Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 384
  • Primary focus 161
Showing 161 database articles primarily about Inequality
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Inequality
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,315 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Inequality):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

Deirdre McCloskey on why Jeff Bezos and billionaires, even superbillionaires, should exist

AI Summary. The author argues that billionaire fortunes are justified because the extraordinary profits earned by successful ventures signal which activities should be expanded and encourage others to imitate them. Allowing large wealth accumulation is argued to incentivize entrepreneurial risk-taking in a landscape where most ideas fail.

James Pethokoukis American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
March 9, 2020
Is Database:
Database

Billionaires like Jeff Bezos are justified by their impact on market dynamics & innovation, as their wealth signals successful ventures that others should emulate.

Billionaires like Jeff Bezos are justified by their impact on market dynamics & innovation, as their wealth signals...

Do billionaire fortunes signal which activities should expand and encourage imitation?

Core argument: Deirdre McCloskey argues that billionaires such as Jeff Bezos should exist because their wealth signals which ventures have succeeded and which activities others should emulate and expand.

Billionaires like Jeff Bezos are justified by their impact on market dynamics and innovation, as their wealth signals successful ventures that others should emulate. The market's quasi-rents indicate activities that should be expanded, as seen in Bezos' transition from books to a global marketplace. This wealth serves as a beacon for entrepreneurial risk-taking, crucial in a landscape where most ideas fail. While critics argue the marginal utility of the last $1 is low, McCloskey emphasizes the broader economic incentives created by billionaires, which drive growth and innovation. Bezos' journey underscores the importance of allowing wealth accumulation to foster ambitious projects that might otherwise be stifled by wealth caps. The existence of billionaires thus incentivizes others to pursue groundbreaking paths, contributing to overall economic prosperity and innovation.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Deirdre McCloskey argues that billionaires such as Jeff Bezos should exist because their wealth signals which ventures have succeeded and which activities others should emulate and expand.
  2. McCloskey holds that market quasi-rents identify activities worth expanding, citing Bezos' move from selling books to operating a global marketplace.
  3. Against critics who note the low marginal utility of a billionaire's last $1, McCloskey emphasizes that large fortunes incentivize entrepreneurial risk-taking in a landscape where most ideas fail, and that wealth caps would stifle ambitious projects.

Justification for billionaires"...it is the effect on others that matters, and on their incentives to follow a path marked out by Bezos (or Edison or Ford) that justifies his billions. The market is saying, “Do more of this, for Lord’s sake!"..."

McCloskey’s perspective is especially apt at a time when so many politicians and pundits are sending the message, “Do less of that!”

In other words, it is the effect on others that matters, and on their incentives to follow a path marked out by Bezos (or Edison or Ford) that justifies his billions. The market is saying, “Do more of this, for Lord’s sake!”

Nice piece. I’d add this: Large “quasi-rents,” as economists call them, are signals from the market (which is to say, from people, the suppliers and demanders) that the activity should be imitated (as Bezos’ has been) and expanded (as Bezos did, books to everything). Your piece stresses only the incentive effects of his high income available for consumption, and on Bezos himself. Certainly there is something in it, as you argue, in the face of the great uncertainty of enterprise: most ideas fail.

But to emphasize the incentives in consumption is to fall into the rhetoric of the left, which notes correctly the low incentive effects of the last $1 out of billions, believes incorrectly that the price system has no function but as a tax by the bosses on the rest of us, and is enviously indignant about levels of luxury (no matter if Warren Buffett still lives in a modest house).

James Pethokoukis, "Deirdre McCloskey on why Jeff Bezos and billionaires, even superbillionaires, should exist," American Enterprise Institute, March 5, 2020, https://www.aei.org/economics/deirdre-mccloskey-on-why-jeff-bezos-and-billionaires-even-superbillionaires-should-exist/

Deirdre McCloskey on why Jeff Bezos and billionaires, even superbillionaires, should exist

Would Jeff Bezos have started Amazon even if he could have become only as rich as Bernie Sanders? That is, a modest millionaire rather than a superbillionaire? Doubtful, I wrote in a recent blog post. Bezos had a great job and fantastic future earning potential when he left it all to start Amazon. The journey to massive entrepreneurial success was a hard slog that could have easily failed — and plenty of smart people were sure it would. Indeed, Amazon’s greatest success came after Bezos was already a billionaire. We can all be glad he didn’t quit because there was a maximum limit on wealth back in 1999.

