The US Is Officially A Banana Republic: The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class

[Doc7505]

The US Is Officially A Banana Republic: ​

The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class​

The US Is Officially A Banana Republic: The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class

In some ways, we sympathize with Neel Kashkari's fake "concern" about the unprecedented we...

austrian.economicblogs.org

Summary:
In some ways, we sympathize with Neel Kashkari's fake "concern" about the unprecedented wealth inequality that has emerged in the US in recent years and which has resulted in a slow, methodical and relentless destruction of the US middle class ... or rather make that precedented because there was another time when the top 0.1% had amassed as much wealth and it was just before the Great Depression. After all, who hasn't seen charts such as these showing the tremendous divergence in income earned by America's Top 1% at the expense of the middle and lower classes: Or that the top 10% now own 70% of all the US wealth, the same as the middle and lower classes combined...... up 10% from the 60% of wealth they controlled at the start of the century.
~Snip~
It's not just stocks that have benefited the super rich: housing has too. While a generation ago, the middle class held more than 44% of real estate assets in the country, it is now down to 38%. The pandemic generated a boom in housing values that has benefited most those who owned real estate in the first place. It also led to soaring rents this year, which hurt those who can’t afford a house. The self-feeding loop was yet another source of wealth transfer for the wealthier.
So the next time someone abuses the popular phrase "they hate us for our [fill in the blank]", perhaps it's time to counter that "they" may not "hate" us at all, but rather are making fun of what has quietly and slowly but surely become the world's biggest banana republic?
And it has not Russia, nor China, nor any other foreign enemy to blame except one: the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.
Full story here

Comment:
Historically, bad shit ensues when this is sustained. Given a fed-up heavily armed populace, well....
The 18th century French banker and philosopher named Richard Cantillon noticed a phenomenon that when new money was issued by the king/government, it always flowed first to those closest to the source - the rich, powerful and connected.
He wrote called ‘An Essay on Economic Theory,” and his basic theory was that who benefits when the state prints a bunch of money is based on the institutional setup of that state. In the 18th century, this meant that the closer you were to the king and government power, the more you benefitted. The rich received “new money” first, often on beneficial terms. The further away you were, ie) average workers, the more you were harmed, due to inflation and debasement.
Money, in other words, is not neutral. This general observation, that money printing has distributional consequences that operate through the price system, is known as the “Cantillon Effect.”
The solution is simple. Break up Amazon and apply the law to politicians that have become multi-millionaires by insider trading.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****SMILE*****

 

[pknopp]

This is why I support when people break things.

 

[TheParser]

The US Is Officially A Banana Republic: ​

The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class​

The US Is Officially A Banana Republic: The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class

In some ways, we sympathize with Neel Kashkari's fake "concern" about the unprecedented we...

austrian.economicblogs.org

Summary:
In some ways, we sympathize with Neel Kashkari's fake "concern" about the unprecedented wealth inequality that has emerged in the US in recent years and which has resulted in a slow, methodical and relentless destruction of the US middle class ... or rather make that precedented because there was another time when the top 0.1% had amassed as much wealth and it was just before the Great Depression. After all, who hasn't seen charts such as these showing the tremendous divergence in income earned by America's Top 1% at the expense of the middle and lower classes: Or that the top 10% now own 70% of all the US wealth, the same as the middle and lower classes combined...... up 10% from the 60% of wealth they controlled at the start of the century.
~Snip~
It's not just stocks that have benefited the super rich: housing has too. While a generation ago, the middle class held more than 44% of real estate assets in the country, it is now down to 38%. The pandemic generated a boom in housing values that has benefited most those who owned real estate in the first place. It also led to soaring rents this year, which hurt those who can’t afford a house. The self-feeding loop was yet another source of wealth transfer for the wealthier.
So the next time someone abuses the popular phrase "they hate us for our [fill in the blank]", perhaps it's time to counter that "they" may not "hate" us at all, but rather are making fun of what has quietly and slowly but surely become the world's biggest banana republic?
And it has not Russia, nor China, nor any other foreign enemy to blame except one: the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.
Full story here

Comment:
Historically, bad shit ensues when this is sustained. Given a fed-up heavily armed populace, well....
The 18th century French banker and philosopher named Richard Cantillon noticed a phenomenon that when new money was issued by the king/government, it always flowed first to those closest to the source - the rich, powerful and connected.
He wrote called ‘An Essay on Economic Theory,” and his basic theory was that who benefits when the state prints a bunch of money is based on the institutional setup of that state. In the 18th century, this meant that the closer you were to the king and government power, the more you benefitted. The rich received “new money” first, often on beneficial terms. The further away you were, ie) average workers, the more you were harmed, due to inflation and debasement.
Money, in other words, is not neutral. This general observation, that money printing has distributional consequences that operate through the price system, is known as the “Cantillon Effect.”
The solution is simple. Break up Amazon and apply the law to politicians that have become multi-millionaires by insider trading.

I was a teenager in the 1950s,

That was when we really had a middle class.

And the country was so much happier.

 

[pknopp]

I was a teenager in the 1950s,

That was when we really had a middle class.

And the country was so much happier.

Unless of course you were the one's forced to ride in the back of the bus.

 

[beagle9]

Unless of course you were the one's forced to ride in the back of the bus.

Agree.. That was definitely a work in progress, but it shouldn't negate the fact that we had a better relationship between government and citizen's back then for the most part. What we have now is a failed federal government who has seriously lost it's way overtime, and a citizenry that is now paying the hellish price for it .

 

[pknopp]

Agree.. That was definitely a work in progress, but it shouldn't negate the fact that we had a better relationship between government and citizen's back then for the most part. What we have now is a failed federal government who has seriously lost it's way overtime, and a citizenry that is now paying the hellish price for it .

