Wealth is finite, it typically does not last more than a couple generations. Bad decisions also generally cost more than good ones.
The same cannot be said for many other types of power.
The same cannot be said for many other types of power.
If you look at any list of the truly rich, it is almost all 'new money', of those that are beneficiaries, the money was inherited relatively recently (such as the Walton family).
There are a bunch of other things to consider, for instance diversification of wealth has fundamentally transformed since the early 1900's and wealth management is on a completely different level than even 20 years ago, let alone 120 years ago. Not to mention the legal innovation to protect estate value that has been going on.
I'll also point out that the people on that list are generally not using Fidelity, Vanguard, or Hancock as their wealth management services. They are using private family offices or firms like PDT Partners that are directly accountable to those families.
Chinese has a great saying for this: 富不過三代 (Wealth does not pass three generations).
> 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.
In 2016 the family's net worth was estimated at 11 billion total. Sure that's significant but nothing compared to what it was.