5 ms·

Forbes 400 for 2018: https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#715eb42a7e2f https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#715eb42a7e2f Looking at top 40 (because it gets boring

Forbes 400 for 2018: https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#715eb42a7e2f https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#715eb42a7e2f Looking at top 40 (because it gets boring to look up bios after a while), I see the following folks who inherited companies founded by their family members: Charles Koch, David Koch, Jim Walton, Alice Walton, Robson Walton, Jacqueline Mars, John Mars, Abigail Johnson, Donald Bren, Lukas Walton, Leonard Lauder. That is 11 out of top 40 (or 27.5%) have inherited their wealth. That is certainly a big fraction of billionaires who did nothing but win the birth lottery.

roenxi 8y ago
I don't know exactly what Mr. Piketty actually claimed, but that statistic pretty good evidence that return on capital vs the growth of income is not the major cause of wealth inequality. The major cause would be inheritance law and birth rates in wealthy families. Economic divides are a strange concern anyway; I don't see how I am unfairly disadvantaged by someone else's obscene wealth through winning the birth lottery. The issues as I see them are (1) high inequality is often an indicator of corruption and (2) many cities won't build sufficient high-density housing for political reasons. What exactly is Jim Walton consuming that should be given to the poor? He probably doesn't eat that much food, and I doubt he is competing for housing stock with people who are struggling to make rent.
- RestlessMind 8y ago
  > but that statistic pretty good evidence that return on capital vs the growth of income is not the major cause of wealth inequality I see 27.5% as too damn high to be among the richest in the world just based on birth lottery. > I don't see how I am unfairly disadvantaged by someone else's obscene wealth through winning the birth lottery. Wealthy people get disproportionate benefits in: legal system [1], healthcare [2], political influence [3]. I can go on, but there few examples are sufficient to see why someone should get these privileges just because of birth. > What exactly is Jim Walton consuming that should be given to the poor? Don't know about Waltons, but Koch brother are consuming their wealth to purchase political influence [4]. I would rather have it spent on poor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Gawker_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Gawker_lawsuit [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/business/economy/high-end-medical-care.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/business/economy/high-end... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#The_Koch_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Ko...
hash872 8y ago
The Kochs are active executives within their companies, which is a huge % of net worth. Wikipedia states that their stakes were worth $1.1 billion in 1983 when the brothers took them over, obviously they are worth vastly more now. It's not like they're rentiers who never worked- they still created most of their current wealth. This seems to be true for a number of 2nd generation wealthy. If r > g is true- why are the large majority self-made entrepreneurs? Wouldn't the compounding effect of inherited wealth make say the Rockefellers top the list by 2019? I couldn't find them in the top 100. The broader point is to use actual data versus empty theorizing from first principles. While I don't personally agree with what you stated above, you're already miles ahead of Piketty by using real-world data that we have on wealthy families vs. extremely broad theorizing on stuff like 'r always exceeds g'
- mdorazio 8y ago
  You seem to be assuming that the ultra rich keep their wealth as personal wealth. This is pretty far from what actually happens. In most cases they setup foundations with large endowments instead of directly passing it to heirs (though the heirs are often board members and never have to work a day in their life). You mention the Rockefellers as an example. Guess what foundation has a $4.1 billion endowment, 105 years after its founding? Where is Bill Gates putting all his money? A foundation. See where I'm going with this? I'll take arguments against r > g seriously when they account for institutional wealth instead of just personal wealth.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    If you don’t hold wealth as personal wealth you don’t hold it at all. It’s not yours. There are no Rockefellers on the board of the Rockefeller Foundation. https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/board.asp?privcapId=210269 https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/board.asp?... One of the directors of the Ford Foundation is a Ford. https://www.tfff.org/who-we-are/board-directors https://www.tfff.org/who-we-are/board-directors None of the directors of the Carnegie Corporation are Carnegies. https://www.carnegie.org/about/trustees-and-staff/ https://www.carnegie.org/about/trustees-and-staff/ Two of the directors of the Hearst Foundation are Hearsts, of thirteen. If these foundations are attempts to keep wealth in the family they’re utter failures. At the peak of his personal wealth Rockefeller was worth over 1% of US GDP. $4 billion is nothing compared to that.
barry-cotter 8y ago
The Koch brothers would be nowhere near the top 40 based on the wealth they inherited. They may have inherited the companies but their wealth is not mostly inherited. I’m not saying they could have done it from a standing start but the Koch brothers are closer to Bezos or Gates than the Walton heirs.

