- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
We have to take back that wealth. Right this is the reason why we have not the lifes we deserve. That are the funds that were siphoned off from our society. The people created this worth. Not some guys at the top.
Correct. This is the stolen education of our future generations. This is the stolen lunch’s of our children. When does America wake up? I guess it takes physically seeing it happen. We are gonna be so down trodden before someone steps up it seems.
Inflation is how you get fucked. Get off the train, buy deflationary assets
Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the “wealth effect.” When consumers and investors see their stock holdings soar, they feel more confident spending and taking more risk.
I somehow suspect that this thing about the wealth effect is total and utter bullshit.
Just like trickle down economics.
What’s crazy is the reason people believe in it, is total coincidence.
Bill Clinton thought it was a good idea and republicans just implemented it wrong, and then when he was president the dotcom boom happened and everyone gave credit to Clinton’s policy. It stopped being a conversation on if it worked, and became how best to implement it.
Like when Biden did the “child predators” bill, it wasn’t harsh punishments that got crime under control, it was the normal effect of banning leaded gasoline 20 years earlier. But we’re left with two “tough on crime” options even though that approach just doesn’t work.
In both cases it’s reminiscent of cargo cults, a good thing happened, so we just repeat what we were doing when it happened and expect the good thing again.
But with how long political careers are and how slow science moves, by the time we can prove it, they’ve built huge careers off the false assumption they had something to do with it. For them to admit they’ve been wrong, they have to realize they spent decades doing the wrong thing and while they had good intentions they’ve been causing harm.
That’s a big ask for anyone, but especially for someone whose over 60.
So they ignore all evidence and double down even harder
whose over 60.
Who’s. Whose is for possessive, like: whose beer is this? It’s the guy whose car is outside.
That’s a big ask for anyone, but especially for someone whose over 60.
Interesting that you reference Bill Clinton, because he is actually on record on realizing some stuff he did was the wrong choice. Specifically the idea of treating food as commodities and not a human right. Not that that invalidates your point, just an interesting note.
“Food is not a commodity like others,” Clinton said. “We should go back to a policy of maximum food self-sufficiency. It is crazy for us to think we can develop countries around the world without increasing their ability to feed themselves.”
Clinton was 61 years old in 2008.
Uhhh…
I mean it’s good he’s admitted to some mistakes.
But I really don’t see how African food subsidies applies to domestic economic policy…
Uhhh…
The US drives how the world economy works, and literally bullies other countries into how it wants it to be. We exported “trickle down economics” and other bullshit ideas to the whole world, and Clinton’s Presidency had its hands in all of that. The reason we were able to export such policy is because it seemed like it was working domestically and worldwide, so the Clinton administration was driving a lot of what happened in worldwide economics as well as domestic economics because of the same cargo cult.
I really was only pointing out that he managed to make statements about it after 60. I actually think it’s easier for these folks to admit it as they get older. See: every US Republican who turns around to criticize the party after they retire from politics.
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?
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?
They mean spend on more stocks. Which makes the economy grow. Not spend on goods and services.
The economic models don’t include distribution.
Economy is doing fine. Eat your dirt, peasant.
The stock market and bank-bonds are how factories buy more equipment so that peasants can run that equipment (ie: more jobs).
Farms don’t run on peasants alone today, they need fertilizers, tractors, combines and other machines. These machines cost money, and the easiest way to raise money for such machines is from the stock market. (IE: sell stock, buy machines, distribute profits from those machines back to the shareholders). Shareholders then buy more stock from more companies, and the cycle grows.
Now maybe its a bit consumerist to be overly focusing on our production + consumption. But there’s a good reason people talk about it: its the core of our economic growth strategy. Encouraging the “peasants” to participate in this through 401k plans (tax-advantaged accounts that encourage stock-buying) is one trick we have, albeit flawed but its one of the better plans that we got.
Of all methods for managing food production, capitalist free markets are one of the worst. Farmers must purchase everything to grow the crops, including the seeds and machinery. The machinery for modern farming alone costs $500k when 40 years old, used, and broken. If a large area, say the Midwest, has extremely fertile land capable of growing most crops then farmers will incentivized to purchase the machinery to grow a crop that is profitable in the moment. See the problem yet?
The farmers will then be financially forced into continuing to grow that crop, even if it’s no longer profitable to do so. The government then needs to provide assistance to these farmers: subsidies, research into utilizing thousands of tons of a single crop, exporting most of the crop grown, etc.
