#AI #ChatGPT #Grok Of 1.000 wealthiest in 1950, how many remain in that group in 2025?

I asked ChatGPT and Grok:

"In the Western world, of the one thousand wealthiest in 1950, how many would you guess remain among the one thousand wealthiest in 2025?  A number please?"

ChatGPT answered:

"A reasonable estimate would be fewer than 50—likely closer to 10 to 30 at most. Wealth turnover across generations, economic shifts, taxation, and new industries (like tech) have significantly reshaped the landscape. Would you like a breakdown of the key reasons behind this estimate?"

I said: This suffices. Thanks!

ChatGPT said:You're welcome! Let me know if you ever want to dig deeper.

Grok answered:

"Estimating how many of the 1,000 wealthiest individuals in the Western world from 1950 would still be among the 1,000 wealthiest in 2025 is inherently speculative, as it involves numerous variables like inheritance, wealth preservation, economic shifts, and family dynamics. However, I can provide a reasoned guess based on historical trends and available data.

In 1950, wealth in the Western world—primarily the United States and Western Europe—was concentrated among industrialists, oil magnates, bankers, and heirs to large fortunes, such as the Rockefellers, Mellons, and Du Ponts. Over 75 years, factors like inflation, taxation, economic diversification, and the rise of new industries (e.g., technology) have reshaped the wealth landscape. Wealth persistence often depends on whether fortunes were maintained through trusts, reinvestment, or successful adaptation to changing markets, versus dissipation through poor management, division among heirs, or societal changes like estate taxes.

Historical examples offer clues. In 1957, Fortune magazine listed the 76 wealthiest Americans, many of whom were tied to family dynasties. By 2025, only a handful of those family names—like Rockefeller or Walton (via Walmart)—still appear prominently among the ultra-wealthy, often through descendants rather than the original individuals. Studies on intergenerational wealth suggest that only about 10-30% of family fortunes survive intact across three generations, with significant erosion by the fourth or fifth due to division among heirs and lack of entrepreneurial renewal.

The modern billionaire list, dominated by tech entrepreneurs (e.g., Musk, Bezos, Gates) and finance moguls, shows a stark contrast to 1950’s industrial and inherited wealth. Forbes’ 2025 billionaire rankings indicate that self-made fortunes now outnumber inherited ones, with roughly 67% of billionaires being self-made compared to 13% fully inherited. This shift suggests that many 1950 fortunes have either shrunk relative to new wealth or failed to keep pace with economic growth and inflation (e.g., $1.4 billion in 1950, like Rockefeller’s peak, is about $30 billion today—substantial, but dwarfed by Musk’s $351 billion in 2025).

For the top 1,000 specifically, not just billionaires, the threshold in 2025 is lower—likely around $500 million to $1 billion in net worth, based on wealth distribution trends. Some 1950 families could still qualify if their wealth grew modestly or was preserved (e.g., through real estate or diversified investments). However, the influx of new wealth from tech, finance, and globalization means the list has been heavily diluted with newcomers.

Considering these dynamics—wealth attrition rates, the rise of new industries, and limited persistence of dynasties—I’d estimate that roughly 50 to 100 of the 1,000 wealthiest individuals or families from 1950 in the Western world remain in the top 1,000 in 2025. This accounts for a small core of enduring dynasties (e.g., Walmart’s Waltons, Ford heirs) while acknowledging the overwhelming turnover driven by economic transformation.

My final guess: 75. This number reflects a conservative balance between historical wealth retention and the dramatic reshaping of the rich list over 75 years."

I said: Thanks

Grok said: You’re welcome! Glad I could help with that. Anything else on your mind?

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by ChatGPT and Grok 3

#AI - #OpenAI - #ChatGPT What if America taxes the wealthy’s ownership of shares?

I asked ChatGPT:

Often references to the wealthiest are illustrated by how much they own of the stock market.

How much does the whole US stock market represent of all US’s wealth?

ChatGPT answered:

The US stock market is a significant component of the nation's wealth, but it doesn't encompass the entirety of it. To provide a clearer picture, let's break down the components of US wealth and the stock market's share in it.

