Bidenomics Stops Wealth Creation

 Whatever you think about "Bidenomics", it did not increase wealth. 

Differences in Long-Term Economic Performance

Watching the May Day scum loons protestors in Seattle this week ranting  about the scourge of capitalism prompted me to pull out this chart. from AEI which pretty clearly demonstrates that the United States has been doing something for quite a while that has made it a far wealthier nation than the rest of the world. The the May Day scum loons protestors would probably suggest that the US has been able to adroitly exploit the rest of the world and steal from them. I tend to lean toward the interpretation that, up until recently, policies of  lesser government interference with the productivity of the private sector are the driver. At any rate it's quite clearly that there is something at work that results in a higher performing economy in the United States. And it's been going on for quite a while.

300,000 New US Millionaires. Oh My.

Sad news for egalitarians. According to data from Spectrum Group, the Chicago-based wealth research firm, there are now 8.99 million U.S. households whose net worth totals $1 million or more (not including primary residence). That's up from 8.6 million in 2011 and just short of the all-time record set in 2006, when the United States had 9.2 million millionaire households.

So what is an egalitarian to do about this? Hope for a stock market crash and another recession? Punish 300,000 people who invested in the stocks and real estate that fueled their wealth increase? Make sure they won't do it again?

Wealth Creation is Not a Poker Game

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.