Due to the free market, farmers in the Midwest started growing corn because it was profitable during and after WW2. Now the Midwest grows seas of corn and soybeans, because government subsidies mean that growing any other crop is an extremely risky and very expensive. The market needs to hold for multiple years to pay for the seeds and machinery, because everything about farming is expensive. Rather than take the risk, farmers use the machinery they have to purchase the subsidized crops we don’t need because they need money to buy food that was imported rather than grown locally.
Of all methods for managing food production, capitalist free markets are one of the worst.
There’s a few great leap forwards that suggest otherwise. Government mandating farming (or a lack of farming) also leads to problems.
For better or worse, today’s farming relies upon very expensive equipment to reach the necessary yields. It doesn’t matter what system of government or markets you use, you cannot get around the $Million+ equipment needed for today’s farms.
The only question remaining is how do you fund such equipment? Capitalist markets provide us the shareholder + bondholder as two classes of investors. Bonds require a %yield paid ever year, while shareholders are largely content with (realistic) promises of future profits. If shareholders think one kind of crop is better, they will invest their money into different companies or equipment. If one kind of crop (and equipment for that crop) loses value, then shares will drop, shareholders will stop investing, and the shareholders will move on to better profits.
Just a few years ago, I saw shareholders get together to give Elon Musk $5 Billion to build the Nevada Gigafactory. For better or worse, shareholders here in USA are excellent at raising money. Now the decisions of shareholders (ex: trusting Elon Musk) are suspect. But no one can deny the huge efficacy at raising billions of $$$$ at a time with this methodology. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/tesla-tsla-increases-secondary-public-185506659.html?_fsig=mgd.tScfuG49PuaFrUFmzA--~A
Now… shareholders are fucking stupid. That’s the problem. But at least there’s a lot of shareholders, so some shareholders are going to make the right decisions. And some smart shareholders might be smart enough to invest into the correct things (ex: an underrated crop), leading into greater profits.
Sounds like you’re speaking off of ignorance. Farm collectivization has led to some severe famines, but after the collectivization was completed those nations rarely saw food insecurity. China still hasn’t had major food insecurity since being collectivized. I think there are ways to prevent that from happening, because it hasn’t happened in every country that collectivized the farmland.
Stop trying to force things into terms of monetary exchange, because it doesn’t fit for everything. The government can provide the machine, since the US has monetary sovereignty (doesn’t owe a lot of debt to other countries) in a fiat currency. This means that as long as the federal government has access to the labor and resources, it can afford to do so by issuing debt to itself and paying it off with the next year’s run of fiat currency.
Now, it’s impractical and wasteful to manufacture all of the different combine heads for all of the different crops that could be grown by every farmer. Establish a library of sorts where farmers can utilize these machines without cost, and can be repaired without downtime (by using a different one in good repair while the broken one is fixed). Food can then be grown and distributed locally and based on need. This will also reduce overproduction and reduce emissions to transfer food. It also makes every place more resistant to natural disaster and disrupted supply lines.
Sounds like you’re speaking off of ignorance. Farm collectivization has led to some severe famines, but after the collectivization was completed those nations rarely saw food insecurity. China still hasn’t had major food insecurity since being collectivized. I think there are ways to prevent that from happening, because it hasn’t happened in every country that collectivized the farmland.
China imported $104.6 billion in food alone just last year, mostly from the USA.
They’re not the example you think they are. They are increasingly reliant upon imports (and USA’s capitalist system) for food security.
Now there’s plenty of downsides to capitalism. But collecing fucktons of money to fund $Billion ventures is one of the good things that capitalism does exceptionally well. You’re arguing against literally Capitalism’s greatest strength here. Go poke a hole at all the other problems capitalism causes, you aren’t going to make progress on this front.
BTW: China’s increasingly grown capitalist themselves, reliant upon huge bonds and stock markets to raise funds like the USA does. The debate is over, capital markets are widespread even in former Soviet Bloc’s and former Communist countries. And its been like that for decades.
The agricultural sector should be subsidised instead of relying on the stock or the futures or commodities market to survive.
And this whole free trade agreement bullshit should stop.
