our society, but as a person I do feel sorry for her.

[Culprit]

I reckon this is great, she will become the most hated Australian and whoever she supports will cop the wrath of the Australian Public along with her.

[think positive]

shes not all bad:

http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/gina-rinehart-in-talks-to-provide-175-million-for-oncology-treatment-centre-in-the-darwin/story-fnk0b1zt-1227132285813

she also sponsors girls in a Cambodian orphange, and donates to stamp out people trafficking

[stui magpie]

I agree she's not all bad. Some sections of the media delight in leaping on anything she says that can make her look bad and I doubt she has as much actual power as some think she does.