Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I'm thinking, in particular, of family businesses, artisans, tradespeople who traditionally would have had a certain amount of capital goods, turnover, goodwill, adding up to an established social and economic position that was transmissible to the following generation. This sort of social and economic model had been severely weakened, almost stamped out by the end of the 20th century; partly through technological change, partly because the easy availability of salaried work made taking over Dad's trade a less attractive proposition.

I can see signs that this model is returning, and may become quite common again : a possible reversion to the norm.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu May 22nd, 2014 at 11:38:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, part of what you describe may not show up in what is defined as capital in his work, as this would to an extent be "human capital", which he addresses as almost an oxymoron early on -what he calls capital can be traded.
But the part that would fall in his definition would resonate with something that he shows, that there is a divergence in capital. Very big fortunes had high rates of return (probably also in part because they could easily diversify, though there are stronger effects in play). Very small ones, not so much.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Thu May 22nd, 2014 at 01:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series