On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:08:57 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:

I vaguely remember reading an article that said if somehow the all the
money the richest people had was redistributed evenly among the
population of the country, the yield to each person would be
surprisingly small. Does anybody have any clearer memory of that? Didn't
get anywhere with Google so far.

I remember reading that if all the present wealth was redistributed evenly,
it would all be back in the hands of the original owners in a few years.
===========
That's the claim, but I doubt it.

To be sure the money/wealth would again be quickly concentrated
into a few hands, but most likely these would be different hands.

In many cases, the founder of the fortune/dynasty passed on years
ago, and his heirs have no real idea how he did it, only a
collection of family myths/legends.

In other cases the socio-economic/cultural/political
circumstances [and luck] that allowed the growth of the original
dynasty/trust have completely changed, e.g. Rockefeller would be
unable to re-establish an oil monopoly, Sam Walton would be
unable to reestablish Walmart, etc.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).