USUALLY I AGREE WITH TALEB (But his suggestion that extreme wealth is analogous

USUALLY I AGREE WITH TALEB

(But his suggestion that extreme wealth is analogous to overdoes, well, doesn’t sit well with me.)

Small problem of measurement on the one hand and acting upon it on the other. Wealth sufficient to circumvent the market or to seek rents, then yes, but otherwise I see no measurement that has meaning. If an individual possessed 80% of the wealth of an economy, if it is employed in the market, not used as credit sufficient to create monopolies, and politically free of rents then it is for all intents and purposes in circulation, and his behavior manageable under the common law. I am pretty sure I can answer all objections. But not in a comment. Wealth is inly a problem if the government lags or impedes the evolution of tactics in an economy. The common law, unlike a government, is not impeded from evolution at the rate of the market.

As far as I know, representational, majority rule government is the problem blocking evolution under common law. I cant see much evidence of durable families in the economy that are not the product of economic rents on the distribution if liquidity through the financial markets instead of through consumers.

Government is and remains the problem, not wealth. That is the best answer I can manage, and as far as I know thats the state of knowledge if our art if political economy.