But there’s more to it than that, according to economist Deirdre McCloskey, author of the Bourgeois trilogy on how the modern world got rich and, most recently, Why Liberalism Works: How True Liberal Values Produce a Freer, More Equal, Prosperous World for All. (And here’s my interview with her about that latter book.) After reading my post, McCloskey sent me the following generous and insightful email:

  • Inequality
  • Productivity
    • Incentives/Risk-Taking
  • Workforce
    • Wages/Income
Previous articleMarch 3, 2020National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997Analysis of hourly male wages reveals significant disparities based on race & cognitive test scores, with higher ASVAB scores associated with higher wages across racial groups.Next articleMarch 9, 2020New book on American dream suggests wage increases correlated with internet adoptionReal wages for regular workers have increased by one-third over the past 30 years, coinciding with the rise of the internet and digitization of the economy. @RoslynLayton, American Enterprise Institute.
Showing 160 database articles primarily about Inequality

A College-by-College Guide to Which Majors Pay Off — or Don’t

AI Summary. An analysis of federal aid recipients' tax-reported earnings finds the highest-earning bachelor's programs are concentrated at highly selective schools and in computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering. Nursing programs at several California schools produce graduates earning around $150,000 annually, placing them in the top 100 of nearly 25,000 programs analyzed.

Arfa Momin and Ron Lieber New York Times
Date Posted:
October 8, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

A HEA Group analysis of the earnings of 2018 and 2019 college graduates four years after graduation finds earnings are widely dispersed across schools in higher-earning fields such as computer science and economics and have a narrow dispersion in lower-earning fields such as English and drama.

Which college majors and schools produce the highest-earning graduates?

Core argument: HEA Group’s analysis of nearly 25,000 bachelor’s programs found computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering majors top the earnings list, with graduates of highly rejective schools including the Ivies, M.I.T., Stanford and U.C.L.A. dominating.

HEA Group tracked students who received federal financial aid and graduated during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 periods. The top of the earnings list is dominated by graduates of highly rejective schools — the Ivies and others, like M.I.T., Stanford and U.C.L.A. The majors that top the list are computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering. The income data come from whatever people reported on their federal tax returns. That means certain stock awards and other potential deferred compensation aren’t part of the totals. Nursing programs at a handful of California schools, including California State University, East Bay; San Francisco State University; and Samuel Merritt University, produce graduates earning around $150,000 annually, putting them in the top 100 out of the nearly 25,000 bachelor’s programs the HEA Group analyzed nationwide. They stick out amid quantitative and science majors from institutions like the California Institute of Technology and Cornell.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. HEA Group’s analysis of nearly 25,000 bachelor’s programs found computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering majors top the earnings list, with graduates of highly rejective schools including the Ivies, M.I.T., Stanford and U.C.L.A. dominating.
  2. Nursing graduates of California State University, East Bay; San Francisco State University; and Samuel Merritt University earn around $150,000 annually, placing those programs in the top 100 amid quantitative and science majors from institutions like the California Institute of Technology and Cornell.
  3. HEA Group tracked federal financial aid recipients who graduated during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 periods, using income reported on federal tax returns, which excludes certain stock awards and other potential deferred compensation.

Related Articles:

  • Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World? — An international assessment of adult skills describes numeracy proficiency levels ranging from counting objects and adding small whole numbers at the lowest level, to extracting information from tables and graphs and performing basic arithmetic with money and percentages at Level 1, up to analysing complex mathematical information and critically evaluating whether data support a claim at Level 5.
  • Have Humans Passed Peak Brain Power? — The share of Americans reporting they read a book in the past year has fallen below half, alongside declining performance in numeracy and problem-solving in most countries. The share of adults unable to use mathematical reasoning to evaluate the validity of statements averages 25% in high-income countries and 35% in the US.
  • Standardized Test Scores and Academic Performance at a Public University System — A study of a large public urban university system finds that high school grade point average is a far stronger predictor of student academic success than SAT scores, contrasting with analyses of highly selective colleges that found the SAT superior. Under-represented minority students were less likely to graduate within six years at every grade point average level.
  • Inequality
  • Workforce
    • Education
      • College
      • Test Scores
    • Wages/Income

