If you start with a large amount of wealth, achieving such a growth rate (3-4% per year, in real value) is no mean feat.
1. For starters, one cannot depend on "employment" which has a relatively small return. You need to find a way of earning money on your capital.
2. The political and societal conditions might not be conducive. The person(s) in the zeroth generation might have been lucky in many ways. This relates to the idea raised in the OP above.
3. People growing up in wealth might not have the skills, or the luck.
4. Or they might not have the desire. They might prefer to move higher along Maslow's hierarchy once the lower level needs are met. To quote John Adams: "I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematicks and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, musick, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelaine."
15000 people in the 99%-99.9% would have about 120 billion. 15000 people in the 99.9%-99.99%? They'd have about 600 billion. The top 0.01% has about 6 trillion.
So, it's a family of 15,000 99.97%ers!
Honestly, neither the idea that they control trillions+ nor that they are manipulating markets, seems that far fetched to me. Their family has multiple dozens of individuals spread throughout the world in financial roles, some of them visibly managing billions of dollars in assets. They've controlled their wealth far longer than transparency laws have had any real effect, so it would not surprise me at all if combined, they controlled trillions of dollars.
If you've got a family who all knows each other, meets up multiple times per year, and controls trillions of dollars, what do you think is going to happen? Obviously their loyalties all lie to each other, not individual countries. I imagine their family retreats include more than a few "back room meetings" of the most powerful members, where they openly discuss their assets and strategize how to use them to their advantage.
It's not hard to imagine a small group of people controlling that much money becoming hungry for power and influence. It's a scary thought, but the world seems to be doing fine so far, so I'm not too worried.
For a very interesting read on the above, check out http://treasureislands.org/the-book/ ... a fantastic read.
Wealth lists are only on what people can find and often exclude royalty.
I know the list for my country (Uruguay) is wildly inaccurate, and have no reason to believe that it's different in other countries - possibly in the U.S. they're more open, but not in the Middle East, Brazil, Mexico, China or Russia.
I always took that as an estimate of the lifespan of a firm. If that firm lasts beyond that, it's been reengineered to be relevant.
"You may have all the money Raymond, but I have all the men with guns." ~ Frank Underwood
There is not why, there is only there is/not. Why would make sense in some novel case statements.
This is why we as a society need inheritance tax. It prevents dynastic wealth from taking over.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/11/egyptian...
It's best to lie low and disguise crazy wealth as much as possible.