I don’t think that is a meaningful metric. The least wealthy 50% should be spending money on necessities like food and housing. If someone without thousands of dollars in discretionary cash said “I’m going to start investing” I’d call them a fucking idiot.
Out-of-control. The USA should return to the 1960’s tax brackets.
It’s too late. We need to be even more aggressive now to correct the egregious imbalance.
Sadly that wouldn’t have an impact on this. This is just unrealized stock wealth until it’s actually sold afaik. I think we shouldn’t allow people to take out loans on their stock holdings though. Or however it is people like Elon and such get their low risk loans to play with while keeping their money in the market.
The market adjusts.
When Elon was forced to buy Twitter, all those loans came due as Elon Musk had to sell TSLA stock to pay for capital gains, then sell TSLA stock to bring down his margin and stay good, then finally sell TSLA stock to pay for Twitter.
There’s no free lunch anywhere. Elon Musk is the kind of guy who takes insane risks (and honestly, its beginning to look like its all collapsing). Yes, USA has a lot of opporunity and we provide a lot of loans for dumbasses to hurt themselves, but that’s a good thing in the great scheme of things. Eventually, it always collapses. It does take 10 to 20 years sometimes for the bad effects to build up though.
Or however it is people like Elon and such get their low risk loans to play with while keeping their money in the market.
That was interest-rate policy. Today loans are 10%+ for such effects. Our mistake was keeping rates too low for so long. But that’s different than our tax policy.
1960’s
1960s. Unless it’s one year.
1960’s
1960s. Unless it’s one year.
1960s’ tax brackets. The possessive apostrophe goes on the outside of a plural. You’re both welcome, lol.
Eat the rich
Plenty of meat on those bones.
44 trillion would end world… problems.
Let’s END… the… problem.
🍽️ the 🤑
Wealth tax when?
Taxes are just taking money by force for the common good.
We don’t need to wait for Congress to do anything.
OFF. WITH. THEIR. HEADS.
That’s over 5k per human currently alive.
Was Reagan in Australia when he mentioned trickle-down economics?
There was a coalition of conservative governments during that time. Thatcher in the UK, Mulroney in Canada and Bon Hawke in Australia.
Even if Hawke was the labour party, he still made significant economic reforms to align with what was going on in the western world.
Oxfam released an analysis saying the top 1% got 63% of all new wealth generated from 2020-2022. According to UN analysis the top 10% own 85% of all the wealth.
According to Oxfam, “an annual wealth tax of up to 5 percent on the world’s multi-millionaires and billionaires could raise $1.7 trillion a year, enough to lift 2 billion people out of poverty, fully fund the shortfalls on existing humanitarian appeals, deliver a 10-year plan to end hunger, support poorer countries being ravaged by climate impacts, and deliver universal healthcare and social protection for everyone living in low- and lower middle-income countries.”
Ok hear me out. I just want to do quick maths. The world population is according to worldometer just over 8,1 billion people. So 81 million people make up the top 1%. So this article says they have now 44,6 trillion dollars. So $44600000000000/81000000 is equal to $550617.28 per person in the one percent. So that means if you have more than $550 000 in wealth, you are a one percenter.
I am curious if the wealth of the top % as a value has grown or outpaced the rate of inflation and population growth added together.
Ok so I am looking at America specifically, they have since the 1928 till now had an inflation rate of about 3,3%. Now the Fortune 400 companies had a growth of 9,9% during that same period. So if a kids parents invests in their name $1350 a month for 18 years, assuming semiannually compound, that would make the kid top 1% globally.
We just shouldn’t allow individuals to have over a billion dollars, just 100% tax on anything over a billion when combined assets exceed that number. Both because there’s no good reason for any one person to have that much money and because as pathetic as American campaign finance laws are it’s a legit national security risk for someone to have that kind of money to throw at their pet causes.
If you had a billion dollars and never earned a penny more, you would actually find it hard to spend it all before you die. It could probably fully support several generations of your family. I’m totally fine with saying, “Congratulations! You maxed out the money counter in the game of Life!”
I’d be quite content with 999 million dollars.
… But it’s the poor mother pulling herself up by the bootstraps, making the perilous journey north to work comparatively-shit jobs to help give her kids a brighter future that is apparently the problem to righties — who, by the way — we all benefit from their cheap labor in the first place…
$20 spent to a person making 100,000/year…
… Is the same as a single-billionaire spending $200,000.
When do we start taking heads?
