Analysis Shows Top 1% Gained $21 Trillion in Wealth Since 1989 While Bottom Half Lost $900 Billion

[ZiprHead]

"The top one percent owns nearly $30 trillion of assets while the bottom half owns less than nothing."

Adding to the mountain of statistical evidence showing the severity of U.S. inequality, an analysis published Friday found that the top one percent of Americans gained $21 trillion in wealth since 1989 while the bottom 50 percent lost $900 billion.

Matt Bruenig, founder of the left-wing think tank People's Policy Project, broke down the Federal Reserve's newly released "Distributive Financial Accounts" data series and found that, overall, "the top one percent owns nearly $30 trillion of assets while the bottom half owns less than nothing, meaning they have more debts than they have assets."

 

[Half-Life]

"The top one percent owns nearly $30 trillion of assets while the bottom half owns less than nothing."

Adding to the mountain of statistical evidence showing the severity of U.S. inequality, an analysis published Friday found that the top one percent of Americans gained $21 trillion in wealth since 1989 while the bottom 50 percent lost $900 billion.

Matt Bruenig, founder of the left-wing think tank People's Policy Project, broke down the Federal Reserve's newly released "Distributive Financial Accounts" data series and found that, overall, "the top one percent owns nearly $30 trillion of assets while the bottom half owns less than nothing, meaning they have more debts than they have assets."

Yes, poor people tend to spend all their money while rich people tend to save it. Even when a poor person wins the lottery, they do not have the brainpower to save it, but instead they piss it away and then complain about the rich again.
All these cultural marxists these days want to steal from the rich and give to the poor, which is theft. Like Ben Shapiro says, "If everyone in the room votes to take money out of the rich guy's wallet, it's still theft."

Flat tax is the fairest way to do things. If you want higher taxes for the rich, that just means you want a penalty for success. Not in America! No way, no how!

I remember a while ago I asked someone at my job, "What would you do if someone gave you a million dollars?" You know what he said? "Party every night, son!" Nothing about investments or saving it for retirement. Just partying.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"The top one percent owns nearly $30 trillion of assets while the bottom half owns less than nothing."

Adding to the mountain of statistical evidence showing the severity of U.S. inequality, an analysis published Friday found that the top one percent of Americans gained $21 trillion in wealth since 1989 while the bottom 50 percent lost $900 billion.

Matt Bruenig, founder of the left-wing think tank People's Policy Project, broke down the Federal Reserve's newly released "Distributive Financial Accounts" data series and found that, overall, "the top one percent owns nearly $30 trillion of assets while the bottom half owns less than nothing, meaning they have more debts than they have assets."

Yes, poor people tend to spend all their money while rich people tend to save it. Even when a poor person wins the lottery, they do not have the brainpower to save it, but instead they piss it away and then complain about the rich again.
All these cultural marxists these days want to steal from the rich and give to the poor, which is theft. Like Ben Shapiro says, "If everyone in the room votes to take money out of the rich guy's wallet, it's still theft."

Flat tax is the fairest way to do things. If you want higher taxes for the rich, that just means you want a penalty for success. Not in America! No way, no how!

I remember a while ago I asked someone at my job, "What would you do if someone gave you a million dollars?" You know what he said? "Party every night, son!" Nothing about investments or saving it for retirement. Just partying.

Your empathy is overwhelming.

 

[dismal]

Yes, poor people tend to spend all their money while rich people tend to save it. Even when a poor person wins the lottery, they do not have the brainpower to save it, but instead they piss it away and then complain about the rich again.
All these cultural marxists these days want to steal from the rich and give to the poor, which is theft. Like Ben Shapiro says, "If everyone in the room votes to take money out of the rich guy's wallet, it's still theft."

Flat tax is the fairest way to do things. If you want higher taxes for the rich, that just means you want a penalty for success. Not in America! No way, no how!

I remember a while ago I asked someone at my job, "What would you do if someone gave you a million dollars?" You know what he said? "Party every night, son!" Nothing about investments or saving it for retirement. Just partying.

Your empathy is overwhelming.

I have sympathy for people in Venezuela and North Korea. If you’re fortunate enough to live in a country that encourages wealth creation you’re pretty lucky.

 

[barbos]

How many studies and threads we have had about this BS so far?

 

[Trausti]

How many studies and threads we have had about this BS so far?

It's just gaslighting to persuade us that confiscation of other people's property is not so bad.

 

[zorq]

Trickle down economics at work.

 

[DBT]

Where do the rich get their money from? How do they get it? Do they work really, really hard, billions of dollars worth of hard work?

 

[Politesse]

How many studies and threads we have had about this BS so far?

