The wealth of the 1% just hit a record $44 trillion
cnbc.com
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.
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.
No, don’t you see the real issues are trans people and some other random social problem Fox News tells conservatives to get in an uproar about.
Why we can’t have nice things.
Inflation is how you get fucked. Get off the train, buy deflationary assets
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
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.
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?
Who's. Whose is for possessive, like: whose beer is this? It's the guy whose car is outside.
Its especially bad when someone like Alan Greenspan admitted to being wrong but the cargo cult continues.
Of course its easier to look for correlations because finding actual causal relationships often takes a life's work.
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.
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--%7EA
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.
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.
Please read what I said again. The whole thing. I'm saying that the federal government of US doesn't need to raise any money at all because of modern monetary theory.
It sounds like you just want US Government to nationalize John Deere and take over the production of tool equipment.
If there were no innovation happening (ex: Boeing situation), I think you'd have a point. But my understanding (I'm not a farmer, but just someone looking outside in), it seems like farm equipment innovation continues to skyrocket. IE: As bad and awful as John Deere is, they are doing their primary job of innovation and building new equipment.
I come from a Case family, so I'd rather they nationalized Case IH lol
On a serious note, we don't need to nationalize the companies that make the machinery to solve this issue. There are many different methods (even in socdem ideologies) to solve this problem created by capitalism. Personally I think farmers should organize amongst themselves to collectively manage farmland and machinery. I don't think we'd need to nationalize one of those farm equipment companies, we'd just have to abolish intellectual "property". Then the machinery can be made and improved by anyone, because we don't need free markets to innovate.
I'm absolutely for right-to-repair laws. I don't think patents are full evil, but they absolutely need reform. Copyrights should likely be weakened as well.
So I don't know about "abolishing intellectual property", but I can meet in the middle: I can agree that patents have become stupid as the patent office no longer can keep up with the pace of inventions and fairly evaluate who is, or isn't, deserving of patents. Reforming our country to this new reality (ie: that patents are unfairly, and inconsistently applied) is absolutely required.
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.
There's the joke. Agriculture is both subsidised and highly capitalized.
Now what?
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.
tHe EcOnOmY iS dOiNg GrEaT
No, the stock market is doing great at making the rich richer. The economy is fucking broken. On purpose. The crushing of the working class to enrich the 1% is capitalism working exactly as intended.
I’m sure the wealth will trickle down any moment now. Been waiting about 40 years now. Must be happening soon.
It only trickles down in blood, dear. And only that you shed. Kill your masters, kill for your masters, or die for them. Those are your options.
Some much computational energy and human talent is wasted on finance coming up with imaginary and derivative products that do nothing but make rich people richer.
It’s nothing but speculative wealth that doesn’t actually exist, but the federal government prints bonds to underwrite this garbage. Then morons talk about how the feds print money that cause inflation, but are too stupid to realize why.
And no one will listen to you because America has a stake in the stupidity of its people.
Thank you! Economy is just who does what work and how we hand out the fruits. Money is just a bullshit abstraction they introduced.
We need to reset ownership. If it doesn't work for you, burn it down. Its what they do.
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.
I would lower that to $100 million. I don't think there's even a good reason for anyone to be that rich, but if we're going for a crazy upper limit...
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!"
We could give them a trophy and everything
I'd be quite content with 999 million dollars.
Buy your lottery tickets...
Aren't there some billion dollar super yachts out there? There's always a reason for the stupidity rich to claim they need more.
Ahh, boo hoo. I guess they'll need to take out a loan like the rest of us plebians.
Of course, repayment of loans for billionaires is entirely optional. Just raise the overdraft fees of the normies to compensate.
We used to have a super high tax rate on the wealthy (91%) in the past, but it got repealed.
Let your house representative know you'd like that to return.
Make it a million, with an M. Adjusted for inflation after inception, and including stock income. I've been saying it for years. Good luck convincing those in power who it would actually effect to enact it though.
