This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client. References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. The Compound Media, Inc., an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers Please see disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/blog-disclosures/
Wow, I guess so! But then again — “There’s no doubt that taxes loom large in the mind of billionaires,” says Michael Spellacy, Global Wealth Leader at PwC.”
Those darn taxes looming large again!!! Who will think of the great-great-grandchildren of today’s hedge fund managers?????
The other remark about the “gilded age ending in tears” somehow didn’t exactly tug at my heartstrings too much….
That has to be one of the worst pieces of writing I’ve encountered since Atlas Shrugged, and every bit as distorted. Is that a new publication being funded by John Mauldin?
Look, when one’s argument is predicated on “self-made” success, you know you’ve entered the realm of fiction. Even more of a red flag is basing that self-made predicate on self-reported data! Wait, you mean people might INFLATE their own agency and importance? Impossible, my dear Watson.
Equally lazy is the conclusion the author arrived at which asserts generational wealth necessarily dilutes, and does so at a formulaic assumption of approximately “=SUM(wealth/2)*generation”. I know this is an imprecise formula, but you get my drift.
Perhaps the headline is the content; i.e., hoi palloi are trying to steal what plutocrats have rightfully earned?
But, agreed, the chart appears to have nothing to do with much of anything including the headline. Can’t think of any argument it might support that wouldn’t be hopelessly vulgar — assuming wealth equivalent to virtue or an innate right for example — or largely spurious; e.g., turning a billion dollar inheritance into two billion dollars is less a matter of ‘entrepreneurship’ than it is avoiding stupid mistakes and compounding.
To turn $100 into $110 is work. To turn $100 million into $110 million is inevitable. –Edgar Bronfman, Sr.
Driven by “entrepreneurial wealth creation?” Really? Then look at the graph and explain what happened 1998-2001, and 2007-2010? Did the entrepreneurs stopped entrepreneuring? Or it’s just that “the market” repriced the values of “eyeballs”, “page clicks”, “likes” etc?
The whole thing more than anything is driven by cheap money and the liquidity from central banks. Paraphrasing Buffett, eventually we will see how many of entrepreneurs have been swimming naked. I think the “entrepreneurs” will be affected a lot more severely than the conservatively invested and stashed away multi-generational wealth.
Very rarely is it the case that subsequent generations build fortunes the way that the first generation did.
There is a decent argument that inherited wealth saps the will and creativity of the recipients, which may be one of the things that Buffett and Gates are pitching to their fellow billionaires to get them to sign up for giving away the farm when they dies, leaving relatively modest amounts for their heirs.
When you get up in the morning to receive a check from a financial machine that some ancestor has built, there is not a lot that can motivate one to take risks and work hard to expand the family franchise … safer to just cash the checks and live VERY nice lives.
Wow, I guess so! But then again — “There’s no doubt that taxes loom large in the mind of billionaires,” says Michael Spellacy, Global Wealth Leader at PwC.”
Those darn taxes looming large again!!! Who will think of the great-great-grandchildren of today’s hedge fund managers?????
The other remark about the “gilded age ending in tears” somehow didn’t exactly tug at my heartstrings too much….
“…there are many reasons why wealth does not survive multiple generations, perhaps the most fundamental one is that wealth dilutes over time…”
A siege from within. A Fifth Column. Brats.
That has to be one of the worst pieces of writing I’ve encountered since Atlas Shrugged, and every bit as distorted. Is that a new publication being funded by John Mauldin?
Look, when one’s argument is predicated on “self-made” success, you know you’ve entered the realm of fiction. Even more of a red flag is basing that self-made predicate on self-reported data! Wait, you mean people might INFLATE their own agency and importance? Impossible, my dear Watson.
Equally lazy is the conclusion the author arrived at which asserts generational wealth necessarily dilutes, and does so at a formulaic assumption of approximately “=SUM(wealth/2)*generation”. I know this is an imprecise formula, but you get my drift.
Perhaps the headline is the content; i.e., hoi palloi are trying to steal what plutocrats have rightfully earned?
But, agreed, the chart appears to have nothing to do with much of anything including the headline. Can’t think of any argument it might support that wouldn’t be hopelessly vulgar — assuming wealth equivalent to virtue or an innate right for example — or largely spurious; e.g., turning a billion dollar inheritance into two billion dollars is less a matter of ‘entrepreneurship’ than it is avoiding stupid mistakes and compounding.
To turn $100 into $110 is work. To turn $100 million into $110 million is inevitable. –Edgar Bronfman, Sr.
so maybe we dont want to become England, where the wealthy have all the money?
Are you sure it’s not too late for that?
Driven by “entrepreneurial wealth creation?” Really? Then look at the graph and explain what happened 1998-2001, and 2007-2010? Did the entrepreneurs stopped entrepreneuring? Or it’s just that “the market” repriced the values of “eyeballs”, “page clicks”, “likes” etc?
The whole thing more than anything is driven by cheap money and the liquidity from central banks. Paraphrasing Buffett, eventually we will see how many of entrepreneurs have been swimming naked. I think the “entrepreneurs” will be affected a lot more severely than the conservatively invested and stashed away multi-generational wealth.
Very rarely is it the case that subsequent generations build fortunes the way that the first generation did.
There is a decent argument that inherited wealth saps the will and creativity of the recipients, which may be one of the things that Buffett and Gates are pitching to their fellow billionaires to get them to sign up for giving away the farm when they dies, leaving relatively modest amounts for their heirs.
When you get up in the morning to receive a check from a financial machine that some ancestor has built, there is not a lot that can motivate one to take risks and work hard to expand the family franchise … safer to just cash the checks and live VERY nice lives.
Billionaires to the battlements?
They hire mercenaries for that. Usually lawyers, CPAs, and lobbyists but occasionally guys with actual guns.
Bear_in_mind – Atlas Shrugged has sold 8 million plus copies since inception.
How many copies has your book(s) sold ?
AD
Hitler’s Mein Kampf sold 10 million copies in Germany alone prior to 1946; Karl Marx Das Kapital sold even more.
Whats your point?
Bandwagon logical fallacy proffered by alexanderdelarge. Tsk tsk.