Full Twitter thread unrolled -> https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1792267464258048408
This person basically uses a bunch of graphs to argue that status of elite groups persist under even the most extreme cases. For example, the elites targeted in the PRC and the Soviet Union bounced back in elite status after a generation or two, how many elite southern planter families regained their status after the Civil War, how formally interned Japanese Americans reached the same homeownership rate as the non-interned Japanese Americans after a decade, etc.
But then they suggest that
So status persists throughout history even in the most extreme scenarios. What explains this? Genes play a major role. Consider how status persists when the status is accurized purely through chance.
Is this really a reasonable conclusion to draw? I saw one tweet criticizing this, saying
this information is very interesting, but it's nonsense to think this implies genetics/talent/effort causes success. i see this as evidence that social/human capital is persistent and important for economic development, so inequality on this dimension breeds economic inequality https://x.com/leonveliezer/status/1792413175301935124
Which seems like a good objection to me.
What do you all think?
Yeah, I used to date someone from one of the richest families in Guangzhou (at least pre revolution). When the revolution came they hid a shitload of wealth, in the form of antiques, gold, and foreign assets.
Don't get me wrong. They got shipped off to camps, and lost most of their money. But those that survived the cultural revolution were still richer than almost everyone else.
Social capital is important, but real capital helps a lot too.
Welp, time to do it again.
this pretty much. if anyone took a survey of how many manchu nobles are still rich despite all the shit that happened in the entire past century i'd put money on the number being upwards of ~80%