Louis Brandeis says it all. Or did he?| wealtheconomics.substack.com
Two explanations for The Matthew Effect| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
The obsession with measuring “production” results in strange misunderstandings.| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
Not the stuff. The word itself.| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
It was not an act of intentional invention| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
The purchase/sale has zero effect on either party’s total assets or wealth.| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
Who gets the money? Follow the assets.| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
Short answer: Lending, government deficits, capital formation, and holding gains| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
It's all about the words...| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
Wealth concentration got just a tiny bit less extreme| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
A 1% increase in the stock market increases the next year’s GDP by about 0.2%.| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
Assets are up 48%, net worth up 72%. Where did the new wealth come from?| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
In a poker game, or in the asset markets.| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
Let’s compare apples to apples here.| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
Only the top 20% saves.| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
It's tempting to abolish the word entirely.| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
Simplifying Moore vs United States| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
Modeling the numbers on bottom-up and middle-out economics.| Steve Roth — Wealth Economics
Is investment spending “spending,” or isn't it?| wealtheconomics.substack.com
The decline in workers’ share of the total pie is far more extreme than standard measures suggest.| wealtheconomics.substack.com
