3 ms·
> If the author's explanation of what family offices are is correct, they didn't create inequality. If you take your money from a deposit and decide to invest y
by jniedrauer 8y ago
> If the author's explanation of what family offices are is correct, they didn't create inequality. If you take your money from a deposit and decide to invest yourself you don't create inequality. You undertake higher risk and potentially receive higher award.
Inequality is a mathematical statement about the distribution of wealth. It has nothing to do with risk or fairness or "rewards". If you accumulate wealth in one place, then you very directly create inequality. That's exactly what inequality is. By definition.
- dgudkov 8y agoMoney ownership didn't change when money management switched to family offices. So distribution of wealth hasn't changed. How did family offices create inequality?
- paulsutter 8y agoYes but the family office didn’t cause the inequality, the inequality caused the family office.
- whatshisface 8y agoI think the author is suggesting that society would be better if rich people were to end up so mired in the principal-agent problem that they ended up with no more influence on the market than the average person. Of course, this appears to overlook the fact that if you don't like it when people accumulate power, then you actually want corporate executives to be beholden to an active stock market.
- the_watcher 8y agoThe point is that whether or not a super rich person has that money in a family office or not, the inequality is the same