Guys, I am a pretty hardcore classical liberal. I am not exactly a big fan of the welfare state in its current shape. Yet, the reality is that -- with respect to inequality -- it has done exactly what it was supposed to do. It has essentially contained any increase in inequality pre-redistribution. You may think (like I do) that a sizable share of any pre-redistribution inequality is due to state interventions in market (and rent-seeking). You may also think (like I do) that the welfare state is currently unsustainable fiscally and politically (for fiscal commons problems as per Buchanan). You may think that the there should be less inequality. But the reality is that the welfare state did exactly what it was supposed to do since the 1980s. And here is the bummer for many people (including myself with my classical liberal priors): it has kept wealth inequality while government spending stayed pretty much stable (see graph). This is the big fact that *no* one really wants to acknowledge which Sylvain and his co-authors show. Left-leaning economists like Zucman and Piketty do not want to point it out too much because it undermines the case for their preferred policies. Right-leaning economists also tend to skew past some of the implications because it says "welfare state did what it was supposed to". At one point, it should be time that we acknowledge that facts do not give us a diseased rat's ass about our priors. Lets just take this in and build on it in terms of conversations.