roenxi 8y ago

I don't know exactly what Mr. Piketty actually claimed, but that statistic pretty good evidence that return on capital vs the growth of income is not the major cause of wealth inequality. The major cause would be inheritance law and birth rates in wealthy families. Economic divides are a strange concern anyway; I don't see how I am unfairly disadvantaged by someone else's obscene wealth through winning the birth lottery. The issues as I see them are (1) high inequality is often an indicator of corruption and (2) many cities won't build sufficient high-density housing for political reasons. What exactly is Jim Walton consuming that should be given to the poor? He probably doesn't eat that much food, and I doubt he is competing for housing stock with people who are struggling to make rent.

RestlessMind 8y ago
> but that statistic pretty good evidence that return on capital vs the growth of income is not the major cause of wealth inequality I see 27.5% as too damn high to be among the richest in the world just based on birth lottery. > I don't see how I am unfairly disadvantaged by someone else's obscene wealth through winning the birth lottery. Wealthy people get disproportionate benefits in: legal system [1], healthcare [2], political influence [3]. I can go on, but there few examples are sufficient to see why someone should get these privileges just because of birth. > What exactly is Jim Walton consuming that should be given to the poor? Don't know about Waltons, but Koch brother are consuming their wealth to purchase political influence [4]. I would rather have it spent on poor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Gawker_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Gawker_lawsuit [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/business/economy/high-end-medical-care.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/business/economy/high-end... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#The_Koch_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Ko...

hash872 8y ago

The Kochs are active executives within their companies, which is a huge % of net worth. Wikipedia states that their stakes were worth $1.1 billion in 1983 when the brothers took them over, obviously they are worth vastly more now. It's not like they're rentiers who never worked- they still created most of their current wealth. This seems to be true for a number of 2nd generation wealthy. If r > g is true- why are the large majority self-made entrepreneurs? Wouldn't the compounding effect of inherited wealth make say the Rockefellers top the list by 2019? I couldn't find them in the top 100. The broader point is to use actual data versus empty theorizing from first principles. While I don't personally agree with what you stated above, you're already miles ahead of Piketty by using real-world data that we have on wealthy families vs. extremely broad theorizing on stuff like 'r always exceeds g'

mdorazio 8y ago
You seem to be assuming that the ultra rich keep their wealth as personal wealth. This is pretty far from what actually happens. In most cases they setup foundations with large endowments instead of directly passing it to heirs (though the heirs are often board members and never have to work a day in their life). You mention the Rockefellers as an example. Guess what foundation has a $4.1 billion endowment, 105 years after its founding? Where is Bill Gates putting all his money? A foundation. See where I'm going with this? I'll take arguments against r > g seriously when they account for institutional wealth instead of just personal wealth.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  If you don’t hold wealth as personal wealth you don’t hold it at all. It’s not yours. There are no Rockefellers on the board of the Rockefeller Foundation. https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/board.asp?privcapId=210269 https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/board.asp?... One of the directors of the Ford Foundation is a Ford. https://www.tfff.org/who-we-are/board-directors https://www.tfff.org/who-we-are/board-directors None of the directors of the Carnegie Corporation are Carnegies. https://www.carnegie.org/about/trustees-and-staff/ https://www.carnegie.org/about/trustees-and-staff/ Two of the directors of the Hearst Foundation are Hearsts, of thirteen. If these foundations are attempts to keep wealth in the family they’re utter failures. At the peak of his personal wealth Rockefeller was worth over 1% of US GDP. $4 billion is nothing compared to that.

barry-cotter 8y ago

The Koch brothers would be nowhere near the top 40 based on the wealth they inherited. They may have inherited the companies but their wealth is not mostly inherited. I’m not saying they could have done it from a standing start but the Koch brothers are closer to Bezos or Gates than the Walton heirs.