The Forbes 400 as a Lesson in Economics

Fuckallyall

Rising Star
BGOL Patreon Investor
From Realclearpolitics.com


September 28, 2007
The Forbes 400 as a Lesson in Economics
By John Tamny

The 2007 edition of the Forbes 400 was released last week. As in years past, it's one of the more useful economic annuals when it comes to laying bare the folly of anti-trust, worries over the wealth gap, and perhaps silliest of all, the assumption that the rich became that way for exploiting the non-rich.

Anti-trust is of course a viable concept given the belief of many that wealth creation is static, and that tomorrow will look like today such that regulators must insert themselves into commerce to avoid immovable economic consolidations. In truth, capitalist economies are far from stationary, and for evidence we need only look to a graph in the latest issue that shows the makeup of the first Forbes 400 in 1982 compared to the latest.

Back then most American fortunes were in the oil and manufacturing space, while technology was mostly an afterthought. Fast forward to 2007, technology trumps oil, and the largest wealth concentration is within the area of finance and investments. With the Dow Jones Industrial Average having fallen to a modern low of 743 in 1982, no one would have predicted Wall Street's rise, and as anti-trust rulings can only account for what's happening in the present, government officials would be wise to tread lightly in that the corporate behemoths they seek to restrain today may be coming to them for help tomorrow.

Case in point is Microsoft's attempt to halt Google's purchase of Doubleclick. The former was once the hunted when it came to anti-trust given its dominance in software. But perhaps due to its own lumbering nature, Microsoft was caught flat footed by the rise of the Internet; the result being that Google, a company founded in the proverbial Silicon Valley garage, was able to aggregate enormous market share in the Internet search area. Well behind its formerly microscopic rival, Microsoft is now lobbying the same government that sought to reduce its market power in hopes of reducing Google's muscle in search. Rather than retard Google's activities, government officials would do better by us all if they did nothing knowing full well that Google's ascendance will eventually be halted by another market entrant presently unknown.

Even though the wealth gap is a positive in most economies for driving the economic creativity of those not-yet-rich, much is made of it in the media and among politicians who worry about individual wealth consolidation even more than they do the corporate kind. A quick look at the Forbes 400 would surely assuage some of their fears.

Indeed, of the charter members of the first Forbes 400, only 32 remain today. Far from a country where only the rich get richer, the wealthy in the US are very much a moving target. While there are 74 Forbes 400 members who inherited their entire fortune, 270 members are entirely self-made. Though many attended Harvard, Yale and Princeton, there are countless stories within of high school and college dropouts, not to mention others who grew up extremely poor. Politicians who regularly engage in class warfare would do well to keep the Forbes 400 out of the hands of their constituents, because it makes a mockery of the kind "Two Americas" rhetoric suggesting the existence of a glass ceiling that keeps hard workers at the bottom of the economic ladder. To read the Forbes 400 is to know with surety that the U.S. is still very much the land of opportunity.

Ludwig Von Mises once wrote that the entrepreneur who fails to use his capital to the "best possible satisfaction of consumers" is "relegated to a place in which his ineptitude no longer hurts people's well-being." Conversely, successful entrepreneurs give consumers what they want, and remove what Von Mises termed "uneasiness" from our daily lives by making us happier, healthier, and frequently, wealthier. When we read the stories of these brilliant capitalists, it becomes apparent that Von Mises knew well what he wrote.

From Jaws to Jurassic Park, Steven Spielberg (Forbes rank #117) makes movies that people want to see, and when people want to be seen, Ralph Lauren (#64) and the Fisher brothers (#361) design clothes for Polo and Gap at varying price points that people want to be seen in. When the sun makes it difficult to see, or, alternately makes us too visible, people can purchase the various sunglass stylings of Oakley founder James Jannard (#239).

Thanks to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (#35), consumers the world over have access to all manner of obscure and not so obscure products - all with a click of a mouse. For coffee lovers, Howard Schultz (off the list this year, but still a billionaire) seeks to put his Starbucks outlets anywhere and everywhere, including across the street from each other to make visits to his stores as convenient as possible. Starbucks locations of course sell iTunes, the brainchild of Apple founder Steve Jobs (#56), which means music enthusiasts increasingly dictate to the music industry how and where they'll purchase the music for their iPods.

Michael Dell's (#8) innovations with just-in-time inventory have made the once unique computer increasingly ubiquitous; those computers made user-friendly by the software genius of Microsoft founder Bill Gates (#1) who famously said long ago that the future would be one of personal computers "on every desk and in every home." Advancing on Gates when it comes to personal wealth, Google founders Sergey Brin (#5) and Larry Page (#5) gave us search technology for free that has turned what was once for many a word-processor into a powerful search engine for information that greatly improves the words we process.

