How are you Counting your Millionaires?

It's rather amusing to see advertisements everywhere which proclaims that there are XX thousand of millionaires in Singapore and then try to sell you a training package to teach you how to be one. I find it both misleading and ironic.

Why the number of millionaires / millionaires growth rate statistics is misleading:

1. Increased millionaires can be a product of inflation (which is really sky high at the moment). If there's anything one learns in finance, it's that the real value of money, not the numerical dollar figure that counts.
2. If the society can be viewed as a mostly closed, zero-sum system of wealth, a 5% GDP growth rate with a 10% growth rate of millionaires is not something to be jubilant about. It means that the wealth has somehow flowed from the poor to the rich, increasing income disparity. (Maybe by signing up for such trainings, people are actually aiding by making this a self-fulfilling scenario?)
   
3. General property boom (as known as the en bloc fiesta) last year probably made some people who happened to stay at the right place at the right time richer. Chances are, not all would know how to retain this wealth.
4. Ministerial Pay Increase (enough said).
5. Going forward, the latest budget measures like removal of estate tax would be beneficial to the high wealth individuals. Which means we could expect to see both (1) number of millionaires being maintained by less taxes, and (2) increased number of high wealth individuals being attracted to settle down here.
   

In any case, it still takes a massive, blindfolded leap of faith to say "number of millionaires are increasing" thus "you should take our training program". Two completely unrelated concepts if you ask me. The oft-asked question of why "people who know how to get rich don't just use it to get rich themselves?" remains. Mostly, the answer is they use you and our money to get rich, not the program. Remember, if a package is $1,000, all they need is 1000 sign ups to make them the millionaire, not you.