俄国人也理解这一点

所以，通过通货膨胀对投资的影响来减少富人，这对穷人来说连短期的实际帮助都没有。穷人的经济状况随通胀对经济的总体影响而起伏。而通胀对经济的影响不可能是好的。

民众经济状况的大幅度改善需要资本的大幅实际增长，并将资本投入现代的生产设施中。如果不通过产业发展来持续创造并使用昂贵的，新的资本资产，即使有广泛的人力资源，巨大的消费需求和政府的许诺，也只能导致失败。这个公式俄国人和洛克菲勒都理解。这一公式在日本和西德已经被应用，并且产生了惊人的成功。高资本积累率让这些国家的生活水平快速提高。即便我们相对于他们有着能源的优势，但他们生活水平提高的速度远超过我们。

为了理解通胀对真实资本积累的影响，需要一点数学计算。让我们回到12%的资本回报率。这样的回报是除去了折旧之后的。也就是说假定可以补充现有的生产能力之后的回报。但前提是厂房和设备可以在未来通过与当初相似的价格购买来。

过去的方式

让我们假设盈利的一半用来分红，剩下的6%的资本投入未来的增长。假如通胀很低，为2%，那么增长的大部分将会是实际产出的真实增长。在这一条件下，必须额外投入2%在应收帐款、库存和固定资产上，明年的实际产出才会与今年持平。剩下的4%对资产的投资将带来更多的实际产出。这2%的虚幻增长反映的是通货膨胀，而剩下的4%则支持实际增长。如果人口增长1%，这4%的实际增长会转化为3%的人均收入真实增长。这虽然是非常粗略的估算，但这就是我们经济过去增长的方式。

现在，让我们算一下7%的通胀率下，在满足了必须的通胀部分后，还有多少能剩下给真实增长。答案是，如果分红政策不变，债务杠杆也不变，没有任何东西能剩下支持真实增长。12%回报的一半分红，剩下的6%都要用来投入才能保持明年的实际产出与今年持平。

很多公司面临正常分红后，无真正的存留盈利来支持业务扩张的困境。他们只能临时想办法。怎么办呢？他们会问自己：我们怎么才能偷走，或者减少分红，但又不触怒股东呢？我有一个好消息给他们：有这样做法的现成的一组蓝图。

近些年，电力工业只有很少，或者没有能力分红。或者说，如果投资者同意买他们的股票，他们就有能力分红。1975年，电力公司分红33亿美金，却要投资者交回34亿美金。当然，他们把这些都混在一起，施展了拆东墙补西墙的办法，以免得到Con Ed那样的坏名声。Con Ed电力公司，如果你记得，在1974年非常不明智的对股东实话实说：公司没钱分红。这种坦诚带来的是市场的灾难。

更老于世故的公用事业公司保持，甚至是增加季度分红，然后要求股东（老股东或者新股东）把钱寄回去。换句话说，公司增发新股，让股东把钱送回去。这一过程把大量资本转给了税务局和投行。但是，所有人都很兴致勃勃（尤其是投行）。

巴菲特：《通货膨胀如何欺诈股票投资者》（十六）完

The Russians understand it too

Therefore, diminishment of the affluent, through the impact of inflation on their investments, will not even provide material short-term aid to those who are not affluent. Their economic well-being will rise or fall with the general effects of inflation on the economy. And those effects are not likely to be good.

Large gains in real capital, invested in modern production facilities, are required to produce large gains in economic well-being. Great labor availability, great consumer wants, and great government promises will lead to nothing but great frustration without continuous creation and employment of expensive new capital assets throughout industry. That's an equation understood by Russians as well as Rockefellers. And it's one that has been applied with stunning success in West Germany and Japan. High capital-accumulation rates have enabled those countries to achieve gains in living standards at rates far exceeding ours, even though we have enjoyed much the superior position in energy.

To understand the impact of inflation upon real capital accumulation, a little math is required. Come back for a moment to that 12 percent return on equity capital. Such earnings are stated after depreciation, which presumably will allow replacement of present productive capacity - if that plant and equipment can be purchased in the future at prices similar to their original cost.

The way it was

Let's assume that about half of earnings are paid out in dividends, leaving 6 percent of equity capital available to finance future growth. If inflation is low - say, 2 percent - a large portion of that growth can be real growth in physical output. For under these conditions, 2 percent more will have to be invested in receivables, inventories, and fixed assets next year just to duplicate this year's physical output - leaving 4 percent for investment in assets to produce more physical goods. The 2 percent finances illusory dollar growth reflecting inflation and the remaining 4 percent finances real growth. If population growth is 1 percent, the 4 percent gain in real output translates into a 3 percent gain in real per capita net income. That, very roughly, is what used to happen in our economy.

Now move the inflation rate to 7 percent and compute what is left for real growth after the financing of the mandatory inflation component. The answer is nothing - if dividend policies and leverage ratios Terrain unchanged. After half of the 12 percent earnings are paid out, the same 6 percent is left, but it is all conscripted to provide the added dollars needed to transact last year's physical volume of business.

Many companies, faced with no real retained earnings with which to finance physical expansion after normal dividend payments, will improvise. How, they will ask themselves, can we stole or reduce dividends without risking stockholder wrath? I have good news for them: ready-made set of blueprints is available.

In recent years the electric-utility industry has had little or no dividend-paying capacity. Or, rather, it has had the power to pay dividends if investors agree to buy stock from them. In 1975 electric utilities paid common dividends of $3.3 billion and asked investors to return $3.4 billion. Of course, they mixed in a little solicit-Peter-to-pay-Paul technique so as not to acquire a Con Ed reputation. Con Ed, you will remember, was unwise enough in 1974 to simply tell its shareholders it didn't have the money to pay the dividend. Candor was rewarded with calamity in the marketplace.

The more sophisticated utility maintains - perhaps increases - the quarterly dividend and then asks shareholders (either old or new) to mail back the money. In other words, the company issues new stock. This procedure diverts massive amounts of capital to the tax collector and substantial sums to underwriters. Everyone, however, seems to remain in spirits (particularly the underwriters).