On 2010-04-11, F George McDuffee wrote:
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.

Great point and it is something that I completely missed.

I remember how years ago, my girlfriend had a side job and worked at a
house occupied by a rich family, with several adult siblings living
together.

I was invited ones to look and was kind of impressed, these heirs
lived a life of leisure, seemed very kind to one another, I remember
how they sat in chairs and discussed civilly some latest developments
of something. They were just very nice people all around. I would not
terribly mind such life for my kids.

It seemed to be great in very many ways, but for sure they would not
be able to re-earn their wealth, if it was redistributed.

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.

I would invest, on the spot, into any business that Sam Walton would
open, in this hypothetical scenario.

i