How about if Europe's entrenched old money prevents new money from arising, and is part of the problem? Money comes with obvious vast influence on politics. What if that old money acts to protect itself at the expense of economic dynamism and new wealth creation? I think it's a reasonable conclusion that that does in fact occur. Is bunched up old money inherently more conservative? I'd argue yes.

The parent comment implies that wealth is more redistributed in Europe. That is plainly not true, given the extreme inheritance levels of their billionaires and lower rates of philanthropy.

The wealth is also not inherently bound to the operations. You can give away your billions without sinking a business. Berkshire Hathaway isn't going to collapse when Buffett dies or gives his remaining wealth away (Burlington Northern railroad isn't going to tip over when he gives away his last shares, just as BMW wouldn't if the Quandt family ended their dynasty, ditto Walmart with the second generation of Walton heirs). Just as Microsoft isn't collapsing as Gates exits his formerly huge percentage share of ownership (he has gone from ~60% ownership to now ~3% since the IPO, obviously it has not seriously harmed Microsoft). There is a large, important question at the center of this that can be best illustrated by a rhetorical: is Howard Buffett (Warren's oldest son) the best qualified to run Berkshire Hathaway? What are the odds the Quandt family is best suited to steer BMW for the next hundred years? Or that Inditex should be run by the Ortega family forever, or that the Slim family should control such a large swath of telecom in Mexico for the next century? I think that kind of economic dominance by families is more often detrimental (loss of dynamism, too much wealth acquired without earning it) than beneficial, much as a cartel or monopoly ends up being.