Components of US Wealth

1. Real Estate: Residential and commercial properties.
2. Corporate Equity and Mutual Fund Shares: Ownership in public and private companies.
3. Pension Entitlements: Retirement funds and related investments.
4. Private Businesses: Small and large privately held companies.
5. Deposits: Bank savings and checking accounts.
6. Bonds: Government and corporate bonds.
7. Other Assets: This includes various financial assets and physical assets like vehicles, art, and collectibles.

The US Stock Market

The value of the US stock market can be measured by the total market capitalization, which is the combined value of all publicly traded companies. As of mid-2023, the market capitalization of the US stock market was approximately $46 trillion.

Total US Wealth

According to the Federal Reserve's Financial Accounts of the United States, the total net worth of US households and nonprofits was around $150 trillion as of early 2023.

Percentage Representation

To estimate the percentage of the US wealth represented by the stock market:

$\text{Percentage of Wealth in Stock Market}=\left(\frac{\text{Market Capitalization}}{\text{Total Net Worth}}\right)\times 100$

Plugging in the values:

$\text{Percentage of Wealth in Stock Market}=\left(\frac{46\text{ trillion}}{150\text{ trillion}}\right)\times 100\approx 30.7\mathrm{\%}$

Conclusion

The US stock market represents approximately 30-35% of the total wealth in the United States. This percentage can fluctuate based on market conditions and changes in other asset values.

I asked ChatGPT:

And if we take away what foreigners own, how much does the US remaining stock market represent of all US’s wealth?

ChatGPT answered:

To determine the share of the US stock market owned by domestic investors and its representation of total US wealth, we need to account for the ownership by foreign investors.

Foreign Ownership of US Stocks

As of recent estimates, foreign investors own about 40% of the US stock market. This figure can vary slightly depending on the source and the specific time frame considered.

Domestic Ownership of US Stocks

Given the total market capitalization of the US stock market is approximately $46 trillion, the value owned by US domestic investors can be calculated as follows:

$\text{Domestic Market Capitalization}=\text{Total Market Capitalization}\times (1-\text{Foreign Ownership Percentage})$

Plugging in the values:

$\text{Domestic Market Capitalization}=46\text{ trillion}\times (1-0.40)=46\text{ trillion}\times 0.60=27.6\text{ trillion}$

Total US Wealth

The total net worth of US households and nonprofits is approximately $150 trillion.

Percentage Representation of Domestic Stock Ownership

To estimate the percentage of US wealth represented by the domestically owned stock market:

$\text{Percentage of Wealth in Domestically Owned Stock Market}=\left(\frac{\text{Domestic Market Capitalization}}{\text{Total Net Worth}}\right)\times 100$

Plugging in the values:

$\text{Percentage of Wealth in Domestically Owned Stock Market}=\left(\frac{27.6\text{ trillion}}{150\text{ trillion}}\right)\times 100\approx 18.4\mathrm{\%}$

Conclusion

The US stock market, when accounting for domestic ownership only, represents approximately 18-20% of the total wealth in the United States. This reflects the significant but not dominant role that domestic equity investments play in the overall wealth composition of the country.

I asked ChatGPT:

And if we then, after taking away what foreigners own, we take away what insurance companies, pension funds and similar funds own, how much does the US remaining stock market represent of all US’s wealth?

ChatGPT answered:

To determine the remaining portion of the US stock market owned by individual investors, we need to account for the shares owned by institutional investors like insurance companies, pension funds, and similar funds.

Institutional Ownership of US Stocks

Institutional investors, including insurance companies, pension funds, mutual funds, and other similar entities, own a substantial portion of the US stock market. Estimates suggest that institutional investors own around 70-80% of the US stock market, though this can vary.

For this calculation, let's assume that institutional investors own 75% of the domestically owned portion of the stock market.

Calculating Individual Ownership

First, we need to determine the portion of the stock market owned by individual (retail) investors after excluding foreign ownership and institutional ownership.