It is possible to become a millionaire without exploiting others in the same way the 1% do. I would find a limit somewhere in the tens of millions more reasonable
Thanks Reagan, still waiting for it to trickle down you fucking liar.
Milton Freidman is the one who convinced that POS it would work
This POS also taught Milton.
Think we should end all Economists
Nuke Chicago?
No they have really good food and also real people live there too.
Disproportionately well armed real people, which sounds like a solution to me.
So just a tactical one on the campus?
Ask a meteorologist, but that's my only objection. If they didn't want fallout in their backyards, I guess they would've fixed it themselves at some point in the last century.
If I ever get a time machine, I've got a baby to go delete real quick.
The 1% would have hired some other actor...
It should be trickling down any second now. Meanwhile, the Kellogg's CEO is telling people to eat cereal for dinner because they are poor.
Not to mention that per weight beef is cheaper
Source
That same guy, further known as "Asshat", made more than $4M in 2023. What a fuckin asshole.
I wonder what his advice would be on other topics.
"Man, I wish I could buy a house so that I have a stable living condition and a roof over my head."
Asshat: "A cardboard box on the street seems to be trendy way to be thrifty and obtain all you're asking for! I sell them, give me money!"
Next time he complains about something, we should give him similar advice.
Asshat: "Man, I wish I could own a yacht like the other rich guys in my golf club."
Us: "This rowboat seems to be trendy way to be thrifty and obtain all you're asking for! I sell them, give me money!"
Eat the rich
Plenty of meat on those bones.
And the marbling!
It's to
diekill forSo I’m not against eating (or better yet taxing) the rich, but if this article talks about the 1% global/worldwide, you’re likely in that 1%. The cutoff is like anyone with a job that makes 60k$ a year and no kids.
So, yeah, but only if you've been saving your entire wage and paying no tax for the past 15 years.
I was going off this article; https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich
And here I am terrified to spend a penny.
Maybe the billionaires will buy each other’s shit and we can all just die already and let them play with resources without us.
I don’t know what I’m trying to say. Going to bed for my back to back 16 hour shifts over the next two days.
Good night fellow poors.
"I could hire half the poor to kill the other half."
And in the end, even those jobs were automated.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2023/08/07/flying-sniper-drone-takes-aim/?sh=77de157153fd
You know what's wild...
Very much just a modern version of Samson and some foxes with burning branches tied to their tails.
The whole episteme of ownership we operate under would be a brilliant farce if it wasnt floating on an ocean of blood. Disrespect ownership. That doesn't just mean taking shit (but it absolutely also means taking shit)
Capitalism is working as intended, support ticket closed.
When do we start taking heads?
Ionno. Anybody near Los angeles wanna learn carpentry together?
Be the change you want to see in the world
But it won’t accomplish much, we have terrorism (or freedom fighters depending on your side) as is and the ruling class isn’t swayed
"Terrorism" is a nonsense word. State terror forces who exist to brutalize and terrorize populations into stillness so much like the fucking grave are never terrorists. If I post myself consentually making out with another adult I find hot, I'd be one in like fifteen time zones.
Its nonsense, and if we want to go to the 'real' definition of terrorism; using violence to scare people into your agenda; that's literally all a state is.
Not raking an intentional editorial position on any kind of violence here; just that innocence is no protection, and truth is no defense.
Terrorism is the use of force to achieve a political objective by a group of people not internationally recognized as a state
So Los Angeles is a state? Chicago is a state?
City states exist
But those are more commonly recognized as part of the larger USA state
But the KKK isn't. Because...???
And why are 'states' special exclusions where we use a different word?
I already answered that the first time you said it
Because when the states came up with the rules they decided to give them exclusions
For states the general equivalent is war crime and the resolution is that the common person that belongs to the group isn’t punished as much as the leaders or people who commit those actions
So the states came up with the special category of state and the rules about being states. That's some crazy bootstrapping. Pure tautology. Does that mean you and I can be states?
Also, lol, someone being punished for war crimes. Such an adorably twee concept.
If the UN recognizes us then yes
People are punished for war crimes but your state has to recognize the ICC and allow a trial
Uh, yeah, those are state entities. They have governments.
