economics
@amiloradovsky
"I guess it's the only proper way to combat wealth concentration, because you can't rely on a revolution every few decades."
I don't think either wars or revolutions shake the pockets of the very rich.
In England, a family’s position in society can persist for more than eight centuries, or 30 generations. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y
The richest families in Florence, Italy today have been the richest families for 600 years (tax records).
re: economics
Here's the funny fact. It's the same in China. Except in China after communists took over, all property was expropriated, so everyone (except the party lol) was left with basically nothing, and yet people who used to be successful managed to restore their wealth in about 30-40 years. Or at least their children did.
There's an ongoing debate about how exactly this works, but I think it could be something related to.. ahem.. genetics. And also family traditions, education, and other similar things.
re: economics
@newt It is our culture to choose leaders and idols, on all scales, for the purposes of maintaining illusions of control and also to use them as scapegoats when the illusion inevitably collapses under reality. The wealthy are not wealthy due to their objective qualities, but due to our collective habits. Their quality is merely to be lucky enough to be chosen, blind enough to lead and stupid enough to become scapegoats.
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe @gemlog
