Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the "wealth effect."

Key Points

  • The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter.
  • All of the gains came from stock holdings thanks to an end-of-year rally.
  • Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the “wealth effect.”

The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter, as an end-of-year stock rally lifted their portfolios, according to new data from the Federal Reserve.

The total net worth of the top 1%, defined by the Fed as those with wealth over $11 million, increased by $2 trillion in the fourth quarter. All of the gains came from their stock holdings. The value of corporate equities and mutual fund shares held by the top 1% surged to $19.7 trillion from $17.65 trillion the previous quarter.

While their real estate values went up slightly, the value of their privately held businesses declined, essentially canceling out all other gains outside of stocks.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    8 months ago

    He just said it was a bad idea to hamstring African food production as a requirement for them getting aid…

    That was a terrible decision, and he has admitted that.

    But it has zero to do with trickle down economics, and was in no way what he built his career/legacy after.

    Like, did you just Google “Bill Clinton apologized” and grabbed the first link that want about blowjobs?

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      31·
      8 months ago

      Jesus Christ, dude. I’m not out here fellating Clinton, way to fucking take it personally and make it personal.

      I literally agreed with you that his cargo cult allowed his administration to drive economic policy. Are you stupid or just a jerk?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        8 months ago

        What?

        I thought it would have been obvious I was referring to the Monica Lewinsky incident…

        But I’m sorry, it’s clear I’m not able to communicate to you in a way you understand.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          I’m not confused, I know exactly what you were referring to. You’ve decided to ignore half of what I said because you think I’m praising Clinton.

          Do you usually argue with people that are in general agreement with you?