Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Simple math. The rich have become TOO RICH. Period. No more excuses for wealth concentration.

Posted 9 years ago on Oct. 3, 2014, 12:09 p.m. EST by StillModestCapitalist (343)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Even after 9 years of this, it still boggles my mind trying to understand what sort of mass learning disability prevents so many people from understanding the simple equation or it's relevance.

The richest 1% currently hold over 40% of ALL privately held US wealth. This is true EVEN AFTER you account for what they 'give back'. Some of this wealth was 'created' along with more currency to cover the related transactions but the lion's share of wealth and certainly the relative buying power held by the richest 1% has been TRANSFERRED FROM US TO THEM over the past 38 years.

In 1976, the richest 1% held less than 20% of all privately held US wealth. This was less than 1/2 of their previous high of 44% in 1929, the first year of the Great Depression, which by the way was CAUSED by that obscene concentration of wealth and CURED with a partial redistribution of wealth which took place gradually over time. This vital redistribution resulted in the strongest American middle class in history.

In 1976, the bottom 99% of American households were sharing over 80% of all privately held US wealth. This was enough to sustain a strong and large middle class, the strongest ever, while keeping the majority of lower class households out of poverty. They weren't doing well but they were doing ok. The system was working. Most US households were able to make ends meet on the income of a single full time provider. Americans, in general, were thriving. They had home equity and money in the bank.

Right around 1976, the privately held wealth of America began to concentrate all over again. At first, it was a slow concentration resulting primarily from automation, outsourcing, higher corporate profits, and a change of law regarding the trade of oil. Then, Reagan came along and granted huge tax breaks for the rich. While this was great for 'growth' in general, it was bad for the lower majority because it concentrated far too much actual wealth and relative buying power. This along with the growing irresponsibility of the American consumer junkie concentrated more and more bottom line wealth while increasing consumer debt drastically. In fact, it literally multiplied.

As the share of wealth held by the richest 1% increased significantly from under 20% in 1976, the share of wealth shared by the lower 99% dropped from over 80% in 1976 to significantly less. Our nation's privately held wealth was being transferred from poor to rich. AGAIN. Just like it was prior to the first Great Depression.

Within a few years, the equation was no longer working for the average American household. It became more and more necessary for American households to secure second incomes in order to make ends meet. Still the concentration of wealth was allowed to continue. The middle class was shrinking and the lower class was expanding. This effectively INCREASED the NEED for welfare and charity within the US.

By the early 90s, home equity was down significantly, borrowers were less qualified overall, and something had to be done in order to sustain the US housing market. But the bankers didn't want 'sustenance'. That was too boring. They wanted GROWTH and LOTS of it to CASH IN ON. Sub-prime is what the finance industry came up with. The laws requiring downpayments were changed as a favor for the home finance industry, the first sub-prime loans were made in 94, the housing market was artificially inflated, home sales were way up within a year or two, and corporate profits soared. This made the already rich even richer.

In 2005, Allen Greenspan issued the following warning to Congress: "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it may eventually threaten the stability of Democratic Capitalism itself."

By 2007, just as Allen Greenspan warned, BECAUSE of the growing concentration of income, the US economy had in fact, become unstable. The middle class had simply become too weak to sustain their share of the US economy. Meanwhile, the final batch of less valuable sub-prime paper had been sold to unsuspecting investors. The housing market collapsed in part, because of and IN SPITE of sub-prime, market value was lost, the final batch of investments became worthless, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac failed along with a number of smaller banks, jobs were in the process of being lost by the millions, the 780 BILLION DOLLAR bailout of 2008 became necessary, and Barack Obama was elected in order to right the ship. He did so in part, with more welfare and government stimulus. This is the 'printed money' so many people have the GALL to complain about.

Unfortunately, the privately held wealth of America has been allowed to keep concentrating. In part, because Obama has also done a number of significant favors for the rich and their respective industries. The current concentration is not identical to that of 1929 but it's close enough.

