If you graphed out family fortunes, it would resemble a power law function (similar to monthly website hits). But I'm wondering why none go higher than the $100-$200 billion range. Is it because Western society hasn't been stable for a long enough period of time?
The size of a family grows exponentially with generation. Assuming a young couple. In 3 generations (~70 years) the family size would have become close to 10x. More often than not, wealth is divided among extended families. So, to maintain per-capita wealth, the initial pool would need to grow at a matching rate by 10x in 70 years -- which is an annual growth of roughly 3-4% (in real value, i.e. over-and-above inflation). Otherwise, wealth will simply be diluted exponentially, apart from getting consumed/expended. (Unless at every step you manage to keep marrying rich)
If you start with a large amount of wealth, achieving such a growth rate (3-4% per year, in real value) is no mean feat.
1. For starters, one cannot depend on "employment" which has a relatively small return. You need to find a way of earning money on your capital.
2. The political and societal conditions might not be conducive. The person(s) in the zeroth generation might have been lucky in many ways. This relates to the idea raised in the OP above.
3. People growing up in wealth might not have the skills, or the luck.
4. Or they might not have the desire. They might prefer to move higher along Maslow's hierarchy once the lower level needs are met.
To quote John Adams: "I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematicks and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, musick, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelaine."
15000 people in the 99%-99.9% would have about 120 billion.
15000 people in the 99.9%-99.99%? They'd have about 600 billion.
The top 0.01% has about 6 trillion.
Well this probably isn't what you are looking for but the Saudi family (of Saudi Arabia) is worth "well over $1.4 trillion." That is spread out between an extended family.
This. Interestingly, I was just reading on this topic the other day. Many sources (see Wikipedia article) suspect/assert that the Rothschilds are worth somewhere in the trillions. Since that's more than the GDP of most countries, it fuels a lot of illuminati/"new world order" conspiracy theories. With that kind of wealth, one family has the power to manipulate international markets. By coupling that manipulation with timely investing, the Rothschilds can multiply their fortune indefinitely.
Honestly, neither the idea that they control trillions+ nor that they are manipulating markets, seems that far fetched to me. Their family has multiple dozens of individuals spread throughout the world in financial roles, some of them visibly managing billions of dollars in assets. They've controlled their wealth far longer than transparency laws have had any real effect, so it would not surprise me at all if combined, they controlled trillions of dollars.
If you've got a family who all knows each other, meets up multiple times per year, and controls trillions of dollars, what do you think is going to happen? Obviously their loyalties all lie to each other, not individual countries. I imagine their family retreats include more than a few "back room meetings" of the most powerful members, where they openly discuss their assets and strategize how to use them to their advantage.
It's not hard to imagine a small group of people controlling that much money becoming hungry for power and influence. It's a scary thought, but the world seems to be doing fine so far, so I'm not too worried.
How do you know what assets these families have? Most of them I'd imagine would have assets so wrapped up in opaque trusts in secrecy jurisdictions (Caymans, British Virgin Islands etc.) that I can't see how you'd ever really know.
There's a saying my mom used to say: "money never makes it past the third generation". The idea is that if you grow up wealthy, you don't have the skills/drive necessary to keep that wealth going.
The Waltons may only be worth 1/10-12th of that, but they sure as hell have control over a nearly half-trillion dollar revenue corporation. At that scale, what matters more is direct influence over the lives of the many,i.e. power, not fiat dollars that can be pressed up and dilute you arbitrarily if need be.
"You may have all the money Raymond, but I have all the men with guns." ~ Frank Underwood
The primary issue with the question is the "Why" part. This would imply that there was some reason if there wasn't. This implies some form of soft historicism, or some agency.
There is not why, there is only there is/not. Why would make sense in some novel case statements.
Rockefeller's Standard Oil split off into most of the major US oil companies today. With shares spread through family members, foundations, and diversified into other companies, it's not inconceivable that they are massively more wealthy than a Forbes list member.
The answer is very simple:
As total investment increases, return on investment trends towards a stable average. Inheritance tax takes care of the rest.
This is why we as a society need inheritance tax. It prevents dynastic wealth from taking over.
yes, having incredible wealth would draw a lot of unwanted attention. The Rothschild's had their wealth confiscated at least once through nationalisation of banks they owned.
It's best to lie low and disguise crazy wealth as much as possible.
The truth is, we don't know who the richest family is. It was revealed that Egypt's ousted dictator had about $100 billion in assets stashed away. That would make him the world's richest man. How many others are out there and how much are they hiding, who knows?
[+] [-] ssivark|11 years ago|reply
If you start with a large amount of wealth, achieving such a growth rate (3-4% per year, in real value) is no mean feat.
1. For starters, one cannot depend on "employment" which has a relatively small return. You need to find a way of earning money on your capital.
2. The political and societal conditions might not be conducive. The person(s) in the zeroth generation might have been lucky in many ways. This relates to the idea raised in the OP above.
3. People growing up in wealth might not have the skills, or the luck.
4. Or they might not have the desire. They might prefer to move higher along Maslow's hierarchy once the lower level needs are met. To quote John Adams: "I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematicks and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, musick, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelaine."
[+] [-] ramoq|11 years ago|reply
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud#Wealth
[+] [-] josephschmoe|11 years ago|reply
15000 people in the 99%-99.9% would have about 120 billion. 15000 people in the 99.9%-99.99%? They'd have about 600 billion. The top 0.01% has about 6 trillion.
So, it's a family of 15,000 99.97%ers!
[+] [-] glbrew|11 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_family#Wealth
[+] [-] MrBlue|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chatmasta|11 years ago|reply
Honestly, neither the idea that they control trillions+ nor that they are manipulating markets, seems that far fetched to me. Their family has multiple dozens of individuals spread throughout the world in financial roles, some of them visibly managing billions of dollars in assets. They've controlled their wealth far longer than transparency laws have had any real effect, so it would not surprise me at all if combined, they controlled trillions of dollars.
If you've got a family who all knows each other, meets up multiple times per year, and controls trillions of dollars, what do you think is going to happen? Obviously their loyalties all lie to each other, not individual countries. I imagine their family retreats include more than a few "back room meetings" of the most powerful members, where they openly discuss their assets and strategize how to use them to their advantage.
It's not hard to imagine a small group of people controlling that much money becoming hungry for power and influence. It's a scary thought, but the world seems to be doing fine so far, so I'm not too worried.
[+] [-] patrickdavey|11 years ago|reply
For a very interesting read on the above, check out http://treasureislands.org/the-book/ ... a fantastic read.
[+] [-] sien|11 years ago|reply
Wealth lists are only on what people can find and often exclude royalty.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28472884
[+] [-] patrickdavey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grimtrigger|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ArkyBeagle|11 years ago|reply
I always took that as an estimate of the lifespan of a firm. If that firm lasts beyond that, it's been reengineered to be relevant.
[+] [-] cellis|11 years ago|reply
"You may have all the money Raymond, but I have all the men with guns." ~ Frank Underwood
[+] [-] ArkyBeagle|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eruditely|11 years ago|reply
There is not why, there is only there is/not. Why would make sense in some novel case statements.
[+] [-] nicholas73|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josephschmoe|11 years ago|reply
This is why we as a society need inheritance tax. It prevents dynastic wealth from taking over.
[+] [-] sixQuarks|11 years ago|reply
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/11/egyptian...
[+] [-] argonaut|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wintersFright|11 years ago|reply
It's best to lie low and disguise crazy wealth as much as possible.
[+] [-] jayzalowitz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sixQuarks|11 years ago|reply