1. Can the 2030 Generation Still Get Rich? Why Piketty is Wrong and Taleb is Right
The primary reason Gen Z and Millennials (the 2030 generation) fall into despair is the belief that the “wealth ladder” has been cut. They aren’t wrong. We have already explored the reality that leverage has vanished. However, Thomas Piketty’s famous claim—that therich will stay rich forever because “money breeds money”—is fundamentally flawed. Nassim Taleb’s rebuttal is simple: “Returns on capital may be high, but the individuals holding that capital are constantly changing.”
The conclusion? Remaining wealthy is far more difficult than becoming wealthy. The statistics back this up. There is a predatory system (Democracy) designed to plunder accumulated wealth.
I am not claiming to be wealthy. Nor am I here to defend the rich on moral grounds. The point is this: under this structure, the very possibility of the 2030 generation becoming wealthy is blocked at the source. Let’s dissect exactly what that is.
<Full Article Series >
- Money Dysmorphia (Part 1): Working Hard to Stay Broke — The Death of Economic Leverage
- Money Dysmorphia (Part 2): The Collapse of Social Leverage — The Death of Individual Competence
- Money Dysmorphia (Part 3): The Real Reason You Always Feel Poor—Joseph Campbell and the Hero’s Journey Scam
- Money Dysmorphia (Part 4): Why the 2030 Generation is Escaping the State’s Matrix
- Money Dysmorphia (Part 5): Recovering Personal Sovereignty through Bricolage
- Money Dysmorphia (Part 6): Why Bitcoin is the Only Time Leverage for the 2030 Generation
- Money Dysmorphia (part 7): Dreamers of the Abyss Who Defy Capital
(1) The Top 1% is a Revolving Door with a Narrow Entrance
The top 1% holds 32% of total wealth in the US and approximately 25% in South Korea. Historically, these figures sat between 10% and 20%. As the growth rate of assets—fueled by inflation and falling marginal production costs—overwhelmed the growth of labor income, the gap widened. But the membership of this “1% Club” is anything but permanent.
According to Google data, more than half of those who break into the top 1% in the US are pushed out within 10 years. Business failures, investment collapses, divorces, scams, or sudden market shifts—the “Wealth Revolving Door” spins much faster than we imagine. While the gate to the top has narrowed, the slide back down has become far steeper.
This is because democracy possesses institutional mechanisms designed to ‘grind down’ wealth, preventing its persistence across generations. Consequently, those who chase wealth tend to constantly seek escape from this pressure. First, let’s examine how wealth is eroded within a democratic state.
(2) Democracy Loves Equalization
[Democracy: A Machine for Legislating Envy]
To put it bluntly, the primary reason the rich struggle to stay rich is the political system. At its core, democracy is a game of numbers—and numbers are bullies. In a “one person, one vote” society, the majority can legally open the wallets of the minority through the ballot box.
Why does this happen? Because democracy is a system that legitimizes mass envy and morally incentivizes a “race to the bottom.” In his lyrics, the rapper Nas often uses the “crabs in a bucket” metaphor: crabs pulling down the one crab trying to climb out. Modern democracy operates on this exact frequency.
In today’s society, power often rests with a “proletariat” that owns no means of production and pays zero income tax. In South Korea, for instance, nearly 40-45% of the population pays zero income tax. Naturally, this group tends to structurally exploit the class that owns production and pays the lion’s share of taxes. They harbor a deep resentment toward “idle income” earners—third-generation chaebols, silver spoons, and landlords—while fiercely protecting their own group’s entitlements. Mass media endlessly repeats the narrative that ‘the rich are evil’ to justify this legalized plundering by the propertyless class. In fact, while Jay Y. Lee, the heir to Samsung Electronics, was in prison, he reportedly watched corporate dramas with fellow inmates. Seeing the ‘gapjil’ (power abuse) of chaebol heirs portrayed on screen, he was deeply shocked and asked, ‘Do you all truly believe that is how it works? This is how “checks and balances” actually function in a democratic society.
