But wealth inequality has still grown quite a bit. Your point is not a refutation, it’s just an observation that the infection has progressed more slowly than it could have if it was completely optimal.
This significantly challenges the "if America’s rich families in 1900 had invested passively in the stockmarket"
e.g. the equivalent of S&P 500 if adjusted by inflation was in 1982 was well below it's 1929 peak. Almost all growth happened after that.
This is called stability. The more stable the system - the more value have investments.
"there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made"
That's a refutation, Piketty made assertions not just about the outcome, but about the process by which that outcome would happen.
It doesn't change the thesis, which is wrong. r is not greater than g for any reasonable amount of time for individuals/families because humans have an amazing ability to behave stupidly and reduce r below g.
But inherited wealth does not dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labor. The largest fortunes today are dominated by people who built businesses, not by people who inherited their wealth. So if "there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made", that is a direct refutation of Pikkety's thesis.
It is hard to overstate just how bad Pikkety's arguments are. His argument assumes single inheritance of fortunes, it assumes that wealthy people don't donate significant sums to charity, it assumes that inheritors of wealth will invest that wealth as wisely as the person who created it, along with many, many other false assumptions. The most egregious one in my opinion is that it assumes the wealthy don't spend their money.
If a billionaire makes a 5% return on his billion dollars and spends $50 million dollars a year, does wealth inequality increase? No, it does not.
It's a ridiculous theory, it is directly contradicted by the facts, and I have no idea why it is taken seriously by people here other than just as an opportunity to participate in a 2 minutes hate against rich people.
Oh no, now it's important to stop this because some people are able to do these things while having political viewpoints that you don't like. Were you previously making the same argument against say, the New York Times, due to it's being owned by one family and following that family's specific ideological viewpoints?
Wealth inequality is an innate part of human society, and by itself has little bearing on democracy or even overall standards of living. There are also many countries with low wealth inequality in which democracy doesn't exist in any sense.
Wealth inequality is not innate; there have been plenty of civilizations with far less of it. It’s only an inherent part of free-market capitalism.
Please by all means, name these superior civilizations with minimal wealth inequality. The fact that some people are immensely rich and many others aren't is much less important than how a given society regulates individual rights to live one's life and be protected by the law. Wealth inequality is also less important than the specific question of how these rich people became what they are and how much power they have over those less wealthy than them. Ie: You can't honestly compare a modern market economy with a feudal barony.
In much of the modern "terribly" unequal market economies, a Bill Gates or Musk can be freely told to go fuck themselves by anyone less wealthy than them and their wealth has little to do with some random average person's capacity to better their own life. The same often doesn't apply to societies with low wealth inequality, which coincidentally are often poorly developed and authoritarian.
I don't really care if Warren Buffet, Zuckerberg or Ellison can buy a dozen private jets any time they like if I live in the same society with most of my legal and economic rights protected, and with the ability to create a comfortable life also respected. I would however worry about a more supposedly egalitarian state in which central authority figures have given themselves the legal right to confiscate property and earned capital for reasons of ideology.
Also, while many on this site live in a bubble in which the importance and influence of Musk's X (previously Twitter) is grossly fetishized, in the real world, it's just not that important. Musk can throw all the tantrums he likes on the site and ban whoever he pleases, and for 99% of the world, it doesn't matter enough to be worth a single shit.
It's when he obtains literal political power that I worry, and the mechanism behind the kind of authority that could confiscate earned wealth beyond a certain ideologically or politically defined point can at any time fall victim to someone with the kind of grossly egotistical personality that someone like X's owner has.
having the legal authority to prevent a rich person from owning a social media platform is much more dangerous than that rich person simply owning a social media platform (in a landscape of others that it has to increasingly compete with).
You have to go quite far back to find those civilizations, so you can't really compare them to modern ones. Also depends on what the goals of society are. It's possible that people are happier on average in a poorer but more equal society, so would it be inferior just because it has less material wealth?
> It's when he obtains literal political power that I worry,
Money is literal political power. If it wasn't, you would not be seeing a bunch of billionaires running the government. I agree that current forms of government also concentrate power too much, but there will always be some kind of entity that makes the rules, and always those with the most resources will naturally be the most able to take control over that entity and make rules that benefit them.
> having the legal authority to prevent a rich person from owning a social media platform is much more dangerous than that rich person simply owning a social media platform (in a landscape of others that it has to increasingly compete with).
I agree, but letting people amass unlimited amounts of wealth will lead to that authority anyway. Once someone or some group of people is wealthy enough that they're able to buy the government, they'll obviously use it to give themselves that and any other authority they wish. It doesn't matter if that government is small or large, weak or powerful. There will always be a rule creating and enforcing entity, and that entity becomes whatever those who control it wish it to be. It will be controlled by those with the most resources. The solution is therefore not to try to limit the functionality of the tool that is government, but to maximize the number of people that have control over it. That requires having a more equal distribution of wealth.
Also, journalistic standards, historically, were little or not at all better than anything you see online today. Yellow journalism was a major part of media since long before the internet and newspapers pandering to very specific, dishonest biases was also pervasive, but with few genuinely unfiltered alternative viewpoints being available. The difference today is that a real plurality of opinions is finally possible and can be globally made visible. The media gatekeepers hate this and thus create contrived arguments about an imaginary golden standard of media integrity and mass misinformation.
That wouldn't be the case if those at the top were taxed and more of their wealth transferred to those at the bottom.