Total Domestic Market Capitalization

From the previous calculation: $\text{Domestic Market Capitalization}=27.6\text{ trillion}$

Institutional Ownership

$\text{Institutional Ownership}=\text{Domestic Market Capitalization}\times 0.75$ $\text{Institutional Ownership}=27.6\text{ trillion}\times 0.75=20.7\text{ trillion}$

Individual (Retail) Ownership

$\text{Retail Ownership}=\text{Domestic Market Capitalization}-\text{Institutional Ownership}$ $\text{Retail Ownership}=27.6\text{ trillion}-20.7\text{ trillion}=6.9\text{ trillion}$

Total US Wealth

The total net worth of US households and nonprofits is approximately $150 trillion.

Percentage Representation of Retail Stock Ownership

To estimate the percentage of US wealth represented by the portion of the stock market owned by individual investors:

$\text{Percentage of Wealth in Retail Owned Stock Market}=\left(\frac{\text{Retail Ownership}}{\text{Total Net Worth}}\right)\times 100$

Plugging in the values:

$\text{Percentage of Wealth in Retail Owned Stock Market}=\left(\frac{6.9\text{ trillion}}{150\text{ trillion}}\right)\times 100\approx 4.6\mathrm{\%}$

Conclusion

After accounting for foreign ownership and institutional ownership, the portion of the US stock market owned by individual (retail) investors represents approximately 4-5% of the total wealth in the United States. This highlights the relatively smaller but still significant role that individual stock ownership plays in the overall wealth composition of the country.

I asked ChatGPT:

Now, if those remaining very wealthy individuals, in order to raise the money to pay the “fair” tax some are demanding, had to sell e.g., the shares they own in the US stock market, who would they sell these to, and what would happen to the price of the remaining shares?

ChatGPT answered:

If the wealthiest individuals had to sell a significant portion of their shares in the US stock market to raise money for a new tax, it could have a substantial impact on the market, depending on several factors. Here’s a detailed analysis of the potential scenarios and effects:

Potential Buyers

1. Institutional Investors: Pension funds, mutual funds, insurance companies, and other institutional investors might absorb some of the shares, although their capacity and willingness to buy large quantities would depend on market conditions and regulatory constraints.
2. Retail Investors: Individual investors might also purchase some shares, though their collective buying power is typically less than that of institutional investors.
3. Foreign Investors: Investors from outside the US might be interested in buying shares, especially if they perceive them as undervalued due to the sell-off.

Market Impact

1. Supply and Demand Imbalance: A large-scale sell-off would increase the supply of shares in the market. If the demand doesn’t match this increase, it would likely lead to a decline in stock prices.
2. Market Liquidity: The market’s ability to absorb a large volume of shares without significantly affecting the price would be tested. High liquidity markets can handle larger transactions with less impact on prices.
3. Price Decline: A sudden and significant increase in the supply of shares would likely lead to a decrease in their prices. This decline would continue until new buyers are found or the selling pressure diminishes.
4. Market Volatility: Increased selling by wealthy individuals could lead to heightened market volatility as prices adjust to the new supply levels. This could create a feedback loop where declining prices prompt further selling.
5. Investor Sentiment: The perception that the wealthiest individuals are divesting could lead to broader concerns about market stability, potentially exacerbating the sell-off as other investors seek to protect their portfolios.

Long-Term Effects

1. Revaluation of Stocks: If a significant portion of shares changes hands at lower prices, it could lead to a broader revaluation of stock prices, impacting company valuations and market indices.
2. Economic Impact: A major decline in stock prices could affect consumer and business confidence, potentially slowing economic growth.
3. Regulatory Response: Regulators might intervene to stabilize markets, through measures such as temporary trading halts or changes in margin requirements.

Mitigating Factors

1. Staggered Selling: If the sales are staggered over a longer period, the impact on stock prices might be less severe as the market has more time to adjust.
2. Diversified Buyers: Increased participation from a diverse set of buyers (institutional, retail, and foreign) could help stabilize prices.
3. Government Intervention: The government might provide measures to support market stability, such as buying shares through sovereign wealth funds or implementing policies to encourage investment.

