|
|
|
|
|
|
by gruez
105 days ago
|
|
|
>The book’s real contribution was less the theoretical claim (which economists had gestured at before) and more the empirical work. Empirical work... like conveniently ignoring the fact that there's far less old money billionaires than we'd expect? >For these lucky people, the experience of the Vanderbilts and their contemporaries offers a cautionary tale. At the turn of the 20th century, America’s census recorded about 4,000 millionaires, note Victor Haghani and James White, two wealth managers, in their book, “The Missing Billionaires”. Suppose a quarter of them had at least $5m (the richest had hundreds) and had invested it in America’s stockmarket. Had they then procreated at the average rate, paid their taxes and spent 2% of their capital each year, their descendants today would include nearly 16,000 old-money billionaires. In reality, it is a struggle to find a single one who traces their fortune back to the first Gilded Age. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/06/12/h... |
|
|
This is a good point because there are no oil billionaires and things like trusts, family offices, offshoring etc. actually pose no challenge to accurately numerating and identifying people that ‘have’ or effectively control over a billion dollars at their discretion because they all just sign up for the list.
Of course there’s the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers but that doesn