The ultimate weapons in this equalization arsenal are the “Triple Threat” of taxes: Gift, Inheritance, and Property taxes. Governments know that the wealthy are fleeing countries like the UK and Korea because of these taxes. But they can’t fix it. Any politician branded as “pro-rich” can kiss their re-election goodbye. Consequently, wealth rarely survives the second or third generation.
Take South Korea, where the maximum inheritance tax rate is 50%. Even for the wealthiest, assets are slashed to 1/8th of their original value over just three generations. This isn’t a theory; it’s a reality. Consider Nexon, the global gaming giant. After the founder passed away, his family couldn’t afford the inheritance tax and had to pay the state in company shares. Today, the South Korean Ministry of Economy and Finance is the second-largest shareholder of a private gaming company.
What about the US? While it lacks such “punitive” inheritance taxes, the result is strikingly similar. American democracy faces the same populist demand: “Expand welfare, hand out subsidies.” Instead of a direct “grab,” wealth is eroded through invisible mechanisms:
- Inflation & Debt (The Cantillon Effect): The Fed claims inflation is stable at 2%—3%, but that’s measured against eggs and milk. Meanwhile, “Essential Assets” like prime real estate and blue-chip stocks, service charge skyrocket by over 10% annually.
This creates a time lag. Those closest to the money—the government, banks, and big institutional investors—buy assets with currency before its value drops. By the time that money trickles down to the general public, asset prices have exploded, destroying the individual’s real purchasing power. Considering that there is a time lag in how money reaches different parts of the economy, the core of this effect is that the act of printing money itself, rather than the wealthy, is what fuels income inequality.
- Litigation Hell: US democracy maximizes “litigation” under the guise of protecting the weak. If you have money, you are a target for NGOs, laborers, and consumers. The Jury, often hailed as the “flower of democracy,” frequently mirrors public resentment, relishing the chance to deliver harsh judgments against the wealthy. Between prenuptial agreements, liability insurance, and years of legal fees, assets melt away in the courtroom.
Recently, an even more terrifying mechanism has entered the US discourse: the Tax on Unrealized Gains. A policy that failed even in socialist states, it represents a democratic pressure that threatens the very foundation of capitalism. The logic is already set; it’s just a matter of timing. But, The Tax on Unrealized Gains is an idea that fundamentally destroys the ‘compounding effect of reinvestment,’ which is the very engine of capitalist growth. If taxes must be paid simply because an asset has increased in value without being sold, reinvestable profits cannot be accumulated in any form. Furthermore, it leaves a critical question unanswered: who will compensate for the unrealized losses?
The methods may vary. But The conclusion remains the same. The total wealth monopolized by the Top 1% will continue to grow, but the members of that 1% will not remain the same. The pressure of democracy simply won’t allow anyone to “coast” for a lifetime. This principle is the same in any democratic country in the world, including Korea, the UK, and the US.
[Schumpeter’s 21st-Century Warning]
Even Karl Marx failed to imagine that democracy would be the ultimate equalizer of wealth. He dreamed of a bloody revolution where the proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie. Reality, however, took a different turn. Instead of pitchforks, we got ballots.
The capitalists are left standing, but a majority of laborers—now voters—elect politicians who tax the rich to fund massive welfare. They don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs; they simply requisition the eggs. The system is complete.
Joseph Schumpeter is the scholar who supports this view. In his 1940 classic, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, he prophesied: “As capitalism matures, we will quietly and peacefully walk into socialism through the ballot box.”
Why? According to Schumpeter, as corporations grow massive, they inevitably become bureaucratized. R&D, once dependent on the wild intuition of geniuses, devolves into organized, tedious routine. Entrepreneurship vanishes, replaced by salaried executives who avoid risk and prioritize self-preservation.