Conclusion

If the wealthiest individuals were to sell a significant portion of their shares to pay a new tax, the immediate effect would likely be a decline in stock prices due to the imbalance between supply and demand. The extent of the impact would depend on the scale of the sales, the market's liquidity, and the presence of potential buyers. Long-term effects could include a revaluation of stocks and broader economic implications. Market dynamics, regulatory responses, and the behavior of other investors would play crucial roles in determining the overall outcome.

Me:

I might come back on this but, meanwhile, many thanks!

ChatGPT:

You're welcome! Feel free to come back anytime if you have more questions or need further clarification. Have a great day!

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI - ChatGPT.

ChatGPT - OpenAI: Getting to know you!

Redistributing wealth is not as straightforward as redistribution profiteers want us to think.

I posted a thread with 8 tweets 

Louis XII could be the filthy rich who gave up main-street purchase power to commission Leonardo da Vinci to paint Salvator Mundi. 500 years later another filthy rich freezes $450 million of his own purchase capacity, hanging that painting on a wall. Bad or great? 

Why are just the "filthy rich", like Louis XII and the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi cursed? Why not Leonardo da Vinci, or the current vendor of Salvator Mundi? Could they‘ve not just as well used money they got from filthy rich for something “more worthwhile”?

Does it all boil down to that Louis XII should not have commissioned Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi and instead have bought food for the poor? I guess that would then depend on what the food suppliers did with that money, grow more food or drink more gin. Life isn’t easy

We can just pray that something of that main-street-purchasing-power comes into the hands of the few risk-taking entrepreneurs who, with luck, help catapult our world forward. Sadly, with risk weighted capital requirements for banks, regulators have made that less possible.

Yes, life isn’t easy. So let us all beware of all those redistribution profiteers out to make money or gain political power and who tell us “Let us just redistribute the wealth of the filthy rich, and you will all live in Nirvana. Venezuela, Nirvana? My …!!!

If Louis XX commissioned Leonardo da Vinci to paint Salvator Mundi, would it not make a beautiful novel to trace how that money flowed, perhaps to a Bill Gates, generating wealth so that someone could freeze $450 million on a wall, and keep the human development ball rolling? 

 

These ramblings about how the “filthy rich” convert their main-street-purchasing-power into assets and services, some that would never have existed without them started when seeing a totally useless shield in the Louvre in Paris.

Just in case, this is not a point blank defense of the “filthy rich”. It refers strictly to how their purchase power morphs into assets and services. Many “filthy rich” do become so in unjust and corrupt ways, quite often highly detrimental to development.

PS. A tweet: "A tax on wealth? Ok! But please, what assets should the wealthy sell to whom, in order to raise the money to pay it? And what would the buyers otherwise have done with the money they also must raise? And so on, and on, in the circle of the economy’s life."

PS. A tweet: "A conundrum. How to structure a tax on wealth without reducing the wealth that is taxed?"

PS. This of course does not mean that I am not in favor of reducing inequality. For that I strongly believe in the need for an unconditional universal basic income, a Societal Dividend

PS. When it comes to wealth, yachts are often depicted… but rarely do we see any interest in what those yacht-builders did with the money they received.

PS. Let’s hope taxpayers will not be surprised finding out they now have to pick up huge bills for maintaining some Russian oligarchs confiscated super yachts.

PS. Legend holds that when 1974’s Carnation Revolution’s, chief strategist Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho told Sweden’s Olof Palme in Lisbon: “In Portugal we want to get rid of the rich”, Palme replied, “how curious, in Sweden we only aspire to get rid of the poor”

Since you don’t eat gold-bars, just redistributing of wealth solves very little, or even nothing.

The Guardian writes: “An alarming projection produced by the House of Commons library suggests that if trends seen since the 2008 financial crash were to continue, then the top 1% will hold 64% of the world’s wealth by 2030… equating to $305tn” “Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030”, April 7, 2018.

How awfully unjust… but… how do you productively convert that wealth into the products or assets that could be useful for the 99%, without unexpected consequences or without most wealth just going to a 1%, or less, of some new filthy-rich wealthy?

How much value of that $305tn of wealth would just evaporate by the redistribution? And what would that do to the value of the then projected $152 wealth in the hands of 99%?

