T homas Picketty's new opus, Capital in the 21st Century, has been acclaimed as the book most purchased (Amazon ran out of copies for a brief period in May), most talked about (The Guardian calls it a VIB-very important book), and least read in 2014. As a matter of editorial duty, I did read it (though admittedly not in full). The book contains huge amounts of historical data organized into a number of eyestrain-inducing tables and graphs. However, the basic idea is that over time, the return on capital investment will always exceed the rate of growth of the economy as a whole (which Picketty summarizes in the equation r>g). If this is true, then wealth will tend to concentrate over time, and with it political power. (Picketty views the period of rapid economic growth between World War II and the 1970s as an historical anomaly.) To avoid this plutocratic dystopia, Picketty suggests a solution that will never be implemented: a global, progressive tax on wealth. You have to admire his neo-Marxian audacity.While Picketty's policy prescription may be dubious, his diagnosis of a withering democracy seems frighteningly plausible. But what does this have to do with physicians and specifically physicians' incomes? In 2012, health care accounted for 17 % of the $16.4 trillion US economy. In that same year, physician and clinical services were estimated at $566 billion-or about $820,000 for each of 691,000 actively practicing physicians and surgeons. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that growth in physician and clinical services will approach 6 % per year through 2022. Thus, in 2022 physician services will cost the country over $1 trillion (in 2012 dollars)-about $1.2 million for each member of the projected physician workforce of 815,000.Of course, reimbursements for clinical services do not accrue only to doctors, nor do these figures account for practice expenses. Nevertheless, as self-declared leaders of the health care system, physicians need to take some responsibility for managing their share of health care expenditures-what everyone else calls costs, and what we call income. This, I imagine, will require accepting both a ratcheting-down of physician incomes on average and a narrowing of the gap between the highest and lowest paid specialties. Depending on how this plays out, general internists, along with other specialists who trade in "evaluation and management," could end up making about the same or somewhat more, while many procedurally oriented specialists would make somewhat less.Based on 2007 OECD data, 1 I would suggest as a reasonable standard that physician incomes should average about five times the mean national wage-more than most lawyers, professors, engineers, and small business owners, less than many financial analysts and real estate developers. Physicians' time under this proposal would be reimbursed at roughly $125 per hour. To allow for differences in training duration and practice intensity, some specialists could be paid up to 25 % higher and others up to 25 % lowe...