If divorce rates fall in the next decade, happy couples might want to thank Garmin founders Min Kao (#64) and Gary Burrell (#114) for designing global-positioning systems for cars that will surely reduce the bickering that results from trying to get from Point A to Point B. And for those lacking GPS technology, Craig McCaw's (#135) cellular innovations will at least save couples from having to stop at gas stations and/or pay phones to find that which seems invisible.

For the hard of hearing, Advanced Bionics founder Alfred Mann (#204) developed cochlear implants, and for those who are immobile, Stryker Corp. CEO John Brown (#380) makes artificial hips and limbs to help the bedridden stand. With cancer still a tragic fact of life for many, Abraxis CEO Patrick Soon-Shiong (#117) presently has the patents for 30 different treatments that will hopefully over time help to make cancer go the way of polio.

A constant complaint among workers at all levels is that management does a poor job. Carl Icahn (#18) agrees, and to fix the latter, he buys troubled companies in order to improve their administration, all the while agitating entrenched managers of companies he owns a percentage of to fix what's wrong or be fired. Google was mentioned earlier, and due to the foresight of venture capitalists John Doerr (#271) and Michael Moritz (#380), it had the funding to morph from a non-entity into the work-enhancing business that it is today. Notably, the capital available to fund these efforts is frequently offered up by the wealthy from their existing surplus. This should be remembered the next time politicians offer to "help" through soaking the rich. Without capital, there are no wages, nor is there money for the various start-ups that provide new and exciting jobs.

To read many business journalists today, one might assume that the U.S. economy is stratified, offers little room for advancement, and that those at the top are impervious to market forces while enjoying market power that enables them to fleece the less fortunate. Thanks to the lessons offered up yearly in the Forbes 400, we know the opposite is true. Successful people are that way because they make our lives exponentially better, while yearly dropouts from the Forbes list frequently offer evidence showing that consumers punish those who falter. For that, we should be glad that the Forbes 400 goes against the conventional grain and celebrates successful American enterprise.

John Tamny is an editor at RealClearMarkets. He can be reached at jtamny@realclearmarkets.com.
 
The guy who wrote this is full of shit. He must be on one of those billionaires payroll because most people think it is a shame and disgrace when one man, Bill Gates, is allowed to hoard 50 billion dollars while 30 million people don't have insurance. This bullshit about the wealth not being static is nonsense. There are 8 million millionares in America, that figure alone should have people rioting in the streets when we have a 8 trillion dollar economy. Half of those millionaires work for billionaires, Oprah's two fuck buddies are millionaires, Tiger's caddy is a fucking millionaire. I don't even want to think about how many people got rich kissing Warren Buffet's and Sam Walton's asses. He's right about one thing the government shouldn't be talking about the wealth gap, not that they are going to do anything about it anyway. If the government didn't put Bill's Windows on all of their computers maybe he would have some competition. If the government didn't bankroll Google, Warren Buffet, and just about every other leech on that list there wouldn't be a wealth gap.
 
As I understand, the Anti - Trust theory doesn't enforce that wealth is static, but intentional, dileberate, and entirely too concentrated.

John seems to be sold on the idea of the "Self Made Man," in America...but the truth is that these people had privileges well before their wealth. I just can't understand why nobody does a real back ground check on these people to determine just how "self made" they are.

LOL, these people had parent's that were well off (A VAST majority). It is very rare, when you find someone who really came from the gutter, living on welfare and eating potatoes for weeks - to finally become a billionaire... THAT'S being self made, otherwise your just capitalizing on your privileges (and there's nothing wrong with that)

This guy is dangerous with the pen because he can convince people that the Wealth Gap is not real....Rich people act in their own interests, just like any group. These rich people also have the means to SET MARKET TRENDS that will return to them like any other investment, therby protecting their own interest.


Dude seems to think the market is static, that's just blindy aristocratic. As all economies merge to become singular, we will see just how much these wealthy people are doing for America.

If you can afford a house in India, Tokyo, and Canada...you're interests aren't the same as an American who's only home is in the United States....

Wealth is good, I'm an active participant of the free market, I myself make a living off investments...so, what CAN I say?

I do feel that we should question wealth, however, and whether or not these American's are really generating it. Wealth should only be a relationship between goods available and customers, however, thanks to recent market trends, we're seeing wealth created on interest (at a national scale).

So, well, I don't down wealth, because it is very possible that I will have it soon (lol), but, I think we should stay critical of the market and guys who write articles like this.
 
powell.jpg
 
I do feel that we should question wealth, however, and whether or not these American's are really generating it. Wealth should only be a relationship between goods available and customers, however, thanks to recent market trends, we're seeing wealth created on interest (at a national scale).


