Sometimes I think people spend too much time playing poker and not enough time thinking about economics. In a poker game whenever there is a big winner, everyone else has to be a net loser. That's the way that game works. In the real world of free-market economics, whenever there is a big winner there have to be lots of other winners. Those other winners voluntarily exchanged money with the big winners for something that they thought was more valuable than the money. Let's run down the list of some of the Big Winners of today.
Bill Gates. Are you worse off because Bill made a lot of money selling you software?
Warren Buffett. How did Berkshire Hathaway investments in companies like Kraft, Coca-Cola and American Express harm you?
Larry Ellison. Do Oracle databases detract from your standard of living?
Steve Jobs. Do wish you had never heard of iPods or iPhones or iMacs?
The Walton Family. Do millions of people go to Wal-Mart just to get raped with high prices?
Jeff Bezos. How does ordering from Amazon make you worse off?
Larry Page. Don't you just hate it when Google gives you information?
You can keep going down this list and you're not going to find many that achieved their great wealth by harming you in some way. How is it then that when you consolidate them into "The 1%", they become something evil that must be discouraged? (Other than the obvious answer -- envy). Do you really not want there to be a new Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffett? They're not playing poker with you. They are offering up goods and services that you really want. And we're all better off because of them.
roulettegametry Great) liked everything very much) keep it up and dont stop)
ReplyDelete