The richest 1% currently hold over 40% of all privately held US wealth. As a DIRECT RESULT, there simply is not enough wealth circulating beneath them to make ends meet for the lower 99%. Sure, the top 20% is doing well but most of that wealth is held by the richest 1%. THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.

The lower majority of American households continue to struggle as they share a near record low of privately held US wealth. Many, in spite of multiple incomes. The lower class has expanded significantly increasing the need for welfare and charity even further. Meanwhile, the rich continue to get richer and richer and richer EVEN AFTER you account for what they 'give back'.

A similar rule applies on a global scale.

Last time I checked, the 'philanthropist' Warren Buffet was the richest man in the world. He has personally caused more financial injustice than any man alive with the possible exception of Bill Gates.

In other words, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and the richest 1% in general are CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. THEY ARE CAUSING HARDSHIP FOR MILLIONS. THEY WILL CAUSE ANOTHER US/GLOBAL DEPRESSION WITH 5 YEARS. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS WORLDWIDE WILL SUFFER EVEN MORE BECAUSE OF THEM. THAT IS A SOLEMN PROMISE.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS A DIRECT CORRELATION. GREED KILLS.

If any of you find this hard to believe, then lock yourself in a room with a few friends and keep playing the game of Monopoly over and over until you FINALLY understand.

and please, for the good of society, STOP GIVING SO MUCH OF YOUR MONEY TO RICH PEOPLE.

16 Comments

16 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 9 years ago

The non-partisan CBO recently confirmed what should have been well understood years ago. The US economy can no longer sustain itself without government stimulus. One of the primary factors confirmed by the CBO is the high concentration of wealth.

Sure, the rich 'give back' and bask in the glory of 'humanitarian' light and tax deductions. Here is the problem.

THEY KEEP TOO MUCH.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

In Compliment:

The least Eric Holder Could Do

Over five million families have been foreclosed on since the financial crisis. But not a single U.S. bank or banker has done jail time.

Tell Eric Holder: Don’t Ignore Wall Street’s Crimes

It’s not as if U.S. banks didn’t commit crimes. It’s just that our top prosecutor chose to let them get away with it.

From illegally foreclosing on over 1,000 members of our military [1], to Goldman Sachs conducting epict fraud in a deal even they called “shitty” [2], banks have gotten away with far too much. And Attorney General Eric Holder has let them.

Holder doesn’t have much time left as the Attorney General of the United States. But we think he owes it to the American public to send a strong message before he leaves.

Tell Holder: Put one banker in jail before you go. It's the least you can do.

It’s time, once and for all, to bring the banks to justice.

Thanks for all you do to make this world a better place.

Sincerely, John Sellers, Other 98%

Sources:

[1] Alexis Goldstein, Medium.com, “Make No Mistake: Eric Holder Chose Not to Jail the Bankers”

[2] Shahien Nasiripour, Huffington Post, 'Shitty Deal': Goldman Exec Daniel Sparks Hammered Over Term Used To Describe Deal Made For Clients

Other 98% Action is fighting the stranglehold that corporations have on our democracy.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 9 years ago

Damn right. I agree with every word.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Being viral worthy I also had ta tweet -

DKAtoday @DKAtoday · 2m 2 minutes ago

“Make No Mistake: Eric Holder Chose Not to Jail the Bankers” - http://other98.com/eric-holder-dont-ignore-wall-streets-crimes … - This is Viral Worthy.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

[ edit ] I think that this one petition - should go viral - and perhaps would shame the ineffective asshole going out of office to do something meaningful prior to leaving office and perhaps go to inspire the incoming asshole to do some real work while in office. ( one can dream -Hey ? ) But overall it should inspire the public to stand-up and speak-out and get involved.

edit-> "should go viral"

To the effort of going viral I sent the following in reply to having received the petition from the Other 98%:

BTW - I hope you are sharing out ( networking ) this action with every social activist group that is out there. Groups like the Sierra Club and AARP and Oil Change International and Avaaz and PSR ( physicians for Social Responsibility ) and all occupy groups and and and and and . . . . . . . . . . . .

As this would be real Synergy = the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts.