For instance what would happen to the price of a Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi”, in which, someone very wealthy, agreed to freeze $450 million of his main-street purchase capacity? How do you turn that wealth into something the poorer of the 99% need?

Where would the stock market value head?

Where would the interest rate, for instance on public debt go?

Where would the prices of houses head?

And if wealth gets too much distributed, who is going to demand that which only the really wealthy 1% can afford to demand, and which creates a lot of jobs that would otherwise not exist?

It is amazing how much discussions there are about the need to redistribute wealth without any consideration to what that redistribution would entail. Could that be because that is not in the interest of any redistribution or polarization profiteers?

As I see it there is much more to be gained by capturing more income before it has been converted into wealth assets. Just redistributing existing wealth is a one-shot unsustainable top-down approach.

Much better is a very modest starting Universal Basic Income where you little by little begin to build up a societal dividend that will keep the redistribution and polarization profiteers at bay. And that is of course why the latter hate UBI… as it eats into the value of their franchise.

And of course, in order to fund that UBI you must find sustainable sources of income…like on the advertising revenues of Facebook and alike… like a special tax on revenues generated under the protection of an intellectual property right… like a special tax on revenues generated by those benefiting from close to monopoly high market shares… like a tax on whatever causes pollution and otherwise threatens our pied-a-terre… and so on

Before going after the “filthy-rich”, it behooves us all to consider how they got their wealth and what they have done with it.

The plutocrats can have obtained their wealth in many forms ranging from highly licit and commendable ways that have even enriched many others, to odiously having used criminal means leaving many impoverished in their wake. But, once that wealth exists, what can the wealthy do with it?

They can invest their wealth in bonds and shares, which mean these assets, if well invested, will be productive.

They can freeze their purchasing power, by a sort of voluntary tax, on walls or in storage rooms, like for instance the $450 million Leonardo da Vinci “Salvator Mundi” (What those who got the $450 million fresh purchase power do with it, is what then becomes relevant to the economy) 

They can spend their wealth on things that no normal human being could spend on, which helps to create jobs than would otherwise not exist.

They can put some cash, on which they earn 0%, under the mattress... a couple of $100 bills?

They can engage in philanthropy, hopefully efficiently in worthy causes, otherwise that's a loss.

They can use their wealth to manipulate and exert undue influence.

That should primarily make us go after that wealth that has been obtained through illicit or immoral means; and that wealth that is used to manipulate and obtain more influence than what its owner should rightly have; and keep an eye out for useless and even bad philanthropy.

I argue all this because, when redistribution profiteers try to increase their franchise value by instigating envy and hate, it behooves the rest of us to make a clear distinction between the good and the bad among the astronomically wealthy; and to much better understand what has already been "redistributed" by the wealthy themselves, so as to avoid unexpected consequences.

What is absolutely certain though is that any redistribution of wealth will yield only a minuscule fraction of the benefits so loudly promised.

PS. There are though many market inefficiencies that allow wealth to be accumulated in legal and moral ways but that should anyhow be combated. This includes monopolies or excessive rent extraction from intellectual property rights.

“The wealth of 62 richest equals that of 3.6 billion poorest” That‘s a deviously false odiously divisive argument.

I come from Venezuela where I have seen a discourse full of hatred, carried out by those who want to profit financially or politically from promoting redistribution, destroy a country. I cannot sit back and see the Venezuelan tragedy reenacted on a global scale.

As always in all useful lies there are traces of truth. Of course the market value of the possessions of the 62 richest, especially after being inflated by means of fiscal deficits bailouts and QEs, could be similar to that of the market value of the possessions of the world’s 3.6 billion poorest. 

But, what does that mean when there is no way to liquidate the possessions of the rich in the market, so as to be able to transfer a similar amount of wealth to the poor. What on earth does a $25 million dollar penthouse in New York, which only some equally wealthy can buy, signify to the poor in terms of access to a better life?

And what's to be gained from the wealthy selling all their Picasso's and the Picasso's losing a lot of value? How do you morph a $200 million Picasso hanging on a wall of a wealthy into real purchasing power for the poor?

So if we are to analyze wealth inequality with intellectual honesty in any concrete applicable way, we should refer exclusively to the inequality that exists in transferable wealth. 

