>> wealth will continue to concentrate to the point to inheritors, to the extent that individuals become increasingly unable through labor to achieve parity to

>> wealth will continue to concentrate to the point to inheritors, to the extent that individuals become increasingly unable through labor to achieve parity to the inheritors Adjusted for inflation, John D. Rockefeller had 340 billion dollars of wealth in 1918. What has that fortune grown to? It hasn't. It is gone. He gave it away. Adjusted for inflation, Andrew Carnegie had 370 billion dollars of wealth in 1901. What has that fortune grown to? It hasn't. It is gone. He gave it away. John Jacob Astor's fortune? Gone. Vanderbilt's? Gone. Looking at a few different lists, those are the 4 wealthiest people in US history. They either gave the money away or their heirs spent it all. If wealth was going to automatically concentrate, it would have. It didn't. Rockefeller's 340 billion invested in the stock market from 1918 to today would roughly equal the entire net wealth of the US. That didn't happen for the Rockefellers and it didn't happen for any of the other many fortunes in the past. What Picketty "concludes empirically" does not in fact happen. If it did in fact happen, all the wealth of the US would be in the hands of one person. To figure out if wealth will concentrate in the hands of inheritors, you need to know many different things. Will people give their wealth to their children or will they give it away? Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffet, Ellison, all giving their money away. Will people give their wealth to a single child? Elon Musk has 10 kids. If he gave away money to each child, his wealth would not be concentrated. (Oops, 11 children. Even less concentrated.) If those children went on to have multiple children, the inheritance gets diluted even more. Some rich people, believe it or not, actually spend money. People who inherit wealth rather than earning it seem to be particularly good at spending wealth faster than it grows.