Enter the IYIs (Intellectual Yet Idiots)—a class Nassim Taleb loathes. These are leftist intellectuals who have never engaged in actual production but dominate the narrative. They fuel anti-corporate sentiment under the guise of equality, human rights, and ESG. Backed by IYIs and public opinion, democratic governments impose regulations and “quasi-taxes” on corporations. By mobilizing national pensions and banks, they achieve de facto nationalization. The public cheers as we drift toward socialism.
This isn’t sci-fi. As mentioned, the South Korean government is the second-largest shareholder of Nexon. The National Pension Service is the second-largest shareholder of Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Hyundai Motors. The state no longer needs to seize ownership. They simply take more than half of the profits through corporate taxes, quasi-taxes, and equity participation.
Conclusion: Modern democratic governments are the most polite and powerful predators of wealth in history.
2. Democracy Hits “Those Who Can’t Run” Harder
It’s too early to despair that “becoming rich is impossible.”
Democracy loves to level wealth through taxes and regulation, but this pressure doesn’t apply to everyone equally. Look at the list of new billionaires from the last 20 years. You’ll find few real estate moguls or factory owners. They are almost all from IT, finance, crypto, and media. The message is clear: Only those who can run survive.
(1) Run Faster than the Tax Office and Parliament
[The State Scatters Wealth Like Sand]
Tax offices and parliaments are inherently slow. It takes them at least 5 to 10 years to understand a new phenomenon and legislate. This time lag is the source of wealth. Think back to the early days of YouTube. The Korean National Tax Service lacked the infrastructure and legal basis to track overseas income in real-time. Full taxation didn’t begin until 2019—15 years after YouTube launched. Those who entered during that 15-year regulatory vacuum made fortunes, hid them in corporations, or multiplied their assets.
[Crypto: The Closing Door]
The story is the same for crypto. South Korea has announced a 22% tax starting in 2027. But the real whales have already obtained non-resident status or moved ownership to tax-haven countries with 0% corporate tax.
For newcomers, the door is closing. Governments now dominate exchanges. The Travel Rule monitors every transfer, and the OECD’s CARF system ensures 48 countries share wallet addresses. The final gate is the EXIT TAX. If you try to emigrate to avoid taxes, the state “deems all your assets sold” at the border and takes its cut.
What happened to the exchange founders who crossed the line? CZ of Binance and SBF of FTX—the “Kings of Crypto”—ended up in prison or stepped down after paying massive fines. The message from the state is simple: Get inside the system and be controlled, or be eliminated.
As Bitcoin becomes a strategic reserve asset for nations like Russia and the US, regulation will tighten, growth will slow, and opportunities for newcomers will vanish. Once the regulatory vacuum vanishes, the ladder is kicked away. The entropy of democracy will scatter your wealth like sand.
[Clean Department Stores vs. Digital Slums]
The Attention Market follows the same logic. YouTube has become boring. Real thrill-seekers have migrated to closed platforms like OnlyFans and Patreon. YouTube has turned into a sanitized “department store,” fearful of advertisers and regulators.
Corporations don’t fear fines; they fear being branded as “immoral” by the pressure of democracy and facing a “trial by public opinion.” Thus, they censor themselves. It is nearly impossible for a penniless beginner to succeed in this “Clean Department Store.” There is no way to differentiate with bland content. The first-floor “luxury wing” is already occupied by major corporations and celebrities.
Instead, wild creators gather in Digital Slums where there is no censorship. They curse at celebrities and politicians and sell raw, provocative content. Fans open their wallets, saying, “This guy is the real deal.” Once they gather a fandom from the bottom, they attempt to “launder” their image by returning to YouTube. Their loyal fans provide the shield.
The conclusion is: The moment laws are made, moral censorship begins, and taxes are imposed—the ladder in that market has been kicked away. You must always find the regulatory vacuum where the public and the government cannot follow.
[Physical AI: The Final Regulatory Frontier]
Let’s discuss one more market that exists in a total regulatory void in 2026: Physical AI. While various technologies are driving global trends, I am betting on embodied AI—robotics. Not only do direct regulations not yet exist, but current laws are so fundamentally at odds with one another that massive “grey zones” are inevitable. This is where the opportunity lies.