To Have and Have Not: The Determinants of Social Status in England, 1600-2026

AI Summary. Analysis of English genealogical records and marriage registries estimates that the underlying correlation in social status across generations is close to 0.8, with status correlation detectable even among relatives nine generations apart. The authors find this persistence unchanged over four centuries, concluding that policies aimed at raising social mobility have not altered it.

Gregory Clark Southern Denmark University
Date Posted:
October 6, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Clark estimates that the intergenerational correlation of relative socioeconomic status in England remained ~0.8 btw 1600 and 2026. The pattern of correlations across near and distant relatives fits a model of genetic inheritance with strong assortative mating.

How persistent is social status across generations in England?

Core argument: Drawing on a genealogical database of 436,185 English people spanning 1600–2026 and records of about 1.7 million English marriages from 1837–2022, the authors estimate the underlying intergenerational correlation in social status at close to 0.8, higher than conventional measures indicate.

A large genealogical database of [436,185] English people 1600-2026, as well as detailed records of [~1.7mn marriages] in England 1837-2022, [reveals] social status is much more persistent across generations than conventionally measured. The [inferred] underlying correlation in status across generations is close to 0.8, implying that even relatives as distant as nine generations apart still show correlation in social status. [Ratios of correlations among siblings, parents, aunts/uncles and cousins cancel common measurement-error attenuation: raw parent-child correlations average .39, versus .77 for inferred underlying persistence. Independently, surnames selected as elite by 1858-87 wealth yield a per-generation status persistent coefficient of b=.82 for occupational status and .80 for house value]. The strength of status persistence remains unchanged 1600-2026.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Drawing on a genealogical database of 436,185 English people spanning 1600–2026 and records of about 1.7 million English marriages from 1837–2022, the authors estimate the underlying intergenerational correlation in social status at close to 0.8, higher than conventional measures indicate.
  2. The estimated correlation in social status implies that relatives as distant as nine generations apart still show correlated status, with the strength of persistence unchanged from 1600 to 2026.
  3. The authors argue that the Industrial Revolution, the Demographic Transition, the emancipation of women, universal voting, and the modern welfare state have not increased English social mobility rates, and that resources poured into raising mobility have achieved nothing.

Related Articles:

  • The Inheritance Of Social Status: England, 1600 to 2022 — Using a genealogical database of 422,374 English people with rarer surnames, the authors find social status persists strongly even among distant relatives, with status correlations declining by a constant factor of 0.79 per step in the lineage across all status measures and eras studied. The authors argue this constancy suggests social interventions have modest effects.
  • The Myth of Nordic Mobility: Social Mobility Rates in Modern Denmark and Sweden — Correcting for measurement error by using relative rather than absolute correlations among relatives, the authors estimate that educational intergenerational mobility in Denmark and Sweden is much lower than conventionally measured, with parent-child and sibling correlations much higher. They argue Nordic education spending and income compression have at best modestly reduced families' role in children's educational outcomes.
  • For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls: A Lineage of 400,000 English Individuals 1750-2020 Shows Genetics Determines Most Social Outcomes — A study of 402,000 English individuals across 1750–2020 estimates an intergenerational occupational status correlation of 0.88 and a genetic correlation between spouses of 0.76, which the authors interpret as a strong genetic basis for the persistence of social status. The authors argue that highly assortative mating around status genetics limits what policy can do to raise social mobility.
  • Inequality
  • Politics
  • Workforce

Heritability and Social Interaction in Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence from the Population of Twins in the United States

AI Summary. The authors estimate the heritability of labor market outcomes by comparing the excess similarity of same-sex over opposite-sex twins with the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings. They caution that social interaction between twins, assortative mating, genetic dominance, population stratification, or indirect parental effects can bias such estimates upward or make them reflect non-genetic influences.