I think we should stay critical of the market and guys who write articles like this.

While i didn't agree with everything you said because it kinda contradicts itself... I agree with your final statement....

The markets should not be "static" but should always be kept open to encourage innovation and new forms of wealth creation. Just keep in mind, if the markets were kept tightly controlled by a few, then we would not have black billionaires like Oprah Winfrey or Bob Smith. I'm not a fan of either, but their successes came as a result of an open marketplace.

Today, there are more black millionaires in the U.S. than any other country on the planet.
 
When 400 people control almost 2 trillion dollars it can only lead to one thing, Terrorism.

Well... if you want to gain a little more perspective on someone like Bill Gates... the bottom line is, he made himself rich and those who were with him rich too... Ever hear of the Mircrosoft millionaires.... Bill Gates had quite a few blacks working with him in his early days.
 
Well... if you want to gain a little more perspective on someone like Bill Gates... the bottom line is, he made himself rich and those who were with him rich too... Ever hear of the Mircrosoft millionaires.... Bill Gates had quite a few blacks working with him in his early days.

Bill Gates was born with a gold spoon in his mouth and he was lucky as hell too. Not taking anything from him, even though I know it don't sound that way, he and his partners did what they had to do . But his father was a high powered lawyer who handled most of Big Blue's business and he was also connected in D.C. when Bill won the rights to the DOS system after years in court it was fairly easy for him to get his system on IBM and government computers. Yeah he got paid and so did hundreds maybe thousands of people who worked at Microsoft but at what cost to society? This system is suppose to be about competition when you eliminate competition what's left is a 2 class society, rich and poor.
 
While i didn't agree with everything you said because it kinda contradicts itself... I agree with your final statement....

The markets should not be "static" but should always be kept open to encourage innovation and new forms of wealth creation. Just keep in mind, if the markets were kept tightly controlled by a few, then we would not have black billionaires like Oprah Winfrey or Bob Smith. I'm not a fan of either, but their successes came as a result of an open marketplace.

Today, there are more black millionaires in the U.S. than any other country on the planet.

I respect your opinion in regards to my apparent contradiction. I will say that I didn't put as much effort into the response as I should have. Anyhow, I am saying that what we many of the stories we hear about these heroes are, in fact, contradictory.

I also feel that these stories serve as a tremendous boost to those without, but at the same time these stories are burdensome and misleading.

Any autobiography will tell you about the man or woman that came from nothing, to finally achieve everything...this is obviously possible. However, when these people admit to those things that ate at their soul in the quest (if it did), well, then people get a better picture of what it takes.

I believe in our people achieving more "wealth" accumulation, and I believe that as we open our eyes to what wealth really is, how it is attained (not all hard work, obviously), and how it is maintained, we wil have many more black billionaires.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how po' niggas fall for this right wing garbage and leap to the defense of the super rich. Keep dreaming, nigga... and for god's sake, don't get sick.
 
You don't get super-wealthy in this country unless you are a honkey or honorary honkey.

There is not one brother on that ENTIRE list.

Out of 400 people!!!!!

That alone should tell you the marketplace is closed and not open to competition.

Even the boys at Google got their big break with Yahoo! And Yahoo had the resources of Stanford at their disposal.

Now, how many of us can get $25 million in investment, for a good idea? I don't care if the idea is for a machine which turns lead into gold.

When you control the banks, lending, and investments, you control the country.

The whites have it all on lockdown in this country.

This article and the Forbes 400 is an embarrassment to a country always screaming about freedom.
 
Yeah he got paid and so did hundreds maybe thousands of people who worked at Microsoft but at what cost to society? This system is suppose to be about competition when you eliminate competition what's left is a 2 class society, rich and poor.


Uh... Last I checked, there were no laws that say I have to buy microsoft or any of its products. When I go to the store to buy a computer and only find microsoft software on it..I don't have to buy it or I can select something else.

Sure it seems rather odd and even questionable that every pc sold has micro-soft on it. but... its like any other marketing strategy.... build a better mouse trap... and people will buy it... that is... till Bill finds out about it.
 
Any autobiography will tell you about the man or woman that came from nothing, to finally achieve everything...this is obviously possible. However, when these people admit to those things that ate at their soul in the quest (if it did), well, then people get a better picture of what it takes.

.

You're absolutely correct with this point... people who have inspirational stories about their climb to success, don't often fully disclose exactly what "dues" they had to pay to get where they are today.

But let me tell you a little bit about what I know... normally, they get "good" lawyers to "hide" all the little nasty stuff that happened along the way. They won't tell you about the "extortion" money they paid to people to keep their mouths shut. They won't tell you about the payoffs they made to get key contracts. They won't tell you about the "loan sharks" they borrowed money from because they got "stiffed' by a large customer. They won't tell you about the laws they broke in the early stages of developing there product. They won't tell you about the the fraudulent loan applications they completed or the creditors they did not pay.

