3 ms·

> Dynastic wealth doesn't always last, but the 1% generally stays the 1%, due to various dynamics. Seems more accurate that dynastic wealth doesn't usually las

> Dynastic wealth doesn't always last, but the 1% generally stays the 1%, due to various dynamics. Seems more accurate that dynastic wealth doesn't usually last[1][2][3] [1] http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ [2] http://www.fa-mag.com/news/why-wealth-disappears-8227.html http://www.fa-mag.com/news/why-wealth-disappears-8227.html [3] http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/25/luxury/family-wealth/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/25/luxury/family-wealth/

jfoutz 11y ago
1% is a catchy metric, but i think it hides the scale of inequality. $32000/year or so puts you in the top 1%. It really ought to be more like 0.0001%, but it doesn't have quite the same ring. So, the 62 richest own as much as the poorest 3,652,500,000. Gates and Buffet are interesting, with the philosophy of, give your kids enough to make something of themselves, but not so much they make nothing of themselves. The waltons on the other hand, are definitely shooting for dynastic wealth. There's a (very) rare chance of getting super rich. There's a possibility of being the kind of person that wants dynastic wealth, so some percent of those super rich are going to have super rich families. Kennedy, Rockefeller, Mellon. But it tends to be dilluting after a while, there are thousands of DuPonts as far as i can tell. I guess the point i'm making, some superrich will be effective in creating dynastic wealth (they have so far anyway) That, in and of itself isn't a big deal. All the wealth in the world is around $240 trillion. How much of that are we ok with being locked up in a dynasty or 10? How tall can that spike be and have a working economy? In the US the dynasts only control 500 billion or so, so maybe not a big deal, it's not that big of a slice of the pie. I dunno. It'll be interesting.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  I think you're missing a zero.
  - jfoutz 11y ago
    The top ten or so is about right, i just eyeballed http://www.forbes.com/families/list/#tab:overall http://www.forbes.com/families/list/#tab:overall i guess it's more like $550,000,000,000 but it was just a casual observation. The rest of the list probably averages around $3,000,000,000 , so another $550 billion there.
jackcosgrove 11y ago
Primogeniture with entailments is the best way to maintain dynastic wealth. There may be other ways, but historically that combo has worked.
Mikeb85 11y ago
I'd be curious what wealth levels they are looking at, what they consider 'rich', and at what point the wealth is 'lost'. Because I highly doubt the majority of families who are worth > $500 million run that down to 'zero'. What holds true for families who have > $1 million, doesn't necessarily hold true for families who have > $500 million. Dynastic wealth in Europe usually means owning private banks, wineries, châteaux, lands, etc... In the US, I'd be thinking of families who are large landowners, and have massive amounts of private wealth. We're not talking about people who gained wealth from a single business in the patriarch/matriarch's lifetime, but rather people whose entire wealth derives from rent-seeking/inheritance. The 1% is more of a euphemism for the top 0.01%. We're not talking about anyone who, at any point, was ever 'working class'. Steve Jobs' and Bill Gates' wealth probably will disappear; the Rockefellers, Mellons and Rothschilds of this world have done a comparatively good job at holding on to wealth. And there's far more of them than there are rich entrepreneurs... When you talk about inherited wealth, there's plenty of families who aren't on the Forbes' list, still worth billions. And one note - as many economists have stated, dynastic wealth is still rather young in the US. Historically, in Europe the upper classes derived much of their wealth from land and property, which in Europe is comparatively very expensive because of its scarcity relative to population. For most of the US' history, land has been comparatively cheap. Also, the US has at various times broken up monopolies and redistributed wealth much more radically than western Europe. The US' relative equality is due to its socialist tendencies at various points in history.

jfoutz 11y ago

1% is a catchy metric, but i think it hides the scale of inequality. $32000/year or so puts you in the top 1%. It really ought to be more like 0.0001%, but it doesn't have quite the same ring. So, the 62 richest own as much as the poorest 3,652,500,000. Gates and Buffet are interesting, with the philosophy of, give your kids enough to make something of themselves, but not so much they make nothing of themselves. The waltons on the other hand, are definitely shooting for dynastic wealth. There's a (very) rare chance of getting super rich. There's a possibility of being the kind of person that wants dynastic wealth, so some percent of those super rich are going to have super rich families. Kennedy, Rockefeller, Mellon. But it tends to be dilluting after a while, there are thousands of DuPonts as far as i can tell. I guess the point i'm making, some superrich will be effective in creating dynastic wealth (they have so far anyway) That, in and of itself isn't a big deal. All the wealth in the world is around $240 trillion. How much of that are we ok with being locked up in a dynasty or 10? How tall can that spike be and have a working economy? In the US the dynasts only control 500 billion or so, so maybe not a big deal, it's not that big of a slice of the pie. I dunno. It'll be interesting.

jessaustin 11y ago
I think you're missing a zero.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  The top ten or so is about right, i just eyeballed http://www.forbes.com/families/list/#tab:overall http://www.forbes.com/families/list/#tab:overall i guess it's more like $550,000,000,000 but it was just a casual observation. The rest of the list probably averages around $3,000,000,000 , so another $550 billion there.

jackcosgrove 11y ago

Primogeniture with entailments is the best way to maintain dynastic wealth. There may be other ways, but historically that combo has worked.

Mikeb85 11y ago

I'd be curious what wealth levels they are looking at, what they consider 'rich', and at what point the wealth is 'lost'. Because I highly doubt the majority of families who are worth > $500 million run that down to 'zero'. What holds true for families who have > $1 million, doesn't necessarily hold true for families who have > $500 million. Dynastic wealth in Europe usually means owning private banks, wineries, châteaux, lands, etc... In the US, I'd be thinking of families who are large landowners, and have massive amounts of private wealth. We're not talking about people who gained wealth from a single business in the patriarch/matriarch's lifetime, but rather people whose entire wealth derives from rent-seeking/inheritance. The 1% is more of a euphemism for the top 0.01%. We're not talking about anyone who, at any point, was ever 'working class'. Steve Jobs' and Bill Gates' wealth probably will disappear; the Rockefellers, Mellons and Rothschilds of this world have done a comparatively good job at holding on to wealth. And there's far more of them than there are rich entrepreneurs... When you talk about inherited wealth, there's plenty of families who aren't on the Forbes' list, still worth billions. And one note - as many economists have stated, dynastic wealth is still rather young in the US. Historically, in Europe the upper classes derived much of their wealth from land and property, which in Europe is comparatively very expensive because of its scarcity relative to population. For most of the US' history, land has been comparatively cheap. Also, the US has at various times broken up monopolies and redistributed wealth much more radically than western Europe. The US' relative equality is due to its socialist tendencies at various points in history.