Consider the scenarios:
- Liability Limbo: An AI server spills boiling water on a customer. The owner blames a glitch; the manufacturer blames the owner’s poor training. A robot has no “intent” under criminal law, so it can’t go to jail. Granting robots “legal personhood” to pay insurance is still a distant fantasy.
- Drone Disasters: Who is responsible if an AI delivery drone hits a stroller? Is it a traffic accident or property damage? Users will exploit these legal loopholes to profit, and companies will emerge solely to provide “liability-shielding” services.
- Emotional Engineering: As single-person households become the norm, the “Companion Robot” market is a guaranteed goldmine. But there are zero safety nets. If a buyer falls for their robot and chooses a life without a human spouse, how does that impact divorce settlements or asset division? Even if you want to bequeath your fortune to your AI lover, the law doesn’t allow it yet. There is business in these gaps.
Even after the technology matures, it will take at least a decade for parliaments and tax offices to catch up. That 10-year gap is window. For small entrepreneurs, the next great leap will come from “symbiosis with robots.”
(2) High “Asset Specificity” Gets You Slaughtered
Institutional economists like Oliver Williamson and Ronald Coase use a concept called “Asset Specificity.” It refers to assets that are so tied to a specific transaction or location that their value collapses if moved or repurposed.
The verdict is simple: The higher your asset specificity, the less room you have to run. Your bargaining power drops, and you become easy prey for plunder. Thus, industries with high asset specificity inevitably become sacrifices for democracy.
Take real estate or manufacturing. They are anchored to physical assets. You can’t repurpose them overnight, and you certainly can’t run away with them. For a government, there is no better source of tax revenue. On the flip side, Crypto, IT, and Media are harder to bully. If the pressure gets too high, you simply move the server or relocate the HQ abroad. This is why the new elite are all emerging from these mobile, “liquid” sectors.
[Sunk Costs: A Prison, Not a Moat]
In the industrial era, the way to win was to monopolize assets with high specificity—building massive, unique factories with heavy leverage. That was the formula for success. But as democracy matured and social costs skyrocketed, manufacturing withered. Leverage vanished.
Now, those massive facilities are not moats; they are prisons. Because you are trapped by sunk costs, the government and consumers can tell you, “If you don’t like it, quit.” You have no choice but to comply. 👊
[The Escalating Cost of Integration]
According to Coase’s Theory of the Firm, when market transaction costs become too high, firms opt for internal integration. This logic applies to the relationship between the State and the Firm. Corporations with high asset specificity choose to become part of the “Government System” to reduce conflict costs.
“We feed this region. We pay taxes. We maintain jobs. Just let us survive.”
They pay a massive social fee to be allowed to exist as a partner of the State. The process differs from what Schumpeter predicted, but the result is identical. The problem is that as democracy promises more welfare, the “Entry Fee” for this integration becomes exponentially more expensive.
Giants like Samsung or Hyundai have the stamina to pay this price. Small businesses do not. Yet, democracy applies these regulatory costs—minimum wage, safety laws, insurance premiums—equally to the neighborhood factory and the tech startup. The ladder is kicked away before you even reach the first rung.
[Escape to Low Asset Specificity]
The strategy for the 2030 generation is clear: Accumulate assets with low specificity—assets that allow you to run from the state and are easy to repurpose. This means Crypto, Personal Brands, Intellectual property and AI mastery.
Holding these allows you to keep your wealth longer and more freely than owning a physical shop or factory. When the government threatens you with “My way or the highway,” you must have the power to say, “Fine, I’ll take the highway.”