David Card, Jesse Rothstein and Moises Yi National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
September 16, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Analysis of 44,500 twin pairs suggests ~one-third of the variation in log earnings is due to genetic differences – likely an upper bound, because same-sex twins may influence one another and share more similar environments than ordinary same-sex siblings.

How reliable are twin-based estimates of heritability in earnings?

Core argument: The authors identify heritability of U.S. labor market outcomes from a difference-in-differences comparing same-sex versus opposite-sex twins against the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings, adjusting for the estimated share of same-sex twins who are identical.

Our model identifies heritability from the difference-in-differences of same-sex vs. opposite-sex twins vs. siblings. [Specifically], the model attributes to genetic differences the excess similarity of same-sex over opposite-sex twins over and above the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings, adjusting for the estimated share of same-sex twins who are identical. The ordinary-sibling comparison is intended to remove family influences that differ between sons and daughters. Social interactions may lead to an over-estimate of the genetic component in earnings. The estimated heritability of outcomes may be biased in the presence of assortative mating, genetic dominance, population stratification, or violations of the assumption that the home environment is shared to the same degree for MZ as for DZ twins. Even when estimated without bias, heritability need not indicate direct genetic effects – it also may reflect indirect or cultural effects (e.g., effects of the parents’ genes on a child’s outcomes, not operating through the child’s own genes. Twins may [also] influence each other directly – for example in their choice of jobs -- inflating the correlation in their outcomes.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The authors identify heritability of U.S. labor market outcomes from a difference-in-differences comparing same-sex versus opposite-sex twins against the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings, adjusting for the estimated share of same-sex twins who are identical.
  2. Social interactions between twins, such as influencing each other’s job choices, may inflate the correlation in their outcomes and lead to an over-estimate of the genetic component in earnings.
  3. Estimated heritability may be biased by assortative mating, genetic dominance, population stratification, or unequal sharing of the home environment between identical and fraternal twins, and even unbiased estimates may reflect indirect or cultural effects such as parents’ genes.

Related Articles:

  • IQ Differences of Identical Twins Reared Apart Are Significantly Influenced by Educational Differences — An analysis of 87 identical-twin pairs raised apart with individual IQ and biographical data finds that pairs with similar schooling had an average IQ gap of 5.8 points and a correlation of 0.87, while educationally dissimilar pairs averaged a 12.8-point gap and a 0.75 correlation.
  • The Inheritance Of Social Status: England, 1600 to 2022 — Using a genealogical database of 422,374 English people with rarer surnames, the authors find social status persists strongly even among distant relatives, with status correlations declining by a constant factor of 0.79 per step in the lineage across all status measures and eras studied. The authors argue this constancy suggests social interventions have modest effects.
  • A Chip Off the Old Block? Genetics and the Intergenerational Transmission of Socioeconomic Status — Linking Dutch genetic data to tax records, the authors estimate that moving a person 10 percentiles higher in a genetic index raises their own income by 0.9 percentiles and their child's by 0.7 percentiles. They attribute about 50% of this to transmitted genes and the rest to environmental pathways.
  • Inequality
  • Workforce
    • Wages/Income

Recent Trends in Personal Income & Wage Inequality

AI Summary. In New York City, income shares at the top of the distribution rose faster than nationally, with nearly two-thirds of real income growth accruing to the top 1% versus under 40% nationally, a divergence driven predominantly by non-wage income. Real median income fell, and real average income for the bottom 90% was essentially flat.

Jonathan Siegel and Jason Bram Office of the New York City Comptroller
Date Posted:
September 8, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Btw 2019 and 2024, pre-tax, pre-transfer real median income in New York City fell 3.2%. The top .1% tax units, ~ households, (mean income ~$24mm) saw real growth of ~25%, whereas the bottom 90% (mean income ~$45,000) fell 0.8%.

Is rising income concentration in a major city driven by non-wage income?

Core argument: Nearly two-thirds of New York City's real income growth between 2019 and 2024 accrued to the top 1%, compared with under 40% nationally, a result that holds when volatile capital gains are excluded.