And, besides that, I swear that, in years of life lived, air breathed, water drunk, land trampled, food eaten, laughs and tears shed, those 3.6 billion poor posses at least a billion more times than those 62 most wealthy.

And this does not mean I do not commiserate with the poor of the world, and would not like them to have much more resources available in order to diminish their hardships. I do so very much, and that is precisely why I insist that what we must do, is to analyze what type of interventions help to generate the existing inequalities, and what blocks the opportunities for the poor to reach up. And on that route, one of the most important steps is keeping the redistribution profiteers at distance.

And this does not mean I am against redistribution. In fact before we are able to enable the opportunities that can lead to a sustainable betterment for the poor, I accept the need of redistribution, even if that is clearly less sustainable. But, that redistribution should take place in the most direct and cost effective way among citizens… again with the least interference possible by redistribution profiteers.

In my Venezuela that starts by sharing out its oil revenues directly to the citizens so as to avoid these falling into the hands of redistribution profiteers like Hugo Chávez.

And again, much more important for the poor than having wealth redistributed, is the generation of more wealth for them, which can only happen by enabling their access to opportunities. 

And in the enablement of opportunities there is much to do. For instance we must ask whether open-ended patents, no profit limits, stimulates or blocks more growth and human creativity. And we must stop that odious regulatory discrimination against “the risky’s” access to bank credit. This last really decrees inequality.

And for the health of our planet's sake...keep all those non-productive climate change profiteers out of the way. As I have often said, if the fight against climate change fall into the hands of something like our bank regulators...we're toast! If we really want to help on all fronts, let the fight against climate change go arm in arm with that of the fight inequality, by using Universal Basic Income.

Did poverty in the world decrease over the last decades because the world redistributed wealth, or embraced the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals), or because many (like China) allowed their citizens more opportunities to generate wealth?

"Panama Papers" Don't let redistribution agitation profiteers raise your expectations.

Legend holds it that when Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho, chief strategist of the 1974’s Carnation Revolution in Lisbon, told Sweden’s Olof Palme: “In Portugal we want to get rid of the rich”, Palme replied, “how curious, in Sweden we only aspire to get rid of the poor”

The myth of the unused wealth

Every day we read of some excessive wealth that has quite shamefully accumulated in some very few hands, and which should be redistributed for some good purpose that most often sounds very meritorious.

Unfortunately that wealth is not some magic unused wealth stored under a mattress, but something that represents value somewhere. 

If for instance part of that wealth is invested in public bonds that helped finance education in the wealthiest’ home lands, should these bonds be sold in order to finance education in the land of the poor?

Or should it finance education in poor lands before financing some green investments that could make planet earth more sustainable?

And for one wealthy to sell the Picasso he owns or a bar of gold to another wealthy does not really seem to be the source of a solution for getting rid of the inequalities either.

To phrase good intentions, without fully spelling out the full range of possible opportunity costs, and upfront suggesting squarely what should be cut, is irresponsible and does little to help to solve the great challenges the world faces.

On that we need to call out all those who make a career of creating false illusions among the needed… offering one big redistribution party but not saying a word about the morning after.

By the way, how can we redistribute wealth without redistributing powers and paying commissions to profiteering wealth-redistributors?

Let us avoid the merchants of poverty

I admire those who help the poor. Not so those who use the poor to help themselves.

Even though there has been a considerable reduction in the number of poor in the world (not necessarily sustainable), inequality, in terms of differences in income and wealth between the richest and the poorest has increased considerably during the last decades ... and that's not healthy, to say the least.

And accordingly, opportunistically, those who argue that everything is solved redistributing, meaning taking from the rich and giving it to the poor, now appear on the scene. How easy it would be if everything was just that easy. It is not. It is our duty to make sure that merchants of poverty, with their insidious sowing of envy and hatred, makes it even more difficult to help solve the poor’s already sufficient precarious situation.

The proposed solution is based on the illusion that it is possible to take away purchasing power from the rich and hand it over to the poor; and that the poor can then go with that purchasing power to the grocery store. False!

