Vanity or competitiveness without stupidity is not enough for your scheme to work.
Why would the other rich people, or the rest of society for that matter, play along? Some idiot thinks they can lord it over me because they waste their money on trinkets, and I’m going to laugh in their face.
I can only wonder what the OP thinks of the tendency among the truly ultra-rich to dedicate considerable amounts of their vast wealth to charitable foundations and causes. See, for example, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, Buffett, Moore, and so on. Would any of these tycoons really bid to be the Archduke of the Occident?
Furthermore, I think the experience of most nations with aristocracies of this type is that they tend to be a questionable, if not outright poor, investment.
Which, on reflection, is plainly foreshadowed by the OP. So these guys cough up their lucre for titles, expecting to be treated extremely well. Any shrewd billionaire would have to think, Is the treatment I am buying something that is more valuable than my cash, or, in other words, am I getting a good return on my investment? If they are getting a good return on their investment, then society is paying more for their luxuries than what the barons have coughed up. Which raises the question, who is suckering whom?
What they are buying is not an investment, it’s a luxury. What’s the ROI on a yacht? A riding horse? A summer home?
Furthermore, they would be buying something entirely unique. Nobody else could sell them this and there’s only 10 of them in the world.
And never underestimate the power of the urge to keep up with (or utterly crush) the Joneses. You’re all acting as though the rich are somehow all more intelligent, more rational, more sober, and more capable of resisting the biological imperative to compete with your fellow humans for the top spot in the hierarchy than the average human being.
I’m saying that, if anything, a lot of them have a lot MORE of that urge to put themselves above others than the average, which is exactly what drives them to get rich and build an empire in the first place.
Now, granted, there’s the other kind, the kind who do not want any attention and just quietly build empires in the background. But there’s also the kind I am talking about, who strive to get as much money and power as they can simply because they cannot stand the thought of some other person thinking they are better than them.
That would be our target demographic. 
The intangibility thing works against your plan, not in favor of it. A yacht, a racehorse, a castle, equity in a successful company, and a library with your name on it all have real costs associated with their acquisition and are in some way unique. A made-up title does not and is not.
Tangible assets, political power, and (sometimes) charitable works are the means of scoekeeping in the game of keeping ahead of the other billionaires. If Montie Burns wants to lord something over Thurston Howell III, he has to buy or cause to happen a better, larger, more extravagant, more charitable, more influential, or more successful thing than his rival. Hence the competition.
Anybody, at any time can give themselves a useless title for free. The title is not unique just because money changed hands. You spent big money to call yourself King XYZ? I call myself King XYZ, and it didn’t cost me a dime. Meet my secretary gardener, and driver, they are all King XYZ also. Heck, my brother is Emperor XYZ, he outranks all of us, including you. There is no difference between these two titles, because you can’t force other rich people to recognize them, and as you say, they have no power.
This is more or less the same thing as a bunch of schoolchildren claiming “I’m Superman!”. Even if one of them buys a cape, it does not settle the argument to the satisfaction of the others…
Firstly, the proposal is utterly asinine.
Secondly, it already exists. It’s called “reality TV”. A bunch of people who would otherwise be working as bartenders, waiters and stripers spend some period of time holed up in a mansion living a fantasized bourgeoisie lifestyle competing for some nonsensical title. This is not inconsistant with my first point.
Third, there already is an aristocracy, although it is not a formal structure with titles and whatnot. We have created an aristocracy out of our elite celebrity class. Our society pays millions to attractive people with little to no education so they can amuse us both on the screen and off in their personal lives. They have no real “power” for the most part. Mostly choosing to spend their wealth on mansions, cars, clothes and clubbing. Many disappear once their career ends and their money runs out.
Finally, the OP seems to have little to no understanding of social structures, economic systems, interaction of social classes or what motivates people to acheive and acquire wealth. The United States is the wealthiest country on the planet because we live in a society that does not have formal class structures and aristocracy. It is a society where you can improve your lot in life through education, entrepreneurship and hard work. Competition drives the ambitious to create businesses where they can generate great wealth. It also has the nice side effect of creating jobs and products and services people use.
The OP’s suggestion is an offense against capitalism. Like My Super Sweet Sixteen, The Bachelor, The Hills, Bromance, Real Hobags of Whatevercity and a dozen other reality shows, it is representative of what is wrong with people these days. There is no longer a spirit of entrepreneurship, only entitlement. People feel they should be handed a lifestyle without having to put in the effort. And it is an attitude that has led to our current financial crisis. I see no reason to encourage people to contribute even less to society by handing out nonsensical titles.
Well let’s take that yacht and that racehorse.
Does the wealthy person just buy the yacht and tool around in it for pleasure? Perhaps. Or perhaps he spends a great deal more money trying to win races. And for what? Some silly little trophy, not even worth $100?
No. He wants what the trophy represents, which is the title of champion. and which is entirely an intangible. It’s just an idea, a title, a rank. And yet, people will work extremely hard and spend a lot of money for just such things.
Same with the racehorse. Why by a racehorse, if not to race it? And try to win? And to win what? A ribbon and some pittance of a purse? No.
