Money ownership didn't change when money management switched to family offices. So distribution of wealth hasn't changed. How did family offices create inequality?
Re:How the 0.001% invest
by paulsutter on Monday December 17, 2018 @12:26PM
(#18700391)
Yes but the family office didn’t cause the inequality, the inequality caused the family office.
Re:How the 0.001% invest
by whatshisface on Monday December 17, 2018 @12:30PM
(#18700427)
I think the author is suggesting that society would be better if rich people were to end up so mired in the principal-agent problem that they ended up with no more influence on the market than the average person. Of course, this appears to overlook the fact that if you don't like it when people accumulate power, then you actually want corporate executives to be beholden to an active stock market.
Re:How the 0.001% invest
by the_watcher on Monday December 17, 2018 @01:10PM
(#18700731)
The point is that whether or not a super rich person has that money in a family office or not, the inequality is the same
Inequality is a mathematical statement about the distribution of wealth. It has nothing to do with risk or fairness or "rewards". If you accumulate wealth in one place, then you very directly create inequality. That's exactly what inequality is. By definition.