I know that wealth tends to follow a Pareto distribution historically, this is the qualitative fact. My impression is honestly that this is a function of some

I know that wealth tends to follow a Pareto distribution historically, this is the qualitative fact. My impression is honestly that this is a function of some people being able to earn a return on money more easily than other people. The poor can make better use of fifty dollars than a millionaire, a millionaire can take better advantage of a fifty thousand dollars than a billionaire, and a billionaire can make better use of 50 million dollars than the poor or millionaires. So things eventually reach some sort of equilibrium as it's self-correcting, somebody who uses money badly gets overcome by somebody who uses it well. Right now I think that equilibrium is out of sorts because I think it's almost self-evident how much somebody poor could do with a thousand dollars, whereas a company like Berkshire Hathaway right now is at such a loss as to what to invest in that they're literally just sitting on cash when they get it. There's are exceptions but I see too much of this these days. Wealth also isn't distributed like a Pareto distribution, it's too top-sided to follow the distribution perfectly, and if history repeats itself we will see that unravel. I expect the top to fall more than I expect the bottom to rise though.