[user5994461]

I don't think so, this certainly has never been effective at that.

I'd say that historically billion dollars fortunes got diluted between the 10 children then the next generation, some of whom might actually burn it stupidly very quickly. Otherwise, it's diluted by wars and calamity.

However, there are no major disaster in the past decades and the number of children per family have dropped dramatically. It surely breaks the balance.

[liftbigweights]

> I'd say that historically billion dollars fortunes got diluted between the 10 children then the next generation

Throughout history and across most cultures, it was usually the first born son who got the father's legacy and the lion's share of the wealth. It's why it was so important for wives ( especially of the powerful and wealthy ) to produce a male heir. Sometimes it was a matter of life or death. We all know of king henry's wives.

"When Anne failed to quickly produce a male heir, her only son being stillborn, the King grew tired of her, annulled their marriage, and a plot was hatched by Thomas Cromwell to execute her."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wives_of_King_Henry_VI...

[isostatic]

That explains why the Grosvenor Family, a family who've owned the same company for 100 years longer than the united states has been in existent, is so poor.

[ryacko]

Comcast is a better example of a family owned business.