Elon Musk speaks at the launch of SpaceX’s IPO.(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Billionaires are on the increase, and we’ve just seen Elon Musk become the world’s first trillionaire. Is this trend positive for the economic forecast or negative? Actually, it’s more a reflection of a good economic environment than a separate factor that will help or hurt the future economy. There are non-economic issues that concern some people, such as whether the presence of ultra-rich people affects social relations or politics; this article will leave those topics for others to debate.
The billionaire count is affected by inflation—a billion dollars doesn’t buy as much as it did back in 1918 when John D. Rockefeller’s wealth was $1.2 billion. But the trend is much greater than inflation. Recently Forbes reported, “It’s not just Musk—billionaires everywhere are smashing records. In March, Forbes found that the planet added more than one new billionaire per day over the past year. There are now a record 3,400-plus billionaires worldwide, up 50% from a decade ago.”
The share of total wealth held by the top one-tenth of one percent of Americans has increased from 8.6% in 1990 to 14.5% at the end of 2025. That rising slice, though, is part of a much larger pie. The bottom 50% of Americans saw their aggregate wealth rise five-fold over the same period, far exceeding inflation. So top and bottom of the wealth distribution are both getting richer, though the people at the top are rising faster. These results come from the Federal Reserve’s Distributional Financial Accounts. While not perfectly accurate, they are the best estimates we have.
(Note that wealth is a point-in-time concept, measuring a person’s assets net of debt. Income occurs over time, such as a year, and reflects earnings in that period.)
Billionaire Innovators
The rise of billionaires comes primarily from the much better transfer of ideas, goods and services around the world. One person, or a small team of people, can now have a huge impact that would have been almost impossible a century ago—and much harder even a decade ago.
Consider computers. They have been around since the 1940s. Getting smaller and cheaper was development in a manner typical of the industrial revolution. But the ease of spreading software around—first by mailing floppy discs, then by emailing files—enabled developers to widen their spread. Internet-based services allowed one person to serve millions of others with a service particular to a group’s needs.
Innovators are not the only billionaires, but they make up the largest group. Look at the top eight names on the Forbes 400 list: Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Steve Ballmer, Jensen Huang. They have helped the economy grow. And although they profited from their innovations, they captured only a small portion of the value they created. Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus ran the numbers: “I estimate that innovators are able to capture about 2.2 percent of the total social surplus from innovation.” The remaining 97.8% benefits consumers and workers.
Billionaire Financiers
Ninth on the Forbes list is Warren Buffett, an investor rather than innovator. Financiers dot the list, including founders of hedge funds. These billionaires also create value, but not so obviously. Consider someone who buys an asset cheap and then sells it later at a higher price. There is more going on than dollars moving from one pocket to another. The initial purchase pushed up the price of the asset, by at least a little. The sale of an asset pulls the price down by at least a little.
Prices are signals to the other people in the economy. A high price tells the world that this product is highly valuable; we should make more of it and only use the product where it makes good sense. A low price tells the world that the product is abundant; we can use it widely, and we should prefer it to the high-priced product whenever possible. These signals guide entrepreneurs to make what we most value, and to put little effort into things we do not value highly. Prices also provide incentives for consumers to buy the abundant and avoid the scarce.
The activities that made the financiers billionaires added to the productivity of the economy through better price signals that motivated millions of others to reflect our valuations in their activities.
Entertainer Billionaires
The ranks of the extremely wealthy include singers (Taylor Swift), athletes (Michael Jordan) and other entertainers (Oprah Winfrey). They are more prominent now because of what some call the “winner take all” effect. A century ago, every city had a favorite singer who was not well known outside that place. With global media, people around the world gravitate to the one or few best singers. A top athlete today has fans all around the world wearing his jersey and following his sneaker recommendations.
Entertainers are part of the economy, but the concentration of revenue among the top entertainers is not particularly stimulative to overall economic activity. It’s neither good nor bad.
Billionaire Heirs And Spouses
The ex-spouses and heirs of innovators also appear on the Forbes 400 list. Most of their economic impact comes from investment and philanthropy. Investments made by this group are probably, on average, as productive as any other investments, so the net effect of investments by billionaires is no different than if the invested wealth had come in small amounts from millions of IRA and 401(k) investors.
The charitable donations so common among the very wealthy are harder to assess economically. Some will go to what we economists call public goods. These benefit the community beyond what the provider can charge. A clean environment is hard to produce if the business model has the people who benefit paying a fee. Either government support or charitable donations are the most common proposals to provide these public goods.
Some charitable donations try to help poor people. These may not show up much in economic activity statistics, but the philanthropists—and most others—feel good about helping those in need.
The economic problem is that charity does not involve a market test. If I purchase land to be left undeveloped for environmental benefit, am I getting the most bang for my buck with that particular purchase? When a business spends money, it evaluates the benefit relative to the cost. Charity typically has no such cost-benefit test. Maybe the money is doing good; maybe it’s not. Without such a test, charitable donations probably do less good, dollar for dollar, than money spent in the private sector.
Despite the market test problem, charity has the potential to provide non-economic values. But the impact on the overall economy is probably a small negative.
Parasite Billionaires
The billionaires who hurt the economy are those who use political connections to win contracts, limit competition or receive outright government subsidies. These are most common in less developed countries, though some people in developed countries prosper through graft and corruption. Insofar as business decisions are made based on government power, the economy suffers.
There are mixed cases in all of these categories. Some innovators also employ lobbyists who work to limit competition through government regulations. Some heirs or spouses have been helpful in developing the innovative company. Some entertainers may also be innovators, such as Paul Newman with his salad dressing.
Economic Impact Of Billionaires
The increase in billionaires in the United States indicates dynamism in the economy. The structure enables and rewards innovation that produces existing products at lower cost and new products that improve business productivity and consumer satisfaction. Good governance requires prevention of crony capitalism, but otherwise the rising number of billionaires is a positive sign for future economic progress.
Leave a comment