First, the rich have their wealth invested in assets, houses, stocks, paintings, yachts, etc. And so, to transform those assets into money, you have to sell them. To whom? Without wealthy buyers around, the sale would only translates into a reduction in the value of the assets ...resulting in a lower amount than estimated to be delivered to the poor. How does it help the poor that a Picasso valued at $50 million, is then only worth $1 million? 

Second, assuming you could sell the assets and give the money to the poor, will there be sufficient supply to satisfy the needs of the poor? No! The unexpected new demand will result in much inflation.

Does this mean that there is nothing to do? Not at all! What is clear is that instead of attacking the results of the inequitable distribution of income and wealth, we must concentrate on attacking its causes ... especially the artificial ones, those not based on the natural reality that we are not all equal.

What are these artificial causes? Each economy has them, in different degrees, but their most frequent common denominator is state interference. Licenses leading to monopolies (intellectual property rights?), foreign exchange controls, transparent and non-transparent subsidies, corruption, discriminatory regulations, etc. For example, in Venezuela, how much more could you have benefited the poorest if the government had not insisted on giving away gasoline at US$ 4 cents a liter... or selling foreign exchange cheaply to those vacationing abroad?

A seemingly easy way out like re-distribution, is simply not enough, nor is it sustainable, and it is the poor who most need to know that. It cannot be that the final result of the redistribution of wealth and income in Venezuela would be to concentrate even more income and wealth in the hands of our Boligarchs of turn… whatever political color they wear. 

But Kurowski! Have you not for years insisted in distributing all of Venezuela´s net oil revenues to the citizens­? Yes! But with that, much more than a redistribution of purchasing power, I mean the redistribution of powers and opportunities... from petrocrats to citizens.

And if the rich want to help, welcome, but perhaps they better deliver that help directly to the poor, instead of going through the politicians who so often are only acting as the merchants of poverty.

In other countries, where for the .01% plutocrats what the 99% holds seems not to suffice they are now looking for the other 0.99 %. Tax the wealth and, at the end of the day, without further changes, most of it will come back to fewer and fewer Plutocrats.

Translated from El Universal, Caracas Note: You will not find the link. I was censored in my homeland Venezuela 

PS. Legend holds it that when Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho, chief strategist of the 1974’s Carnation Revolution in Lisbon, told Sweden’s Olof Palme: “In Portugal we want to get rid of the rich”, Palme replied, “how curious, in Sweden we only aspire to get rid of the poor” 

Below some follow ups on the theme

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-does-it-matter-whether-picasso.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/10/i-tweeted-how-do-you-morph-200-million.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-wealth-of-62-richest-equals-that-of.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-myth-of-unused-wealth.html

Universal Basic Income: The way to free us from the redistribution profiteers.

Taxing Wealth 101

Thomas Piketty. Would you tax wealth if this only benefited even more some few oligarchs?

We begin to hear proposals about taxing wealth, like that presented by Thomas Piketty in “Capital in the Twenty First Century”

Taxing wealth might reduce the fever of inequality, but it does not attack its causes. In fact, forcing the sale of assets, which is where wealth is stored, in order to increase the consumption of the less well off, might direction the funds away from those who have earned their wealth naturally, to those who earn it thanks to market imperfections, or to outright crony capitalism. An in such a way it could undermine even more the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based, something that Piketty himself would seem to abhor.

In other words, if in Russia, would you tax wealth if that benefited the oligarchs?

I believe it would be better to concentrate on what is causing unjust artificial inequality and in this respect I could mention the following possibilities.

Like to eliminate the concept of risk weighted capital requirements for banks which channels bank credit away from “the risky”, in much a proxy for the poor, to “the infallible”, in much a proxy for the wealthy.

Like to increase the tax on all those profits which have originated under the protection of intellectual property rights. There is no reason for these to be taxed at the same rate as profits obtained from competing naked in the markets.

Finally, let´s give it a thought to what would have happened to all that unequally accumulated wealth, had not TARP and Quantitative Easing come to its rescue.

Just the fact that, except for religious considerations, when in the grave, we’re all equal, and the Gini coefficient is zero, should not mean we should hurry to get there... I think.