How are 1000 year dynasties even made? How can a family even keep the money for that long...

How are 1000 year dynasties even made? How can a family even keep the money for that long? The common stat is wealth is lost by the 3rd generation but that is only true for people with less than $100 million. Billions stay in the family forever it seems but I don't know how. trust funds?

Attached: 1200px-Blason_fam_it_Orsini.svg.png (1200x1320, 208.65K)

Too big to fail.
Some companies are so vital to the general economy that they will be bailed out every time they fuck up. And they can afford to lobby for it.

they don't need the mony, mony is what they use to control us.

Why are u talking out of your ass. In Florence, the same families are rich that were rich in the 16th century. In Britains it's almost the same.

This post confuses me.

what? that's exactly what I said you retard i'm asking how 1000 year dynastys are possible without losing the money

...

I think a lot of the lost wealth stats comes from labour aristocracy. A famous actor or musician may make a bunch of money in their lifetime but it will quickly dwindle without property.

1000 years. Currency systems don't last that long, even mild annual inflation makes a huge difference over 50 years. Human-made structures need to be maintained, they rust and get outdated. There is one thing that lasts: land. Show me a family that has maintained wealthy over hundreds of years and I can show you a family that owns land.

is land not all government owned? you pay property tax on it its not really yours

...

Owning land, simple.

In capitalism, not in feudalism. Most noble families were powerful by birthright. The few people who managed to get knighted through prowess in battle or other qualities often lacked the economic means to sustain a noble lifestyle, so they are weren't a threat to the ruling aristocracy. In the middle ages, thousands of warriors were promoted after a battle but usually not a single one of them made it into the upper echolon of the ruling class - that's why you still meet so many Europeans with "noble" last names, who never actually achieved nobility my material means.


The industrial revolution and capitalism certainly managed to bring about a fresh ruling class, the industrialists, but bankers and noble families are still among the richest people in the world. I don't think you have to ever work if you are born as a Habsburg or Fugger. Also muh Rothschilds.

Read Marx


To answer OP's question
It was a combination of the fact that these Kings / Dukes / counts owned all arable land needed for agriculture (Asides from Catholic church holdings) and thus all peasants working the land had to pay tribute to them or be evicted of their lot / effectively killed / Actually killed if they refused to recognize the kings / duke / counts overlordsmanship over the land

This was usually compunded with Moral justification and spooky feels > reals shit propagated by the church

read margs :DDD

Capitalists could exist in feudal societies and even during the age of Feudalism several Liberal / Capitalist experiments were undertaken (France Netherlands British commonwealth etc) but in a general sense the bougie / capitalist class was still irrelevant compared to the feudal regimes

The bourgeoisie is still the bourgeoisie. They are nothing to the aristocracy. An entrepreneur can exist only if THEY want. The overthrow of feudalism, the bourg revolution are just memes. They lose WWII but with globalism and neoliberalism they took revenge. Re-read Marx in this optic. Land aristocracy > mega bankers > > > bourgeoisie
The HRE still exists today as an informal society

Under feudalism proto-capitalism was confined to urban areas not toth landowners but instead corporations like guilds. Capitalism, ironically, was collectivist in its origin.

Yes?
Well yes they WERE nothing to the Aristocracy before well the french revolution etc?
nah
Well the overthrow of feudalism did happen and Liberal Revolutions did exist (British civil war French revolution etc)
How did capitalists in a general sense "lose" ww2?
Well yes because of Primitive accumulation many people who benifited from feudalism were able to transform themselves into wealthy capitalists
?????

Seems a lot of people here dont understand that the development of capitalism is ultimately important to the birth of socialism and so on as capitalism develops the industrial and technological productive forces essential for the establishment of a Socialist economy and society
even socialist / communist parties that come to power in Feudal / Semi-Feudal Societies recognize this and act accordingly (USSR 1917-1920s China Vietnam DPRK Afghanistan Most African Marxist states)

...

Collectivism and individualism is a false dichotomy anyway.

:DDDDDDDDDDD

Attached: 10464251_10207906232551016_662151729032534077_n.jpg (364x364, 15.86K)

well who owns the land in Manhattan or London? John Malone is the largest landowner in the US and he's a nobody with no power

Plz read a book

As previous poster already stated the main difference between landed aristocrats in feudal society and capitalists in our modern society is that while in a Liberal Democracy capitalists use their wealth and social status to EXERT INFLUENCE over the state to serve their own interests in feudal society the states interests WERE the aristocrats interests and vice versa

so it's impossible to start a dynasty in modern times

damn, dude. deep.

Incest and legal protection.

Not necessarily
Political and economic dynasties can still be created with the transfer of wealth / titles / property from father to son and so on
But it in no way has the staying power as feudal aristocratic dynasties have and they usually collapse after just a handful of generations

I N B R E E D I N G

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (900x578, 704.15K)

There are some studies about how little change there has been among wealthy elites in some European countries, tracking family names and linking that with land ownership. There is one about Scotland (I think that really made the rounds, Cockshott has referred to it I think, the Guardian has probably also written at least a short article about it). I've also seen a similar one about Italy covering the past 1000 years or so.

they bang their cousins