It's just gaslighting to persuade us that confiscation of other people's property is not so bad.

The funny things is, I totally agree with that tweet, but I am certain we have very different ideas about what constitutes production and on whose shoulders it primarily falls. Our hardest workers are, absolutely, those worst served by our economic model.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Where do the rich get their money from? How do they get it? Do they work really, really hard, billions of dollars worth of hard work?

No, obviously. But chimpanzee society works the same way. So it's something genetic I suppose with dismal and trausti.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How many studies and threads we have had about this BS so far?

It's just gaslighting to persuade us that confiscation of other people's property is not so bad.

The funny things is, I totally agree with that tweet, but I am certain we have very different ideas about what constitutes production and on whose shoulders it primarily falls. Our hardest workers are, absolutely, those worst served by our economic model.

We are a civilization or collective,but some people like to believe that we are actually just hermits. They are good with allowing economic hermits to hold onto gargantuan amounts of capital. The idea of making the lives of poorer people a little bit better almost sickens them, which seems to be of a sociopathic compass. Why would someone be against making someone’s life a little bit better? Because it takes a pittance away from other people?

We, as a civilization, shouldn’t encourage slothful behavior. But it seems completely lost on some that some of the laziest people are actually rich, inheriting the reward of the labor of previous generations. Yet, you’ll hear of no scorn for tben, just the poor who are poor because... the poor are just immoral capitalists.

It really is revolting.

 

[RVonse]

Where do the rich get their money from?

From people who want to consume what they produce

How do they get it?

The consumers pay the producers money

Do they work really, really hard, billions of dollars worth of hard work?

No. But they are willing to take risks most other people will not tolerate. They are willing to invest and produce products that have no benefit to them personally, but are products that help others.

All the aforementioned depends heavily on the capitalism not being corrupted however.

 

[RVonse]

The funny things is, I totally agree with that tweet, but I am certain we have very different ideas about what constitutes production and on whose shoulders it primarily falls. Our hardest workers are, absolutely, those worst served by our economic model.

We are a civilization or collective,but some people like to believe that we are actually just hermits. They are good with allowing economic hermits to hold onto gargantuan amounts of capital. The idea of making the lives of poorer people a little bit better almost sickens them, which seems to be of a sociopathic compass. Why would someone be against making someone’s life a little bit better? Because it takes a pittance away from other people?

We, as a civilization, shouldn’t encourage slothful behavior. But it seems completely lost on some that some of the laziest people are actually rich, inheriting the reward of the labor of previous generations. Yet, you’ll hear of no scorn for tben, just the poor who are poor because... the poor are just immoral capitalists.

It really is revolting.

The biggest improvement to your complaint IMO would be a drastic change in inheritance laws. The next generation should produce their own wealth and not depend on legacy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

RVonse, you seem to miss the mark here and looking at only the surface. It is certainly worse. How much real estate was absorbed at pennies on the dollar by equity firms and hedge funds?

 

[Trausti]

Let’s not ignore the role universities and their adminsitrative bloat play here. Imposing enormous debts for useless degrees; nearly impossible to accumulate wealth after that. Or we can just blame people more successful than ourselves - people who often ditched college.

 

[ronburgundy]

Arguably the more important conclusion from those data is not the growth in disparity of relative wealth, but rather the decline in absolute wealth by half the population. That coheres with the fact the absolute level of wealth of those at the median was 30% higher in 1989 than today.
This refutes the standard argument from rightists that relative disparity is fine because that is just a by product of everyone's boat being lifted in overall absolute terms. Instead, it supports the zero-sum game perspective that the rich get richer by taking from others, rather than by "creating" wealth that benefits all but happens to benefit themselves most.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The biggest improvement to your complaint IMO would be a drastic change in inheritance laws. The next generation should produce their own wealth and not depend on legacy.

That would be a huge step in the right direction. Just the opposite has been happening lately.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Let’s not ignore the role universities and their adminsitrative bloat play here. Imposing enormous debts for useless degrees; nearly impossible to accumulate wealth after that. Or we can just blame people more successful than ourselves - people who often ditched college.

Should children have to go to school?

 

[Trausti]

Let’s not ignore the role universities and their adminsitrative bloat play here. Imposing enormous debts for useless degrees; nearly impossible to accumulate wealth after that. Or we can just blame people more successful than ourselves - people who often ditched college.

Should children have to go to school?

Is that what you took from this?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Let’s not ignore the role universities and their adminsitrative bloat play here. Imposing enormous debts for useless degrees; nearly impossible to accumulate wealth after that. Or we can just blame people more successful than ourselves - people who often ditched college.

Should children have to go to school?

Is that what you took from this?

Yes. So do you think children should have to go to school?