Display:
The relative wealth aspect is key.  As long as "The Masters of the Universe" are increasing their share of total wealth, they are happy.  They also are much better informed as to pending market moves and are much better placed to avoid the effects of market downturns. They  spend a lot of money convincing small investors that attempting to time the markets is a bad thing, and it usually is, for the small investor. But it is how the big boys make most of their money.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed May 28th, 2008 at 01:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wealth is always relative: in a world where the average income is, say, 30K (EUR, USD, GBP, doesn't matter...) and an average house costs, say, 200K, and if your own income is 3 millions (100 times the average), then you're definitely a rich person: you can afford palatial houses (several of them if you fancy to) on very large land plots, luxury cars, first class travel to exclusive resorts (exclusive is the key word here), plenty of personnel serving you etc...

But what if everyone makes 3 millions?
You still make the same money as the example above, but it doesn't get you the same lifestyle, not even close...

So it's not only important for the super-wealthy to keep accruing their income and assets, it is equally important for the rest of us, peasants, not to be able to catch up with them.

Yeah, I know, it's very basic, but it helps explaining some things, such as why middle class stagnation is not necessarily deplored by everyone...

As Dogbert says in a Dilbert comic strip (go ahead, call me a nerd :), "There's one thing about us, rich people: we don't like company."

Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.

by Bernard on Sat May 31st, 2008 at 05:07:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series