There are a lot of people still upset that we have tried to fix the disparity and continue to vote to go back to that in one form or another.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The US officially became a banana republic when the demleftists used covid to change election laws to install mass mail in balloting .

 

[JLW]

The US Is Officially A Banana Republic: ​

The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class​

The US Is Officially A Banana Republic: The Top 1% Now Own More Wealth Than The Entire Middle Class

In some ways, we sympathize with Neel Kashkari's fake "concern" about the unprecedented we...

austrian.economicblogs.org

Summary:
In some ways, we sympathize with Neel Kashkari's fake "concern" about the unprecedented wealth inequality that has emerged in the US in recent years and which has resulted in a slow, methodical and relentless destruction of the US middle class ... or rather make that precedented because there was another time when the top 0.1% had amassed as much wealth and it was just before the Great Depression. After all, who hasn't seen charts such as these showing the tremendous divergence in income earned by America's Top 1% at the expense of the middle and lower classes: Or that the top 10% now own 70% of all the US wealth, the same as the middle and lower classes combined...... up 10% from the 60% of wealth they controlled at the start of the century.
~Snip~
It's not just stocks that have benefited the super rich: housing has too. While a generation ago, the middle class held more than 44% of real estate assets in the country, it is now down to 38%. The pandemic generated a boom in housing values that has benefited most those who owned real estate in the first place. It also led to soaring rents this year, which hurt those who can’t afford a house. The self-feeding loop was yet another source of wealth transfer for the wealthier.
So the next time someone abuses the popular phrase "they hate us for our [fill in the blank]", perhaps it's time to counter that "they" may not "hate" us at all, but rather are making fun of what has quietly and slowly but surely become the world's biggest banana republic?
And it has not Russia, nor China, nor any other foreign enemy to blame except one: the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.
Full story here

Comment:
Historically, bad shit ensues when this is sustained. Given a fed-up heavily armed populace, well....
The 18th century French banker and philosopher named Richard Cantillon noticed a phenomenon that when new money was issued by the king/government, it always flowed first to those closest to the source - the rich, powerful and connected.
He wrote called ‘An Essay on Economic Theory,” and his basic theory was that who benefits when the state prints a bunch of money is based on the institutional setup of that state. In the 18th century, this meant that the closer you were to the king and government power, the more you benefitted. The rich received “new money” first, often on beneficial terms. The further away you were, ie) average workers, the more you were harmed, due to inflation and debasement.
Money, in other words, is not neutral. This general observation, that money printing has distributional consequences that operate through the price system, is known as the “Cantillon Effect.”
The solution is simple. Break up Amazon and apply the law to politicians that have become multi-millionaires by insider trading.

So, are you for or against tax increases and reforms on the upper 1%? Are you for or against the estate tax?

 

[DBA]

So, are you for or against tax increases and reforms on the upper 1%? Are you for or against the estate tax?

The Democrats aren't talking about taxing just the top 1%, they are talking about those making over 400k/yr. Either way, it isn't their responsibility to foot an even larger percentage of the tax bill so the government can give it to people not to work. The estate tax is just plain theft no matter how you slice it and no matter the income level.

 

[colfax_m]

Let the eat cake!

 

[pknopp]

The Democrats aren't talking about taxing just the top 1%, they are talking about those making over 400k/yr. Either way, it isn't their responsibility to foot an even larger percentage of the tax bill so the government can give it to people not to work. The estate tax is just plain theft no matter how you slice it and no matter the income level.

The trillions pumped over and over into the markets is not money anyone has worked for.

 

[Leviticus]

and most of the top 1% created nothing of value. They made their money by moving around other peoples money

 

[beagle9]

So, are you for or against tax increases and reforms on the upper 1%? Are you for or against the estate tax?

Are you for trickle down price hikes that end up costing you in the form of a trickle down tax hike, because you want to make the job makers pay for your prejudice towards or against them ???

 

[Mac1958]

All of this was predictable and preventable.

What got in the way? Ideology. As usual.

 

[DBA]

The trillions pumped over and over into the markets is not money anyone has worked for.

So we are supposed to dismantle our entire economic system and prevent people from making money in the markets because you and your kind are envious? That is what it boils down to.

 

[JLW]

The Democrats aren't talking about taxing just the top 1%, they are talking about those making over 400k/yr. Either way, it isn't their responsibility to foot an even larger percentage of the tax bill so the government can give it to people not to work. The estate tax is just plain theft no matter how you slice it and no matter the income level.

The estate tax is not theft. The modern estate tax was supported by TR and other Republicans and then passed into law in 1916 as way to forestall the creation of a permanent upper class, ala England and its aristocracy. The estate tax has been a resounding success. It has created a country with unprecedented prosperity and until recently a relatively mild gap between the richest Americans and the middle class. To do away with the estate tax would create a permanent super rich upper class. This country would then appear more third world then first world.

The current law is fine. A married couple can pass over 22 million dollars tax free. I see no reason to change it.

 

[TheParser]

Unless of course you were the one's forced to ride in the back of the bus.

With all due respect (I am NOT being sarcastic), it is possible that many African Americans -- despite segregation -- led happier lives back then than many do today when you consider the role that illicit drugs play in the African American community nowadays and the unprecedented amount of violent crime committed now by a disproportionate number of young men of that community.

 

[pknopp]

So we are supposed to dismantle our entire economic system and prevent people from making money in the markets because you and your kind are envious? That is what it boils down to.

Not pumping trillions does not stop anyone from making money. It's stops people from getting money for nothing.

 

[DBA]

Not pumping trillions does not stop anyone from making money. It's stops people from getting money for nothing.

How does a billionaire get money for nothing vs an average American investing in the markets and earning interest or capital gains? The billionaire earns more for certain, but aren't both getting "money for nothing"?