I think a major difference between now and then is that the world was a far more adverse and chaotic place for many reasons; people died frequently from all sorts of diseases, there were more wars and invasions, traveling to other countries was potentially life-threatening (e.g. you could be killed by the natives or succumb to previously unknown threats like exotic diseases, spiders, snakes, lions, tigers, poisonous plants, etc... Not to mention the substantial difficulties involved in communicating with locals in a foreign language). There really wasn't any support or fallback if one's plans failed; you would just die, no second chances.
The elite of today couldn't hold a candle to those who came before them. Today, they're mostly a bunch of spoiled brats who inherited a lot of wealth and never faced any real adversity in their lives (which wasn't of their own making to begin with)...
Horrible as that sounds, think about it from the other side's perspective. The one-way trade of silver was putting huge strain on the global economy. Opium was the _only_ thing people in China would buy with silver (illegally, obviously). They didn't have alternatives as China wouldn't circulate silver back out of the country. What Warren Delano was doing was in most nations' interest at the time.
Heavy trade imbalances almost invariably lead to wars throughout history.
Back then economies were extremely dependent on silver for international trade and only so much of it came from so many places every year. Trade depended on recirculation of silver.
The closest you could get to that today would be one country hoarding the shit out of US dollars and somehow the US being unable to print more.
If you look back to the 90s/00s when the US was heavily importing from China and China had no local buying power, the trade imbalance was combatted by the US Treasury creating debt instruments for exclusive buying by China. This diplomatic/economic tool benefited both sides at the time.
It used to be that people tried to manipulate public perception to appear brave, intelligent, ...
What has primarily changed is the quantity of levers and how massive the levers are at their disposal. The surface area of potential corruption has radically expanded in the US over the post WW2 era (part of that expansion of power was the military industrial complex and the superpower bureaucracy that went along with it). The larger and more complex the government, the more laws it has on the books to utilize, the greater the corruption, inevitably.
Oh, and now every idiot has easy access to an epic scale bullhorn via social media. That's amplifying the stupid, which would not have received much press time or public discourse time in past generations.
What probably happens though is that there are some very corrupt people in power who attentively watch any political movement and they take steps to corrupt them by infiltrating them up with corrupt individuals under their control... That way when these political movements reach their climaxes, they have completely deviated from their original course and have become totally ineffective as a political tool for change.
Even inheritance can be argued as the kid was most likely raised by corrupted individual in the first place.
I often receive tips from police officers regarding what they perceive to be misconduct. I always investigate those tips.
Sometimes, it's bad. Sometimes it's really bad. But oftentimes, it turns out that everything was fine, and the tipster didn't have all the information necessary to understand what was happening. I'd be happy to share an example if you'd like.
I am not an apologist for bad actors. I have exposed them and I am will continue to do so. But I have to acknowledge my full experience. I interact with government officials and agencies every day, and the more insight I have into government, the more confident I am that power does not corrupt nearly as much as some people think.
It's a warning that if your goal is having power and nothing else then you are susceptible to corruption. It's also a warning that having power tends to reveal how useful it is and thus tempt you to schedule more of it.
Same thing happened to me with my boss literally winking sarcastically during a critical argument (which I ignored).
This guy who I’ve worked with for ~12 years barely did any real work and was heavily into office politics.
Kinda reminds me of the opening scene in the movie Training Day when Denzel tested Ethan after they found money under the floor.
I remember several moments in my career when a boss or an investor literally tested me to see if I was a cheater. I suspect I failed these tests and it's why I wasn't promoted and why I didn't receive funding.
It used to be that elite status was acquired through bravery, intelligence and integrity, but these days, not only are elites not self-made, they are actually selected for having the exact opposite characteristics.