It definitely takes a bias toward "wealth accumulation is good" to present the following as good news:
> "The reason the percentage of heirs has decreased is not that fewer people are inheriting great fortunes, but that more people are making them."
It's likely that many of the inheritances of 1982 were the echo of the corrupt and monopolistic industrialism in the 19th century. Is it a bad thing that the great individual fortunes that were built a century earlier couldn't be amassed in the 20th? Have we returned to a 19th-century environment now, with technology taking the place of railroads and telegraphs? On that note...
> "the major sectors of the economy were either organized as government-backed cartels or dominated by a few oligopolistic corporations."
Unless I see a FAANG company go out of business, soon, and as abruptly as it appeared, I'm inclined to think we're entering a new oligopolistic era. Just because these companies were recently startups doesn't mean they aren't entrenched now.
(As an aside regarding the wealth tax, that actually would have worked to reduce the number of heirs at the top of the list in 1982 had it been enacted some time earlier.)
--"I'm inclined to think we're entering a new oligopolistic era. Just because these companies were recently start-ups doesn't mean they aren't entrenched"
Your comment is on start to end, just to add, these "companies", are nothing more then dystopian mirrors to the public, their fronts(all individuals in the public eye, greatest example of a nobody(Leon Musk)) are just second rate actors. The virtualization of "finance", it's moral justification, nothing more is at stake.
Real power, ...dwells in the shadows. This goes from the White House, to Hollywood, over Silicon Valley to Mar o Lago in the Swamp State.
The measure of a dollar between a billionaire, and a homeless dweller as to the price of a loaf of bread is meaningless. What counts is the grab for the hard assets, power, control, that probably starts at multiple billions. A second measure of any meaning is the time line power and influence can be stretched. A professional politician is seriously handicapped there, hence the proof of the above as to what is "wealth".
> "The reason the percentage of heirs has decreased is not that fewer people are inheriting great fortunes, but that more people are making them."
It's likely that many of the inheritances of 1982 were the echo of the corrupt and monopolistic industrialism in the 19th century. Is it a bad thing that the great individual fortunes that were built a century earlier couldn't be amassed in the 20th? Have we returned to a 19th-century environment now, with technology taking the place of railroads and telegraphs? On that note...
> "the major sectors of the economy were either organized as government-backed cartels or dominated by a few oligopolistic corporations."
Unless I see a FAANG company go out of business, soon, and as abruptly as it appeared, I'm inclined to think we're entering a new oligopolistic era. Just because these companies were recently startups doesn't mean they aren't entrenched now.
(As an aside regarding the wealth tax, that actually would have worked to reduce the number of heirs at the top of the list in 1982 had it been enacted some time earlier.)