Between 2019 and 2024, the New York City’s income shares at the top of the distribution rose faster than the nation's, and nearly two-thirds of the real income growth over the period accrued to the top 1%, compared with under 40% nationally. The result also holds when volatile capital gains are excluded. Real median income fell over the period, and real average income for the bottom 90% of tax units was essentially flat. Adjusted for local prices (but not for transfer programs), the purchasing power of income for the lower 90% of New Yorkers is close to one-fifth below that of the bottom 90% nationally. The divergence at the top is predominantly a story of non-wage income. Wage and salary income shows a much milder widening, and occupational wage data that exclude bonuses show base pay growing faster in lower-wage occupations than in higher-wage ones, and within many occupational groups wages are converging rather than growing more unequal.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Nearly two-thirds of New York City's real income growth between 2019 and 2024 accrued to the top 1%, compared with under 40% nationally, a result that holds when volatile capital gains are excluded.
  2. Real median income in New York City fell between 2019 and 2024 and real average income for the bottom 90% of tax units was essentially flat, with local-price-adjusted purchasing power for the lower 90% of New Yorkers close to one-fifth below that of the bottom 90% nationally.
  3. The divergence at the top of New York City's distribution is predominantly a story of non-wage income, with wage and salary income widening much more mildly and occupational wage data excluding bonuses showing base pay growing faster in lower-wage occupations than higher-wage ones.

Related Articles:

  • As New Jobs In Finance Dry Up, New York City’s Fiscal Model Is Wilting — New York state's share of US taxpayers reporting over $1m in income fell from 12.7% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2022, and the Citizens Budget Commission estimates state and city income tax receipts from that group would have been $13bn higher had the share held. Job growth has concentrated in lower-paid health care and social assistance.
  • Where is Standard of Living the Highest? Local Prices and the Geography of Consumption — The authors estimate that geographical differences in cost of living are especially large for low-income US households, and that expensive cities offer college graduates a standard of living similar to affordable cities while offering less-educated households a lower one. A high school dropout household moving from the most affordable to the most expensive commuting zone would see consumption fall 18.5%.
  • The Demographic Trends That Shaped Mamdani’s Win — In New York City's mayoral race, Mamdani's average margin was 30 points in precincts with a median age under 45, and voters under 45 made up 43% of in-person ballots versus 36% in the prior governor's race. He won by over 50 points in neighborhoods where the white population share grew and the Black or Hispanic share declined.
  • Inequality
  • Politics
  • Workforce
    • Wages/Income

US Corporate Profits Surge To Record As Worker Payouts Wilt

AI Summary. US pre-tax corporate profits reached an annualised $4.8tn, or 18% of national income, the highest share since the aftermath of World War II, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Employees' share from wages and benefits fell to 60%, the lowest since the 1950s, with the decline gaining pace in recent years.

Myles McCormick Financial Times
Date Posted:
August 28, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Corporate profits have risen to 18% of national income, their highest share since 1947, while labor’s share has fallen to 60%, a low not seen since the 1950s. The decline in labor’s share has accelerated over the past year.

Are corporate profits taking a record share of national income from workers?

Core argument: US pre-tax corporate profits reached an annualised $4.8tn in the second quarter, or 18% of national income, the highest share since the aftermath of the second world war, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

Pre-tax earnings hit an annualised $4.8tn in the second quarter, or 18% of national income, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data, the highest share since the aftermath of the second world war. Employees’ share from wages and benefits fell to 60%, the lowest level since the 1950s. “Regardless of what measure you look at, workers, in terms of employee compensation, have been receiving an increasingly small share of national income over time,” said Abiel Reinhart, an economist at JPMorgan. The decline in labour’s share of income has gained pace in the past five years and especially over the past 12 months.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. US pre-tax corporate profits reached an annualised $4.8tn in the second quarter, or 18% of national income, the highest share since the aftermath of the second world war, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
  2. Employees' share of national income from wages and benefits fell to 60%, the lowest level since the 1950s, with the decline gaining pace over the past five years and especially the past 12 months.
  3. Abiel Reinhart, an economist at JPMorgan, said that regardless of the measure used, workers have been receiving an increasingly small share of national income over time.

