3 ms·

Unfortunately the ultimate rebalancer of wealth historically has been revolution and war. It's why the descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now.

by cletus 10y ago

Unfortunately the ultimate rebalancer of wealth historically has been revolution and war. It's why the descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now. We've lived through a relatively peaceful and, more importantly, politically stable period in the developed world since WW2. And inequality continues to grow. The problem now is twofold: 1. Capital is essentially beyond borders; and 2. The diminishing loyalty to the nation state. (1) is the real problem with modern "trade" treaties like the TPP (that and they're used to enforce policies on smaller countries like the US stance on IP). They're not really about trade anymore. It's about freeing the movement of capital, which is a huge problem. To put (2) in context, you have to remember that income taxes in the US 100 years ago were essentially done on the honour system. There were no computers. There was no accountability. Now we live in an age where the wealthiest people, who owe their wealth to the political stability in the countries they've made their wealth, are essentially unwilling to contribute to funding those same states. What's more, the wealthiest individuals and corporations play off states against each other, demanding ever-more concessions to attract business. And when those concessions go away they move onto the next sucker. It all just feels like something will have to give in the next century or so. We do have crumbling infrastructure in the developed world. Someone or something has to pay for it. Look at places like Puerto Rico, which spent like crazy (way beyond its means). The wealthy have abandoned it and what's left to do? Bail it out by the Federal government? Unfortunately it just seems like capital is too mobile.

PeterisP 10y ago
> descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now While Roman times are a bit too far, the richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest families in Florence https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14... And research (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/fulltext.html https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/...) shows that family’s social status in England can persist for more than eight centuries, or more than 28 whole generations. https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been-running-the-show-for-800-years/ https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been... While recent times has had many additions to the list of richest people in the world with newly created wealth, there's no reason to assume that something will change to the fact that the wealth divide will (in general) stay for generations onwards; if both world wars didn't mess it up, then nothing short of an apocalypsis will.
- cletus 10y ago
  I remember reading that some months ago. It's interesting but I take a different message from it. And that is: wealth is ephemeral. Social status is far more enduring. The Florence data looks at the surnames of top taxpayers. The truly wealthy are somewhat beyond individual earnings. But social status is a useful (arguably essential) advantage in securing certain work and opportunities. This is true in England too as England has had a fairly rigid and enduring class system for a thousand years. The 19th century was an impressib era for wealth creation with the industrialization of the United States. Look at the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Astor and th like. Most of those families survive today in some form. They are probably rich still but nowhere near the likes of Rockefeller who was the richest man in the world when he died. I'd say the larger legacy is again the enduring social status. Primate social structure is fascinating in comparison. Alpha males and females tend to beget more of the same. Why is that? Is it strictly environment or is there more to it? I don't know.
uiri 10y ago
Unfortunately the ultimate rebalancer of wealth historically has been revolution and war. It's why the descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now. The Early Roman Republic made a distinction between Patricians (aristocrats) and Plebeians (commoners). The former were very wealthy while the latter were definitely not. By the time of the late Republic and the Roman Empire, this distinction was entirely meaningless - there were rich and poor of both of these hereditary classes. Revolution, by definition, excludes reforming an existing system which is what happened to the Republic. Arguably, the Patricians relented to the Plebeian demands because they needed soldiers to fight in wars. However, usually when one refers to redistribution of wealth through war, one usually talks about victors taking the wealth of the losers.
- cletus 10y ago
  I never cease to be surprised at the propensity for pedantry on HN about the irrelevant, which is to say that nothing you've said has anything to do with my point. My point is pretty simple: history has a habit of erasing wealth. War and revolution are the ultimate forms of wealth redistribution. And by revolution think the Russian Revolution.
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    Loved your post, regretted reading that reply.
  - nugget 10y ago
    Modern Russian history is fascinating in this regard. In just the last hundred years (the Tsar was deposed in March 1917) they've moved from oligarchy to communism, revolution, blood shed, fanaticism, rebellion, the (relatively peaceful) breakup of an Empire, a total wealth reset, and are now back to oligarchy again.
    - cletus 10y ago
      The sad thing about the break up of the USSR is the brazen thievery of Russian wealth (i.e. Oil reserves and so on) in the name of privatization. Think where Russia might be today if they had a system like Norway.

by cletus 10y ago

PeterisP 10y ago

> descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now While Roman times are a bit too far, the richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest families in Florence https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14... And research (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/fulltext.html https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/...) shows that family’s social status in England can persist for more than eight centuries, or more than 28 whole generations. https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been-running-the-show-for-800-years/ https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been... While recent times has had many additions to the list of richest people in the world with newly created wealth, there's no reason to assume that something will change to the fact that the wealth divide will (in general) stay for generations onwards; if both world wars didn't mess it up, then nothing short of an apocalypsis will.

cletus 10y ago
I remember reading that some months ago. It's interesting but I take a different message from it. And that is: wealth is ephemeral. Social status is far more enduring. The Florence data looks at the surnames of top taxpayers. The truly wealthy are somewhat beyond individual earnings. But social status is a useful (arguably essential) advantage in securing certain work and opportunities. This is true in England too as England has had a fairly rigid and enduring class system for a thousand years. The 19th century was an impressib era for wealth creation with the industrialization of the United States. Look at the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Astor and th like. Most of those families survive today in some form. They are probably rich still but nowhere near the likes of Rockefeller who was the richest man in the world when he died. I'd say the larger legacy is again the enduring social status. Primate social structure is fascinating in comparison. Alpha males and females tend to beget more of the same. Why is that? Is it strictly environment or is there more to it? I don't know.

uiri 10y ago

Unfortunately the ultimate rebalancer of wealth historically has been revolution and war. It's why the descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now. The Early Roman Republic made a distinction between Patricians (aristocrats) and Plebeians (commoners). The former were very wealthy while the latter were definitely not. By the time of the late Republic and the Roman Empire, this distinction was entirely meaningless - there were rich and poor of both of these hereditary classes. Revolution, by definition, excludes reforming an existing system which is what happened to the Republic. Arguably, the Patricians relented to the Plebeian demands because they needed soldiers to fight in wars. However, usually when one refers to redistribution of wealth through war, one usually talks about victors taking the wealth of the losers.

cletus 10y ago
I never cease to be surprised at the propensity for pedantry on HN about the irrelevant, which is to say that nothing you've said has anything to do with my point. My point is pretty simple: history has a habit of erasing wealth. War and revolution are the ultimate forms of wealth redistribution. And by revolution think the Russian Revolution.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Loved your post, regretted reading that reply.
- nugget 10y ago
  Modern Russian history is fascinating in this regard. In just the last hundred years (the Tsar was deposed in March 1917) they've moved from oligarchy to communism, revolution, blood shed, fanaticism, rebellion, the (relatively peaceful) breakup of an Empire, a total wealth reset, and are now back to oligarchy again.
  - cletus 10y ago
    The sad thing about the break up of the USSR is the brazen thievery of Russian wealth (i.e. Oil reserves and so on) in the name of privatization. Think where Russia might be today if they had a system like Norway.