We see and hear the stories on radio, television and in our daily newspapers: The rich are getting richer all the time and this income gap or "wealth inequality" is stressing out middle class Americans to no end. Liberal reporters make their best effort to enrage the masses with snippets which proclaim that we cannot possibly be happy and content, not with so many "rich" people making increasingly more money. The stories screech the meme that average middle class Americans are finding it more difficult to make ends meet even as the wealthy bring home more dough. Of course, missing in virtually all of these reports is any explanation of a causality between how much "the rich" make and what the middle class are or are not feeling. The left cannot truthfully explain why anyone's life is worse when Bill Gates, or others like him, make more money. Of course, reporters are more interested in invoking emotional responses from their audience than actually conveying factual and objective information. Facts and true objectivity are boring and simply do not sell well.

The rich versus poor themes invariable include references to a concept called the "concentration of wealth," which is little more than a misnomer used to facilitate class warfare arguments. The inherent flaw in this theory is that wealth is a finite resource, like rare artwork, in which the market can be cornered and only the privileged few can enjoy the benefits. Unlike, rare art pieces, however, there is no finite supply of money. In fact, wealth is theoretically limitless. We are not poor or middle class because Bill Gates, or his country club buddies, are loaded. Conversely, Bill Gates is not rich because the rest of us are not. In reality, it is more likely true that many others are financially better off than they would be if there were no Bill Gates. Not only did Microsoft create enormous wealth which was shared throughout its organization, but the efficiencies and productivity gained by companies and individuals who use Microsoft products and services has certainly generated immeasurable profitability around the globe. Gates has even become more and more charitable in recent years, donating to worthy causes worldwide. One would be hard-pressed to detail exactly how Bill Gates' success in and of itself has harmed anyone.

American culture is filled with plenty of success stories, similar to Gates, although not quite as high profile, which are based upon hard work, recognizing and seizing opportunity and maybe even a little luck. Just as in Bill Gates' case, it is far more likely that these people have helped generate success for not just those around them but countless strangers as well. How much wealth can be directly or indirectly attributed to the invention of the automobile, the telephone, even Post-It notes? All of these inventions created tremendous wealth for a few, but they also changed the way we live in a small or large way and, in the process, allowed for even further ingenuity, invention and, yes, wealth.

Related to the Bill Gates' success story is the wealth which is also in our stock market. As the equity market continues to ascent into record territory, the media has given more and more focus to it in its class warfare innuendo. The public is now being told that the raging market is serving primarily the rich and leaving the rest of us in the dust. Yet, when the stock market tanked in the early 2000's and in the aftermath of 9/11, we were told that average Joe Americans were significantly harmed in the process. Pension plans, 401k's and other retirement accounts took a beating and billions of dollars in value disappeared. The press jumped on the circumstances of the time and, interestingly enough, took the same angle---the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The stock market goes up and we are told the middle class is hurt, the market goes down and the middle class is hurt. Perhaps if the market stayed flat indefinitely the press would be happy; don't bet on it though.

An article which appears on Newsbusters.org recently http://newsbusters.org/node/12478 provides some interesting evidence to further suggest that the media should be more cautious in its attacks on "the rich," particularly as it relates to stock market returns and employment statistics. As we might expect, recent periods of decline in the stock market occur concurrently with increases in the unemployment rate. This is not to say one causes the other; however, it is reasonable to assume that the circumstances which lead to market declines also lead to higher unemployment levels. Specifically, the nation lost about 2 million jobs during the bear market that ran from September, 2000 to March, 2003 as the unemployment rate increased 2 full percentage points. The previous bear market before that saw the unemployment rate surge from 5.5 percent to 7.8 percent. And, when the unemployment rate jumps, it is not "the rich" who generally feel the brunt of it, but rather the middle class and the working poor who feel most of the pain. The converse also holds true: In periods of a booming stock market, the unemployment level drops and jobs are created by the millions. About 8 million jobs have been created during the current bull market as the unemployment level has declined from 6 percent to the current 4.4 percent. Similar results are shown from prior bull markets as well.

The class warfare arguments are, no doubt, compelling in many ways. People who are struggling in their own lives, or just believe they are struggling, are easy prey to a collective media which relies upon emotional appeal to help fulfill its agenda. The reality is, though, that we all do better when "the rich get richer," and we should not be so quick to root for any other alternative.

	Web useless-knowledge.com