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 e

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.