[ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 31/01/2009 16.50, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou<stathisp at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> You could argue that yes, it's useful, since without the lure of such
>> fortunes certain types of investment with potentially useful
>> consequences would not be made.
>
> ... an argument which immediately opens the door to the question of
> whether this is actually true or not, and whether there would not be
> more effective ways to achieve the same results.
>
> Parasitic, hereditary wealth in particular is recognised even by
> free-marketeers to have hindered the economic progress during the
> Ancien Régime, e.g.

Usually, parasitic hereditary wealth were aristocratic wealth.
And the aristocracy had their privileges supported by the government.

In a free market, wealth not used or not invested wisely will, with the 
time reduce. The owner will need to continue to consume to sustain 
himself/herself. So he need to exchange (a part of) his wealth for 
foods, cloths, various services, etc. It need to upkeep his capital, as 
capital consume itself when used (and also when not used).

Even stone palaces will crumble if not maintained, that need work, that 
need people, that need to be paid more than what is paid elsewhere for 
the same or equivalent jobs.

Large fortunes will need time to dissipate, but they will dissipate 
nonetheless.

But, I know, and you too I suppose, that there are other ways to keep 
power and wealth without earning it and pass it to sons, daughters and 
mistress.

An example is the Kennedy family that appear to be able to pass to his 
member the ability to hold an elected position. Or the Clinton family? 
The Bush family? Our US reader could add more I suppose.
For examples in Italy we could cite the Berlinguer/Cossiga family (they 
were cousins), the Veltroni family (father Democratic Christian, son 
Communist leader), the Letta family, and so on.

Mirco