4 ms·

Because this is the only positive aspect. In most continental countries family wealth doesn't go that far back not because of enlightened equality but because i

• benj111 8y ago
  Agreed, I'm not particularly convinced that socially speaking its a good thing. But the fact that you have that stability for that long is impressive.
  • phs318u 8y ago
    It’s certainly impressive to the families that have benefited and more importantly continue to benefit from this stability. If I was a scion of one of these families it would make absolute sense that I would do anything within my power to maintain this status quo. Looking at that history it’s easy to think that might be how the “born to rule” mentality among the aristocracy in the UK became so entrenched.
  • jlawson 8y ago
    To attach this to stability is to implicitly assume that what's important is that the wealth itself was passed down between generations. This would require stability, because if the wealth was all lost in one event, the chain would be irrevocably broken. The alternative view is that the people in these families have the personal characteristics that allow one to build wealth, and that those characteristics are passed down (either by some kind of conditioning, or genetically, or some combination). This doesn't require much stability at all, since the wealth can all be lost but the capacity to build it is not as long as the person survives. Examples of the second view can be found in diverse examples like: Wealthy Irans who lost everything in the '79 revolution, moved to America, and rebuilt from nothing to become wealthy again, often not even speaking English to start. Jews after the Holocaust, who lost everything and rebuilt from nothing to now become >17% of global billionaires on 0.1% of global population. And so on. Though both views are obviously in effect, given the massive instability present throughout history, I'm inclined to say the second causality is dominant over the long term, while the first is only effective over the short term (e.g. trust-fund babies who lose everything in one generation, pro sports players or lottery winners who get millions and lose it all within a few years, etc). I think it's important to keep both causalities in mind.
    • benj111 8y ago
      Good point, theres plenty of storys about aristocrats frittering their wealth away on cards. Genetics? I'll stay away from that one. I'm not sure it really changes the dynamic very much though. Even if the cream always rises to the top, theres no harm in shaking the milk bottle every so often.
    • Nasrudith 8y ago
      Education and development are essentially the most 'durable' of goods - it cannot be stolen once taken - only damaged or destroyed by killing the bearer. In the past nutrition also played a similar role where better nourished aristocrats would have a concrete advantage over peasants. With no cataclysms to prove their ability to rebuild if needed, wealth's ability to self perpetuate means ascribing it to stability makes sense. Since they would remain wealthy as both with and without the 'virtues' (in the sense of self-promotion as opposed to morality) its presence is irrelevant. All they need to do is avoid doing anything extraordinarily stupid and wasteful.
• alistairSH 8y ago
  Is that true? This article seems to indicate wealth in Florence is fairly “sticky” across the generations. https://anarchimedia.com/2019/01/15/rich-families-in-florence-today-are-the-same-rich-families-from-600-years-ago/ https://anarchimedia.com/2019/01/15/rich-families-in-florenc...
  • contravariant 8y ago
    I think that's mostly because Florence was the one relieving the surrounding area of their family wealth.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]