90 years ago, parents of even moderate wealth bronzed, to memorialize, their children’s first shoes. These are mine. Wealth is defined as an abundance of valuable possessions. Being wealthy is defined as having a great deal of money, resources, or assets.

I do not believe that simply having wealth or being wealthy is truly the objective of those attaining wealth. Perhaps, other than good, I believe the objective of most of those having wealth is wanting more. This is, I believe, the case with all levels of comparative wealth. There is never quite enough.

The “more” mania is both positive and negative, for the individuals so addicted, infected, or burdened and also for society. Were enough to be enough, money would not be invested with the intent of gain. If to profit was not an objective new business would not be financed. Successful entertainers and professional athletes would cease to perform. Professional advisors would no longer seek to advise wealthy clients.

Were the wealth of the wealthy not to continue increasing philanthropy would be less. It is in the best interest of businesses owned by the wealthy to invest in innovation. It is the profitability of businesses which allows for increased staff compensation and benefits.

Of course, competition is to some extent a zero-sum game, in that one party winning results in some others losing. The success of the Wal-Mart, Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and other companies having had significant success, has resulted in other companies having poor results and, in some cases, going out of business. In any race there is a winner and a loser and some participants in between.

My closest friend believes that technology can result in a lessening, and perhaps even abolishment of scarcity, and that it is scarcity which creates inflation and other problems. He believes that forms of government which have multiple inputs and become self-adjusting are more likely to succeed than authoritarian regimes. He further believes that if all in a society can have all they want, partially due to robots performing many functions, that it will be better for all involved.

It is my hope that this very learned and successful man is correct, and that I am incorrect, in my belief that those with more will continue to want more. If there is a continuing push for increased competitive advantage, then there will ultimately be conflict between those with more and those with less of an ability to have what they want.

Except for those who become wealthy due to an entirely external event, such as winning a lottery, individuals, alone or in concert with others, will continue to have to compete for wealth. Leisure time, that not required in self-supporting income, can be used in personal or company improvement. Improvement requires investment of time and/or money and investment is motivated by profit expectation.

Wealth is viewed to be relative by those having wealth. It is relative to prior amounts, to others, and to the objectives of the wealthy. It is not an absolute amount, believed to be able to remain of the same value in future periods. Therefore, it is natural for there to be a management of assets intended to increase the amount of the assets. Once the management of anything is introduced a comparative measurement of relative results occurs.

The ultimate conflict is between those of wealth and those seeking to control the segment of the population not believing themselves to be wealthy. Those of wealth will therefore attempt to influence or control the actions of the government impacting their wealth. It has always been thus.If the percentage of the lower segment of the socio-economic population pyramid increases the government management requires increasing amounts to satisfy the needs, which become the demands, of the segment.

Governments can tax and/or borrow. Tax too much and businesses fail to be able to profit and attract necessary capital. Borrow too much and interest rates increase, also resulting in business failures.

Let’s hope that my friend Is correct, and that technology will be able to provide for the perceived needs of a larger percentage of the population.

 

Arthur Lipper, Chairman                          arthurlipper@gmail.com
British Far East Holdings Ltd.