But the KKK isnt, because...???
It’s not recognized as such
By whom? I can't tell the fucking difference, its most if the same guys. Explain to me how its not the same thing.
Hell, in various time periods, its been official. The state itself has recognized them, used them for law enforcement, or offered members sweetheart deals during recruitment.
The U.N. is the convention for recognizing statehood
So no state ever participated in a world war?
Do you realize what year it is?
If you want to go back to colonial time then a state was just what Europe recognizes. Which meant that Africa, America, and most of Asia were up for taking. Convention changes
Because it was a private organization, not a government organization. Its violent actions could be considered state-funded terrorism, but not state violence itself.
But what about the times it was literally an organ of the state? That has happened, especially while the Volstead act is in effect. Or when they all take off their badges and put on their white hoods, because basically every cop is in the KKK?
You're stumbling through lots of tautology and appeals to authority (the UN was formed post ww2, did we not have states before then? What about all the cops doing terrorism before the UN existed?) But not actually defining anything.
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.
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.
Thank you so much for the insight. 🙌🙏
1960s. Unless it's one year.
deleted by creator
https://grammarhow.com/decade-apostrophe/
Absolutely disgusting. And conservatives are itching to cut taxes on the wealthy even further.
... 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.
No, that's just to keep us infighting instead of checking out where the value we generate disappears towards.
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.
May be unpopular but congrats to all 7 of them
Your comment made me think. Realistically, the top 1% represents tens of millions of people, but I would very much like to know if the top 1% has gotten bigger or smaller with wealth being more and more concentrated to the top.
How does that boot taste
(it was sarcasm) 🙂
That's over 5k per human currently alive.
It’s Guillotime™️
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.
The article is talking about the US. (Because of course it is).
So, it's only 3.3 million people, so it's $13.5 million each on average.
No, that's not how distributions work.
If Elon Musk walks into a bar, it's a Nazi bar now. Also, if he walks into a bar with 99 other people in it, the average wealth of everyone in the bar is $2 billion. But, that doesn't mean that the typical person in that group has over $2b in wealth.
The top 1% contains Elon Musk plus about 3.3 million other people, but he skews the distribution considerably. That means the bottom of the distribution of the top 1% is around $6m, and it also includes people like Musk and Bezos who bring the average up to $13.5m per person.
Nit: The population of the US is 340 million, not 3.3 million, but your point stands
They are taking 1% of 330 Million. TIL its now 340.
3.3 million is the number of people in the 1%
3.3 is 1% of 330
You'll be in the top 1% on much less than that. It's still heavily skewed towards the 0.0001%.
Great math!
Global 1% and USA 1% are vastly different things. I wish which one was called out in headline. Based on first chart, this is USA 1%. Makes result of dividing by world population even more wild.
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.
According to Washington Post, that places the kid at top 38.5% in USA
I assume that includes house valuations and retirement savings and stuff which would include a bunch of upper middle class people over 40
Well it seems I made wrong assumptions in my initial calculations. But they are using wealth, so yes house valuations and retirements plus investment. But here is the caveat, you have to minus dept. So if you have houses and cars worth let's make this figure up, $15mil, maybe $1mil in retirement, savings, investment and loose cash you might be worth $16mil to the common people. But if you have let's say $20mil in dept, then according to wealth valuations a homeless person has more wealth than you. Remember wealth estimates like this does not include income and earning potential
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.
Wow, this is great news!! Imagine all the trickle down. 😂 😂 😂
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."
And don't worry, "endless growth" means that you need to get up bright and early today to make them even more!
Read: the economy is re-adjusting to cater to the luxuries of the ultra-rich, not to more efficiently fulfill the needs of the vast majority. So we can't even have that little relief now.
That's great! Congratulations to all those wealthy individuals! They prove that hard work does pay off.
Bribing public officials is soooo exhausting
But have you tried being born rich?
Seize the means of guillotine mass production when?
Does anyone know what the wealth of the bottom 99% is?