>> Ideally, you want a system where people who have generational wealth can lose it easily, as much as you want people who work really hard, and especially peop

>> Ideally, you want a system where people who have generational wealth can lose it easily, as much as you want people who work really hard, and especially people who are extremely innovative to be able to catapult themselves to positions of consequence where they can determine good decision making. Do you though? I'm not sure. Social mobility certainly has benefits, it motivates etc. Equally, it would seem advantageous for the weak-aristocrat to fall, making way for new blood. Certainly we've seen the end of formal feudal aristocracy. The French Revolution started a wave of royalty-ending power. Today, while monarchies and aristocracy dukes, barons etc) still exist, they are not major factors. (With the exception of the UK where they lack political power but are still wealthy.) The second generation of wealth, the industrialists, also wax and wine. Competition comes from within and without. Large brands have faltered, new industries have risen, and fallen, but social structures have remained solid since ww2. There is clearly economic mobility, but wealth concentration seems less obvious in Europe (although a trip to Monaco might weaken my argument.) What Europe has is a bit more discretion. Mysql, Nokia, Skype, etc and plenty more are, or were, European. But you don't see those founders in the press, and outside very narrow communities you don't know who they are. Which I suppose brings me back to your point. I think you are correct, but I'd add that the stability of society as a whole acts as a good framework for that mobility. I'm not sure the American system of massive disparity is ultimately good.