Of course, the State will chase you to institutionalize everything. The Bitcoin Spot ETF is a prime example. With giants like BlackRock involved, Bitcoin is moving from a “Wild Asset” to an “Establishment Asset.” It is now feeling the leveling pressure that democracy loves. Institutional investors act on rigid rules, taming the volatility to protect pensions. The days of waking up to 10x returns are fading. Bitcoin will continue its upward trajectory, but its slope will become much more “civilized.” Nevertheless, Bitcoin will maintain its comparative advantage because it lacks a ‘Printer’ or a ‘central authority’ that seeks to distort the rules of asset distribution and ownership. In this regard, altcoins like Ethereum are far more vulnerable to institutional pressures.
3. The Paradox of Success Grifters: They Sell Fantasies, Not Freedom
Slightly off-topic, let’s briefly address the ‘success-sellers’ trend. Rising like a new-age religion, they too plunder wealth. In Korean society, “Success Grifting” (Selling Success) has become a standardized business model. The pattern is hauntingly identical:
- The Premise: “I hopped onto the wealth fast track and achieved economic freedom.”
- The Seduction: “I have so much money I never have to bow to anyone. This is true freedom.”
- The Sale: “Want to be like me? Buy my e-book and sign up for my high-priced seminars.”
Even teenagers are now captivated by this illusion, faking success to gather their own sub-disciples in a multi-level marketing game of validation.
Omnipotence Paradox
Their logic mirrors the ‘Omnipotence Paradox’: ‘Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?’ If He cannot create, He is not omnipotent; if He can create but cannot lift it, He is still not omnipotent. This leads to a logical impasse.
Similarly, the claim ‘I succeeded this way, and you can too’ collapses under its own weight. If an ‘omnipotent secret’ to success truly existed for everyone, then everyone would become wealthy. But if everyone is rich, the relative concept of ‘success’ vanishes, leaving only inflation. In a world where everyone succeeds, no one has succeeded.
Ultimately, they exploit survivor bias. If a few succeed, it’s ‘thanks to my secret.’ If they fail, it’s ‘because you didn’t follow it properly’ or ‘lacked conviction.’ Thus, the infallibility of the secret is preserved. While we can discuss the structure of survival, no one can guarantee success. Survival is clearly defined as ‘the state of being able to reinvest,’ whereas the definition of success is far too ambiguous.
Remember: Those shouting “how to make money” on YouTube and Instagram are most likely people who have no ability to make money except by selling “how to make money.” They aren’t selling a methodology for success; they are selling a fantasy to help you forget your pathetic reality for a fleeting moment.
4. Conclusion: The Age of Solids is Over; The Age of Gas is Here
The collapse of manufacturing and the shaking of the “real estate invincibility” myth are no accidents. It’s because the predator known as Democracy has grown too powerful. Democracy is fundamentally a high-cost system.
The sovereign voters are now those who own no means of production and create no direct added value. To realize the welfare and equality they demand—and to satisfy countless interest groups—massive taxes and vast regulations are required. The government turns its head and asks: “Who is going to pay?” The first targets are those with high Asset Specificity—those who cannot run.
[Evolution into Liquid and Gas]
Capital that survived has evolved. it decided to shed its heavy physical body and become an ungraspable Gas. Crypto, AI knowledge, borderless content. When the state reaches out to grab it, it scatters like smoke, moving to servers in other countries or the ledgers of different entities. As nations build walls at their borders, the elite fly higher, accumulating wealth in the Cloud.
[What State is Your Asset In?]
Is it a heavy, rigid Solid? Or a freely flowing Gas? If you are still clinging solely to “Solid” assets—a single apartment in Gangnam or a physical store—you will slowly melt away in the furnace of democracy. You have become the host that must bear the cost of the entire system.
Conversely, digital nomads who understand Bitcoin, master AI, and build their own personal brands have a chance to escape. I am late to the game, but I am finally beginning that journey.
The Habitus of Wealth is the refusal to stay put. When the state and the system try to bind me and strip away my harvest, I want to have the Freedom of Movement—the power to quietly pack my bags and say, “Goodbye.”
If you enjoyed this article, you can support the project – thank you!