Related Articles:

  • The Post‑COVID Decline in the Labor Share — The share of US national income paid to workers fell 1.6 percentage points below its pre-pandemic level, reaching a post-war low. The authors find this decline stems mainly from changes within industries rather than shifts in activity across sectors, following cyclical patterns seen in earlier recessions.
  • Are US Corporate Profit Margins Too High? — US after-tax non-financial corporate profit margins remain elevated by historical standards, estimated at 7.6% versus a post-1949 high of 8.2%, while employee pay as a share of non-financial corporate gross value added has fallen from 66% to 56%. One argument holds that subdued demographic growth leads companies to prioritize maximizing margins over expanding capacity.
  • Why the Labor Share Keeps Falling: Taxes! — The measured corporate labor share fell from 63% in 1978 to 58% in 2017, but the authors estimate that tax-driven reclassification of wages as S corporation profit and the shift of high-labor-share firms into partnerships account for about 1.6 percentage points, roughly a third of the decline.
  • Inequality
  • GDP
    • Financial Markets
  • Politics
  • Workforce

The Rise Of The Deserving Rich

AI Summary. An analysis of about 7,000 billionaires over the past 25 years classifies wealth as "uncompetitive" when it derives from inheritance or from sectors such as gambling, construction, defence, and raw materials that often depend on political access. The authors find half of global billionaire wealth now comes from self-made entrepreneurs in competitive sectors, an all-time high.

Economist Staff The Economist
Date Posted:
July 24, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

An Economist analysis of the wealth of 7,000 billionaires finds that over the past decade, the share of billionaire wealth “derived from self-made entrepreneurs in competitive sectors has surged to an all-time high.”

Is a growing share of billionaire wealth self-made in competitive industries?

Core argument: For the first time, half the wealth of the world's billionaires is reasonably fairly earned, with the share derived from self-made entrepreneurs in competitive sectors reaching an all-time high over the past decade.

Drawing on data from Forbes, a magazine, Hurun, a research firm, and Gapminder, a Swedish foundation, we have assembled a list of about 7,000 billionaires from the past 25 years. We call a billionaire’s wealth “uncompetitive” when it mainly comes from industries such as gambling, construction, defence, and raw materials. These sectors often depend on political access. We count inheritors in the “uncompetitive” category. From 2001, when our data begin, to 2014, the uncompetitive share of billionaire wealth rose slightly. Yet over the past decade, the share derived from self-made entrepreneurs in competitive sectors has surged to an all-time high. For the first time, half the wealth of the world’s billionaires is reasonably fairly earned. And since 2021, the total wealth derived from uncompetitive sectors has declined.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. For the first time, half the wealth of the world's billionaires is reasonably fairly earned, with the share derived from self-made entrepreneurs in competitive sectors reaching an all-time high over the past decade.
  2. A list of about 7,000 billionaires from the past 25 years, assembled from Forbes, Hurun and Gapminder data, classifies wealth as "uncompetitive" when it mainly comes from industries such as gambling, construction, defence and raw materials, which often depend on political access.
  3. The uncompetitive share of billionaire wealth, which counts inheritors, rose slightly from 2001 to 2014, and the total wealth derived from uncompetitive sectors has declined since 2021.

Related Articles:

  • AI is the Democratic Party’s Next Villain — Mentions of billionaires in Democratic fundraising emails quadrupled to a peak above 20% of all emails sent and have held near 15%, making anti-billionaire messaging a mainstay. Anti-AI populism remains far smaller and is entering Democratic rhetoric not as a jobs or safety issue but as something billionaires are building.
  • America’s Support for Capitalism Has Declined Over Last Decade — Just under half of Americans say capitalism is working very or somewhat well, down from 60% about a decade ago, according to a Wall Street Journal-NORC survey. Only 12% say democracy is working very or extremely well, and 16% say average citizens have considerable influence on politics.
  • The Economics of Inequality in High-Wage Economies — Information technology created investment opportunities exceeding the supply of properly trained talent, while trade with low-wage economies, low-skilled immigration, trade deficits, and aging demographics eased constraints on low-skilled labor and risk-averse savings. The author argues this framework, rather than rising cronyism, explains high returns to success, slowing productivity growth, and low interest rates.
  • Inequality
  • Politics
  • Workforce
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms