This is an argument that flares up sometimes that still causes rather heated debates. The crux of it being that the a much of wealth of modern former colonial nations, such as Britain or France, is based on the exploitation of what were at the time colonies in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, South America. Thus my question is:
how far back is it reasonable to trace wealth i.e. if an ancestor owned a lucrative sugar plantation in the Caribbean
Is the argument in any way historically valid if so how if not how so?
I remember reading, possibly in Capital in the 21st century, that the typical gdp-to-wealth ratio for a country like Britain or France is 1:7. So basically, if 100% of gdp was turned into new wealth, total wealth for a modern, industrialized country could double in just 7 years.
The South Korean example may also be relevant to this discussion (in my case, I have read about it in Why Nations Fail). South Korea has gone from nothing to a modern, wealthy, country in just 50 years. With no colonies and without much natural resources. This would indicate that modern wealth is not necessarily based on old wealth.
Possibly, Germany is another example where much of the wealth has clearly been generated in the last 50 years.