| Now, believe it or not, there are millions of educated adults who think this is essentially how our modern economy works. They suppose that a fixed amount of money exists and we're all in a mad scramble - sometimes referred to as "the rat race" - to scoop up as much as possible, with the strongest or greediest taking the most. If Bill Gates and Taylor Swift have more - as they most certainly do - that means the rest of us necessarily have less, just like the smaller kids at the pool. And that's not fair! These folks accept the lump-sum fallacy, the idea that wealth - like those coins in the pool - exist in a fixed quantity. Yet this is completely wrong. Wealth isn't just distributed (and redistributed). It is created. It grows over time. If this weren't true, national GDP, household incomes and household net worth - all inflation-adjusted figures - wouldn't keep increasing. Yet it's a safe bet that most Americans - and, sadly, most American journalists - don't understand this. The Washington Post recently ran an article about the problem of the "Wealth Gap." It lamented the fact that a majority of the country's wealth is the hands of a relatively small percentage of the population. Here's how Post writer Christopher Ingraham put it: Let's imagine that there are just 100 people in the United States. The richest guy (and, yes, he's probably a guy) owns more than one-third of the total wealth in this country. He's got a third of all the property, a third of the stock market and a third of anything else that can be owned. Not bad. The next-richest four people together own 28 percent of all the stuff. The next five people together own 14 percent of all the things, and the next 10 own 12 percent. We've accounted for just 20 percent of the people but nearly 90 percent of the total wealth. You can probably tell where this is going. By the time we reach the bottom 40 percent of Americans, guess what? We've run out of stuff. Sorry guys, you get nothing. Ingraham truly believes that if you're an individual with significant assets, you have deprived others. Thanks to your wealth accumulation, the country has "run out of stuff" (whatever that means) - and ordinary folks "get nothing." This is a really dumb idea. But, clearly, the folks at the Post thought it made sense. Instead of using statistics and percentages, let's personalize this "problem" by examining one of the best-known celebrities in the nation: Oprah Winfrey. Oprah rose from poverty and a challenging childhood in rural Mississippi to become a highly influential media personality. Along the way, she became one of the richest women in the world with a net worth of more than $2.5 billion. I would like Christopher Ingraham - or anyone else for that matter - to explain how Oprah getting rich somehow deprived me of wealth and opportunity. How would her prodigious income and net worth somehow have fallen into my pocket if she hadn't earned it? How did her success somehow deprive anyone of being economically successful themselves? And how about the other multi-billionaires out there? Did they prevent you or me from working, saving, investing, and creating our own fortunes? Of course not. Funny how when you stop talking about "millionaires and billionaires" and start thinking about how wealth is created - by meeting people's wants and needs - the truth outs. You having a garden doesn't stop me from having a garden. You having kids doesn't stop me from having kids. And you having a lot of money - or a lot of flowers and kids - doesn't stop me from having more either. So, what's behind this drive to end "economic inequality" in this country? That's what we'll discuss in my next column. Good investing, Alex P.S. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Please join the conversation by commenting here or clicking the button below. | 
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar