The world’s richest man’s 4600 billion break-up fee reveals an amazing wealth trend
According to Forbes, Bezos is the first person on the list to have a fortune of more than $1000 billion.
In fact, if it takes a long time. We can find:The rich are getting richer.
If you add up the wealth of billionaires on Forbes, it was only 2000 billion U.S. dollars in 8980. In 2005, it reached 2.2 trillion U.S. dollars and exceeded 3 trillion two years later...
Today, the total wealth of 2208 billionaires is as high as US$9.1 trillion, which exceeds 45% of US GDP and is nearly twice that of Japan, the world's third largest economy.
Among the rich, the more the rich, the faster their wealth will grow.
Take the world's richest man as an example. From 2000 to 2007, Bill Gates was firmly on the throne of the world's richest man, with his personal wealth hovering between US$400-600 billion.
And this year's richest man, Bezos has a fortune of 1371 billion US dollars! But in 20 years, the wealth of the world's richest man has increased two to three times.
Just like an American website commented, for a billionaire, going to Bali for a vacation is as common and easy as an American buying a candy bar.
Not only is it not distressed to spend money,It is also easier for the rich to make money.
The movie "The Richest Man in Xihong City" (a remake of the American comedy "Brewster's Million Fortune") tells such a story.
Duoyu, a middle-aged man of waste wood, became a multi-billionaire because he inherited the second master’s inheritance. But to get this inheritance, one billion will be spent within one month.
As a result, Wang Duoyu led a group of friends who were as useless as himself and began to waste money.
But what makes Wang Duoyu and the audience puzzled is that the more the 10 billion yuan is, the more the worse it is: I choose stocks to be delisted, but I don’t want to make 1 million yuan. The school district made 10 billion...
Although this is only a movie, it is also a true portrayal of reality: rich people want to make money faster and easier.
The consequence is to formThe "Matthew Effect" in the field of wealth.
French economist Thomas Piketty (Thomas Piketty) published a book in 2014: Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Insert a sentence, the Chinese title is translated into "On Capital", to a large extent, it is suspected of rubbing traffic.
He pointed outOne fact is: on a global scale, the rich hold more and more wealth.
The following is the share of wealth held by the richest 10% of American families in the 1910 years from 2010 to 100. You can see from it,The wealth share of the richest 10% of American families is already at 50%.
This situation also exists in other developed countries. The following is the wealth share of 1% of the wealthiest households in the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Over the years, the wealth held by the richest families has also increased.
Not only that,In emerging countries, this division is also increasing.The figure below shows the proportion of gross national income occupied by 1% of people in developing countries such as Argentina, Colombia, India, Indonesia, and South Africa. The same is showing an upward trend.
Of course, it can also be seen that this differentiation has also eased, for example, during World War II, it fell sharply.
But Piketty pointed out that this kind of relaxation is not "normal" because it was war that destroyed wealth. in fact,The unbalanced distribution of wealth has always existed.
Why is it so?
There are two main reasons, one:Super elite group.
In European countries, the upper 10% of the people took 25% of the total labor income, while in the United States the upper 10% took 35% of the total labor income.
The bottom 50% of people in the United States receive only 25% of total labor income.
That is,On the pyramid of labor income distribution, the income of the people at the top of the tower is on average 7 times that of the people at the bottom of the tower.
This is not uncommon in reality.
These super business groups include film and television stars, sports stars, but more of them are "super managers."
The following are statistics on executive compensation in 2016.
The top 4 annual revenues are more than 1 million, US dollars!
The research found that the income of these “super brokers” is not worthy of their operating performance, because the research found that the operating performance of giant companies in a certain period of time is more derived from “luck factors”, which means that the economy as a whole is in a period of rising, or External factors such as the recession have nothing to do with their personal talents.
For example, John Weinberg, executive chairman of the investment company Evercore Partners, paid nearly $1.24 million.But the company's net profit of $1.07 million that year was not enough to drive his income alone.
Their high annual salary is entirely because they have great autonomy to decide how to pay for themselves and how much.
The root cause, or a more serious problem lies in: Fighting father.
Property inheritance has become an important factor in determining whether a person is rich or poor.
A small number of people become the "super hereditary class" through inheritance, and they can live a good life through "profit".
Research has found that even the upper 10% of the "ideal society" still own 30% of wealth. In reality, these 10% occupy up to 50%-90% of social wealth.
About 1/4 of the total population in the world, they have no wealth at all.
The key lies in the following inequality:
R>G, that is, rate of return on capital>speed of economic growth.
Simply put, wealth will continue to grow rapidly, just like the Wang Duoyu diaosi in "The Richest Man in Xihong City". After decades of getting 10 billion, making money suddenly becomes very simple and easy.
That is,The richer people make it easier to make money, and the easier it is to make money, the more money they will be.
The following is a PPT that analyzes the long-term reflection of the above mechanism.
Because of this, the proportion of capital in the overall wealth of the country is getting higher and higher. For example, the proportion of the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia is between 25% and 30%.
The following is the proportion of national income that 1% of people in emerging countries have wealth.
Maybe it means,That small group of people is rich because they are already rich.
The above two factors are only facts.
So, is it reasonable?
Piketty believes that in the 19th century, the richest 1% constituted a powerful elite group. Until now, this small group of people is still a powerful group and still exerts a huge influence on society.
This is like the Japanese TV series "Dragon Sakura", the tuition teacher Kenji Sakuragi said to a group of students with low academic records: the rules are made by the strong and smart.
And Piketty’s pessimistic conclusion is,The 21st century may return to the state of social distribution at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century: high imbalance!
It was during that period that only the super hereditary class played a role, and in the 21st century, the super hereditary class + super manager group may be the dual mechanism at play.
If you have to say something different,The unbalanced world in the future may be more extreme than ever.
For individuals, even if they feel powerless, they are not completely helpless.
As the following lines say.
In China, the rapid economic development has provided ordinary people with plenty of opportunities to realize wealth and freedom.
40 years ago, mainland China was still generally poor, and there are now 373 people on the list of billionaires.
If you can summarize the reasons why they have accumulated a huge amount of personal wealth, there are nothing more than two points:
One is to have courage and insight into the opportunities provided by the development of the times. In Lei Jun's words, it is to stand in the forefront. For example, Zhang Yiming, born in 1983 in "Today's Toutiao" in the mobile Internet era, and Huang Zheng, born in 1980 in "Pinduoduo".
The second is execution. Work hard and stand hard.
And foreign development experience shows thatThe windows provided by Times are not always open.
We are in it, and we should cherish it even more.