Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
I do not think it is a rejection of reality, it is simply a preference for one aspect of wealth over another. Just as the term 'New Money' was derogatory in Europe for quite a while, so too is 'Old Money' derogatory in the United States today (and, I believe, in many western nations as well, even in Europe). Americans praise New Money as the pinnacle of success because New Money is usually obtained by personal achievement. In contrast, money obtained by inheritance carries no connotations of individual ability or worth of any kind. The former, as embodied by people like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Buffet, are considered to have earned their great wealth and (usually) to have brought great benefits to the rest of society. It is not that we ignore the existence of Old Money, but more that it is regularly shunned and considered inferior to New Money, and even much of the normal middle and working classes. For proof of this, you only need to look at politics. Sure, Old Money will beat No Money any day in an election, but New Money almost always beats Old Money.
Dislike for the man born with the sliver sppon is universal among the lower classes, and comes ultimately from jealousy.

Ok, so New Money beats Old in an election, what about buisness and, more importantly, funding elections? Surely "Old Money" throws it's weight around there?