They want to WIN. And that’s something you can’t outright buy with money.
People will pour life, love, blood, and treasure into securing such intangibles Athletes do it all the time, especially Olympic athletes. Is a gold medal worth millions of dollars? No. But to prove to the world that you are the best… that’s worth a lot to many, many people.
But why do they bother? Why not just compare net worths? There, I’m richer. I win. That’s it.
Because what they are trying to do with all this is to buy prestige. Bragging rights. A feeling of superiority, of dominance.
All quite intangible.
I’ve said that the tricky part would be getting people to believe in these titles. But I think it could work, if the right kind of fuss was made over it.
After all, what are Queen of England, PResident of the United States, Pope of the Catholic Church, or Last Year’s American Idol but silly titles that we happen to beleive in? They are all intangibles. Barack Obama did not undergo a genetic transformation when he was elected POTUS. He didn’t get a magic scepter that lets him command the American people.
He just participated in an internationally recognized ritual which we’ve all accepted means that this entirely intangible, symbolic thing called “The Presidency of the United States” has transferred to him.
At one point, none of these titles existed. People did things to create them, and the beleif in them.
No reason that can’t be done again.
Glad to know you’re approaching this with an open mind and a calm and reasonable frame of mind.
Yeah, I love all those reality TV shows where they auction off titles to rich people who then form an internationally recognized aristocracy that goes around cutting ribbons and being followed by the media.
Which one is your favorite?
The international celebrity obsession does have a few of the aspects of my plan. People get tons of attention, people ask their opinons of things, and whatnot. My idea would provide a lot more formal recognition, including meaningless little perks and fancy sounding titles and such.
Finally, the SP (subsequent poster) seems to have little or no understanding of how snarky and snide he sounds in his postings. Is this level of attitude really a vitally important part of this discourse?
Now, in my plan, the titles go to whoever bids the highest. This means that anyone can become one of the titled people if they have enough money, and of course, the American Dream says that anyone can be super rich if they just work hard enough, right?
As for creating jobs, products, and services, one need only to look at all the economic activity created by the election of Barack Obama to see the potential of this new aristocracy to generate economic activity. Or the British Royal Family.
On the contrary, selling intangibles to the rich is the very height of capitalism. See my previous posting about how much people are willing to spend in order to capture some nebulous intangible like being a “celebrity” or a “champion”.
So if the titles and privileges go to the highest bidders, will you accept bids from leaders of drug cartels?
What if the highest bid is only $450?
I second the “asinine” descriptor, and I’m pretty calm, reasonable and open-minded. Your proposal depends on an improbable amount of stupidity and also seems to assume that rich people have vaults full of cash (a la Scrooge McDuck) just waiting to be emptied to buy the latest status symbol.
Well the problem is he thinks that people will take a reduction in status in order to purchase a status symbol. Most people who are of that stature recognize that the status is worth more than the symbol of that status. Like why would Ted Turner reduce his purhasing power just to be able to be called Baron Turner?
Hell I’d bid up to like $ 5000. If it’s that cheap to buy my way to the front of lines for life, it’d be worth it.
Seems unlikely that you would generate anything more than a modest amount of money from this scheme. In reality what you would probably get is people who aren’t all that rich (say doctors or lawyers…especially lawyers ;)) buying up these titles for fairly modest sums. If the idea was to drain off significant amounts from the truly rich, well…I seriously doubt it. There is a big difference between buying a fancy car, a big boat, a plane and a worthless empty title, regardless of how much supposed status it has.
Think of it this way…in Europe until fairly recently in history you could purchase titles of nobility that actually meant something. One thing they did in some places was to lessen or even remove taxes on the title bearer for any merchant type activities…a real advantage when competing against non-titled merchants. Eventually all those real aspects of power went away…and no one bothered buying the titles anymore, despite the fact that they still had the prestige aspects mentioned in the OP. And this was in Europe, where they were conditioned to nobility and what it means.
It’s unrealistic to expect people to be stupid enough to spend a significant amount of money on empty and worthless titles today.
-XT
I am calm and I approached it with an open mind. I just strongly disagree with it on the grounds that it is ridiculous.
Why don’t you produce it? Call it The Baron or Who Wants to be an Archduke? or something. The winner gets $1 M, the title and all the accoutrements of being a reality TV star.
The concept is exactly the same. It’s basically a contest so that a bunch of chumps can become “big stars”. We call it “celebrity” instead of “aristocracy”, but it amounts to the same thing. A privileged class that enjoys some greater benefit of living by virtue of who they are, not what they achieved.
Hey, it’s a tough crowd. I’m only required to not personally insult you (which I haven’t). I can brutalize your idea as much as I like.
No, inventing something useful for society and making a fortune from it is the height of capitalism.
Really the basic flaw in your premise is that the wealthy and powerful already enjoy a large degree of privilege by virtue of their wealth and power. They don’t need some silly title to play at being king. And quite frankly, many of them probably don’t want the publicity.
And besides, where do these honors and benefits come from? Does the Aristocratic Social Society go around to various restaurants and clubs and events negotiating deals and promotions for their members?
Stupidity is our nation’s greatest resource.
