3 ms·
Please tell that to the Rockafellers and other ultra-wealthy dynastic families that keep a variety of lower profiles but have incredible influence.
by tehjoker 6y ago
Please tell that to the Rockafellers and other ultra-wealthy dynastic families that keep a variety of lower profiles but have incredible influence.
- nickik 6y agoSelection bias at work
- tehjoker 6y agoThere are a few of them because wealth concentrates upwards. Their mere existence as dynastic families proves that wealth does not always flow downwards but persists in an American aristocracy that stands out of public view and allows us to pretend otherwise.
- nickik 6y agoYou are still making the same mistake. > There are a few of them because wealth concentrates upwards. Is your argument really that all wealth is already owned by some dynastic elite and that's why nobody else can get to that level? That is nonsense. Wealth outside these is gigantic. We constantly see economic growth that creates wealth, and new fortunes for people. Somebody in tech should really understand this, and these new rich often actually more influential and richer then some of these dynastic elite. > Their mere existence as dynastic families proves that wealth does not always flow downwards That's not what me or parent argued, nice straw-men.
- aeternum 6y agoRockafeller's peak net worth was an inflation adjusted US$418 billion. In 2016 the family's net worth was estimated at 11 billion total. Sure that's significant but nothing compared to what it was.
- contingencies 6y agoOne could perhaps raise the theoretical conjecture that a substantial part of the art of preserving modern wealth is taking it off the table...