Advertising Age publizierte jüngst eine Übersicht zu den Ausgaben nach Einkommensgruppen in den USA (2005) aus der sich ergab, dass das obere Quintil 39 % der Konsumausgaben bestritt. Daten wie diese gelten als Beleg für die Plutonomics-These und ihre Radikalisierung, die darauf abzielt, dass es nur noch Reiche und den Rest gebe. Daraus ergebe sich, so etwa Ajay Kapur in seinen Beiträgen, dass die Ökonomie zuvorderst durch die Konsumausgaben der Reichen angetrieben werde. Er schreibt u.a.:„The top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put together. That’s about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie! Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the „average“ U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better (or worse, depending on your political stripe) – the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together.“ …
„Since consumption accounts for 65 pct of the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for 19.8 pct of the MSCI AC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumption is key for equity market participants.“ … „There is no „average consumer“ in a Plutonomy. Consensus analyses focusing on the „average“ consumer are flawed from the start. The Plutonomy Stock Basket outperformed MSCI AC World by 6.8% per year since 1985. Does even better if equities beat housing. Select names: Julius Baer, Bulgari, Richemont, Kuoni, and Toll Brothers.“
Ja, das findet Anklang.