The prestige, bragging rights, and feelings are intangible, but they are the direct result of tangible, measureable things-in your example, the fastest boat, horse, or pair of legs. People pour life, blood, and treasure into these endevours because they cannot be had by snapping your fingers or saying a magic word. If they could, nobody would be interested in competing over them.
It is a matter of record whose horse is fastest, it is a matter of critical opinion whose art collection is most magnificent. One cannot have ‘the best’ thing just by wishing and speaking. Because of this, doing or owning something special (or just freaking huge) is in it of itself a demonstration of superiority. “I own the world’s fastest horse. Try as you might, your own horses are slower than mine. My horse-breeding acumen, vast knowledge, dedication, and willingness to devote resources to equine training make it so.” This is a legitimate, comprehensible kind of pride; albeit a silly and wasteful one to our eyes.
Your fake titles, on the other hand, are empty words. Anybody can have them by saying they do. The fact that somebody paid some government agency does not stop anybody else from claiming the exact same title, with the exact same powers (none). Nobody pays for the exclusive use of the word “the”. Why not? It is useful, and it would be fun to lord one’s ability to use it over other people. Because it can be had by opening your mouth and saying the word. You can’t stop other people from using it no matter how much you paid.
Again leaving aside the impossibility of getting enough of the world to play along with pretending to defer to the new aristocrats:
Do you not see the difference between unique, difficult achievements and mere words?
The ‘things’ that were done to get people to believe in these titles generally involved killing loads of them. Nobody cares about some obscure religious figure from far away, until his army burns your neighbors and your crops. Then, you accept the reality of his power (and fight him or join him or whatever), because it’s hard to ignore the smell of burning neighbor. Your plan has no actual power nor consequences for ignoring that non-power. Without such, regular people will not care about it and the powerful will not desire it.
The Queen has no real power anymore, just some money and some formal duties. That’s why nobody devotes resources to overthrowing her and installing themselves as monarch of the UK. Back when being the Queen was important, there were wars. They weren’t fighting over who got to use the intangible title, they fought to control a nation.
The Pope is pretty much the same deal. Today he has access to some big hats and the popemobile, and he makes proclaimation that are ignored by 90% of the world (and 70% of Catholics). Nobody today is working on invading the Vatican or paying off the cardinals to get the job of Pope. However, the Pope used to be darn powerful and people fought like crazy to be him or get on his good side. Look up the Renaissance popes or the Great Schism to get an idea just how much people were willing to do to get the power of the Papacy.
The Prez has real power today. He can veto legislation, effectively overridng the will of up to 2/3rds of the representatives of the people. He can order the military to kill people and destroy things in foreign countries, without even waiting for a declaration of war. He hires and fires the bosses of some very powerful agencies. As long as people ‘believe in’ the Constitiution and enforce the law, his power remains real. Consider the amount of effort and resources that were expended in the contest to see who would get the job. Consider also the amount of resources expended to ensure his safety and to carry out his wishes. If the president was just some guy who spent some money and liked to polsih his ‘President’ nameplate, would anyone work hard at getting the job?
Three examples, all yours. The pattern is evident. Title with power=people fight over it. Title without power=people don’t fight over it. I think the power, not the title, is what people want.
I always thought it was fast food. Regardless, it’s a bit of a stretch to think people will be THIS stupid.
-XT
For the OP:
If you were to win a HUGE Lottery tomorrow, like a $350 Powerball or somesuch, would you be interested in this? Would you spend money to gain this title?
If not, why not? Would it be because you see through it for what it is?
Because I assure you, the majority of the rich (in particularly those that are among the “super rich” such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are just as smart, if not smarter than you and I (particularly in regards to money).
Do not assume that just because someone is wealthy that they are vainer than you, or dumber than you. That’s an assumption that is bound to get you into trouble.
See, now THIS is a good question.
There would have to be a minimum bid, like a “reserve” on eBay.
Say, a million bucks.
Oh, I wouldn’t go for it. I’m not that type of person. I’m not particuarly interested in status or privilege.
And it doesn’t matter if the majority of rich people ignore this. It will only take a small number to drive up the bidding quite nicely.
I said before in this thread that the Warren Buffets and the Bill Gates’ of the world won’t go for it.
Remember, though, that you don’t have to be smart or wise to be rich. You just have to be lucky enough to inherit the dough.
There’s a core group of the wealthy who are motivated most strong by status, privilege, and other ego-boosting things. That’s the demographic we’re after.
And see…there is the flaw in your world view that impacts your OP. Certainly you don’t have to be smart in order to become rich. Certainly you can just inherit it. However, wealth is not a perpetual machine. If you are stupid enough to give away large chunks of it just for an empty title then you aren’t going to STAY rich for very long.
Even if you managed to fleece a few of them your scheme isn’t going to be worth while to do…and it’s quickly going to become apparent that it IS just a scheme to fleece the stupid among us. You seem to be under the impression that there are vast hordes of idle rich out there who are eager to throw away their money just to boost their ego’s. Put simply, there aren’t even vast hordes of idle rich out there at all (this is simply a meme)…let along vast hordes so stupid that they will throw away their money on such a silly thing.
-XT