I once had a female try to sell me a vacuum cleaner at my home. She was so desperate to make a sale that in so many words, she offered me sex as an incentive to buy the darn thing. (I didn't take her up on it because she told me she had a two month old kid... but the sob story pulled my chains hard enough to make me wanna buy it anyway)

Yes... they make it all sound pretty easy. But I always say, if it was easy, then everybody would be doing it. And always keep in mind, for every "1" person who made it, there are about 10 others out there that tried the same thing but failed.
 
You don't get super-wealthy in this country unless you are a honkey or honorary honkey.

There is not one brother on that ENTIRE list.

Out of 400 people!!!!!

That alone should tell you the marketplace is closed and not open to competition.

Even the boys at Google got their big break with Yahoo! And Yahoo had the resources of Stanford at their disposal.

Now, how many of us can get $25 million in investment, for a good idea? I don't care if the idea is for a machine which turns lead into gold.

When you control the banks, lending, and investments, you control the country.

The whites have it all on lockdown in this country.

This article and the Forbes 400 is an embarrassment to a country always screaming about freedom.

I don't know what rock you've been sleeping under... but a bank isn't the only place to go and borrow money.

You have an idea... find some investors. Every white boy out there with a plan doesn't get a bank loan. He will seek out funds from anyone such as venture capitalist or maybe even his own family and friends.

That being the case, there are many black millionaires in this country. And back to the subject of banks... there are black owned and operated banks in this country. Look at the newspapers if you don't know who they are. Read Black Enterprise Magazine..there are plenty in there. Being black isn't the excuse it once was when you consider that large money circulates in our communities too. That is... unless you feel fully content with believing that "all" blacks are "poor" people.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what rock you've been sleeping under... but a bank isn't the only place to go and borrow money.

You have an idea... find some investors. Every white boy out there with a plan doesn't get a bank loan. He will seek out funds from anyone such as venture capitalist or maybe even his own family and friends.

That being the case, there are many black millionaires in this country. And back to the subject of banks... there are black owned and operated banks in this country. Look at the newspapers if you don't know who they are. Read Black Enterprise Magazine..there are plenty in there. Being black isn't the excuse it once was when you consider that large money circulates in our communities too. That is... unless you feel fully content with believing that "all" blacks are "poor" people.

Let's be realistic here. How many industries do "blacks" control.

Do they control electronics? How about consumer durables (refrigerators, stoves, dishwashers, etc.). Okay, how about home improvement?

Do blacks control any industry you find in your home?

How about food production? How about food distribution? Ok, how about food branding and marketing? Ok, how many national soul food chains are there?

Do they control energy production? How about just coal production? Ethanol, maybe?

Do they control any airlines? How about railroads? How about trucking?

Let's see, maybe shipping? No. How about the auto industry? Well, maybe that's asking too much.

Do they control software? Business software? How about game software?

Hmmm.

Do they control any movie studios? How about TV stations? Oh yeah, that's right, they control two of the weakest stations on CABLE TV.

We could not make it 1 day if we depended on the businesses "blacks" own.

Why? It takes "national banks/stock markets/insurance companies" to finance an enterprise large enough to run a 1st world country.

When you control the money, you control the country.

At this rate, we control jack s***.

And who are these millionaires??? Many are athletes, entertainers or people living off them (lawyers, accountants, sports casters, etc.)?

If we depended on these people to run the country, we would have starved long ago.
 
The guy who wrote this is full of shit. He must be on one of those billionaires payroll because most people think it is a shame and disgrace when one man, Bill Gates, is allowed to hoard 50 billion dollars while 30 million people don't have insurance. This bullshit about the wealth not being static is nonsense. There are 8 million millionares in America, that figure alone should have people rioting in the streets when we have a 8 trillion dollar economy. Half of those millionaires work for billionaires, Oprah's two fuck buddies are millionaires, Tiger's caddy is a fucking millionaire. I don't even want to think about how many people got rich kissing Warren Buffet's and Sam Walton's asses. He's right about one thing the government shouldn't be talking about the wealth gap, not that they are going to do anything about it anyway. If the government didn't put Bill's Windows on all of their computers maybe he would have some competition. If the government didn't bankroll Google, Warren Buffet, and just about every other leech on that list there wouldn't be a wealth gap.

Exactly how did the "government" fund those people you mentioned ?

And how is the economy static ? Have the names changed or not?

And why does he have to be on the "Payroll" of Billionaires because you don't like what he has to say ?
 
Back
Top