Since wealth does not "concentrate" in a market economy, I wonder what else Picketty got wrong. (Using the word "concentrate" implies a transfer of wealth. Wealth is created, not transferred.)

▲

sfifs 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Picketty's analysis has been empirical. The assumption that is likely mistaken is there is such a thing as market economy.

▲

intended an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then you are using terms in a manner that is effective for semantic victory, but not the spirit of actual discussion the other users are engaging in.

	▲	WalterBright an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Marxist viewpoints are a trap, as its basic tenets are simply wrong.

▲

salawat an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

...You are using "wealth" in a way completely foreign to how I have ever seen it used linguistically. The abundance of resources available to an individual that we call "wealth" colloquially being transferable or tradable is basically the hallmark of a market economy. It can absolutely concentrate within one, because if it can be traded, it can absolutely be not traded decreasing the velocity of that value transfer to zero. So... Yes. If only one or a handful of people are buying, because everyone else is having to sell to stay alive, then wealth does, in fact, concentrate.

	▲	WalterBright 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Again, wealth is created, not "concentrated". The term "wealth" means the dollars you would get if you sold everything. > wealth does, in fact, concentrate Nope, because the people trading with you thought the exchange was of equal value, or they wouldn't have engaged in it.