Just look at how awesome the climate march in New York was.

We all have to work together to make a better world for all.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Does there come a point in time - when the wealthy have hoarded so much of the wealth - that their hoarding back fires and makes them paupers - because they killed their own business's by insuring that no one could afford to be a customer?

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 9 years ago

Sort of, the economy slows down and they cut jobs in their desperate attempts to KEEP that ill-gotten wealth.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

And so there must come the point of the final economic crash that makes the wealthy's hoards worthless. The fiction of perpetually creating new money ( with no assets to give it worth ) to pump into a black hole has got to end in failure ( right? ) = hyper inflation?

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 9 years ago

I'm actually for the printing of money to help solve the problem of concentrated buying power. Sure, the individual dollars lose some value but if the newly printed dollars are distributed from the bottom up or even the middle up, the masses would benefit. Of course, there is the issue of global trade which makes the printing of US currency more complicated.

It did work for FDR. It was part of a necessary redistribution. There would have been no recovery without it.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

To make any redistribution of wealth work.

One needs to find a way to open the existing hoards of wealth and get them back into the economy at large = Not just in the USA but in the Whole World Economy.

As you correctly state - it is a world economy - the only way around that ( avoiding adjusting the whole worlds hoarded wealth problem ) - would be for the USA to completely withdraw from the rest of the world economy.

So - for ending the vicious cycle of feeding the hoards of the very few - those hoards have to be brought back into the economy - OR - those hoards have to be completely removed from the economy = remove the hoarders from the economy - as they can not just be allowed to continue to remove the money put into the system from the system - as is what is currently happening.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 9 years ago

We could pray for a mass-enlightening in which the masses FINALLY stop giving so much of their money to the rich. I'm borderline obsessed with it. I can't spend a dollar without first considering what portion of that dollar will go to the rich.

I do feel bad for the masses but a lot of this is their own damn fault.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

I do feel bad for the masses but a lot of this is their own damn fault.

Yep - in letting the wealthy take government ( state and federal ) away from em by not getting involved in the 1st place.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

It did work for FDR. It was part of a necessary redistribution. There would have been no recovery without it.

There are some major differences at play today that would need to be corrected 1st.

For 1) Back in FDR's day the wealthy were allowed to become poor when the markets crashed. Today they ( the wealthy ) have rigged the system to bail them out so that they can't lose what they have. So now we have a system that automatically feeds into the hoarding of wealth by the very few. So no redistribution is possible - just more money (?) being invented to then be fed straight into the Beast.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 9 years ago

I sort of get the same impression although I'm not aware of any specific trade rule or law preventing the rich from taking their market losses. Well, except for the bailout of 2008 and the shady deals that Bono of U2 and Madonna entered into with LiveNation a few years back in which fellow investors were made to subsidize their stock values which did in fact tank costing those fellow investors but NOT Bono or Madonna.

I am aware of the hundreds of billions being fed into Wall Street INSTEAD of Main Street but I see that as an element of corruption. Not a trade rule or law that I know of. I do remember that around the time Obama took office, he specifically said that "investors need to take their losses". Then again, that was the fresh and clean Obama. He appears to have done quite a bit of selling out since then.

The bailout of 2008 would have been a god-send if only the financial entities to benefit would have been required to accept their share of bailout ON THE CONDITION that they forgive the same dollar amount in primary residence home loans. But as you know, that didn't happen.

Anyway, I'm all for stimulus but from the bottom up. Not the top up.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

I'm all for stimulus but from the bottom up. Not top up.

Agree. ( but see my other comment - as corrections need to be made as to how the top operates - or in the short run as well as in the long run - nothing gets changed for the better - and the bottom-up stimulus just disappears into the hoards and does not recirculate through the economy )

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

300,000,000 Billionaires - through government created and dispersed to all funny money? Well I suppose that since it is all electronic currency - what the heck - I mean - why not - one wouldn't need a wheel barrow ( or a dump truck ) to carry sufficient cash to the market to get a loaf of bread - nope - just present that little ol plastic card.