NP Rank:
Excessive: when 1% ≥ 23.5% of wealth
This is an interesting article that indicates when the top 1% of the wealthiest people has garnered ≥ 23.5% of wealth, for the rest, the economy goes south. That seems plausible.
I believe that economies are engineered as a result of public and private behavior. I believe in a free market economy, though the US economy has hardly been that. Government is too big and unworkable, zapping capital needed by the private sector. Large corporations in the military-industrial complex are treated as capitalists when in reality, they are on corporate welfare. They fail to produce products needed by the world market. Without domestic production of globally competitive products, the US economy is doomed.
Attention to the % of wealth concentration should be treated as a symptom of big structural and policy problems.
“We're in a Recession Because the Rich Are Raking in an Absurd Portion of the Wealth
Our economy can't thrive when the richest 1% get an ever larger share of the nation's income and wealth, and everyone else's share shrinks.
July 7, 2010 |
Wall Street's banditry was the proximate cause of the Great Recession, not its underlying cause. Even if the Street is better controlled in the future (and I have my doubts), the structural reason for the Great Recession still haunts America. That reason is America's surging inequality.
Consider: in 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent of the nation's total income. After that, the share going to the richest 1 percent steadily declined. New Deal reforms, followed by World War II, the GI Bill and the Great Society expanded the circle of prosperity. By the late 1970s the top 1 percent raked in only 8 to 9 percent of America's total annual income. But after that, inequality began to widen again, and income reconcentrated at the top. By 2007 the richest 1 percent were back to where they were in 1928—with 23.5 percent of the total.
Each of America's two biggest economic crashes occurred in the year immediately following these twin peaks—in 1929 and 2008. This is no mere coincidence. When most of the gains from economic growth go to a small sliver of Americans at the top, the rest don't have enough purchasing power to buy what the economy is capable of producing. America's median wage, adjusted for inflation, has barely budged for decades. Between 2000 and 2007 it actually dropped. Under these circumstances the only way the middle class can boost its purchasing power is to borrow, as it did with gusto. As housing prices rose, Americans turned their homes into ATMs. But such borrowing has its limits. When the debt bubble finally burst, vast numbers of people couldn't pay their bills, and banks couldn't collect.
China, Germany and Japan have surely contributed to the problem by failing to buy as much from us as we buy from them. But to believe that our continuing economic crisis stems mainly from the trade imbalance—we buy too much and save too little, while they do the reverse—is to miss the biggest imbalance of all. The problem isn't that typical Americans have spent beyond their means. It's that their means haven't kept up with what the growing economy could and should have been able to provide them.
A second parallel links 1929 with 2008: when earnings accumulate at the top, people at the top invest their wealth in whatever assets seem most likely to attract other big investors. This causes the prices of certain assets.””
NowPublic on Facebook
Crowd Power
-
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States
Recommendations (4)
-
Barry ORegan
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada -
Karen Hatter
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (7)
at 08:57 on July 10th, 2010
In 2005, Citigroup explained plutocracy and its government for and by the rich, as it outlined its vision for inclusion of its use on an international scale, in something it called Equity Strategy, Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances.
Source: scribd.com
at 10:26 on July 10th, 2010
'Ajay Kapur and his associates assert that world is getting divided into two blocs, namely, the Plutonomy and the rest. The term ‘Plutonomy’ is derived from, Plutus, the Greek god of wealth. America, Britain and Canada are the key Plutonomies, powered mainly by the wealthy. In Plutonomies, the rich dominate the economy as they account for most of the consumption expenditures, savings, current account deficits, etc.
Obviously, in the Plutonomies, economic growth is powered by the wealthy. The rest of the population doesnot have much of a role in the economy.
Kapur and his associates claim: “Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Ages and Roaring Twenties in the U.S.” Common drivers of Plutonomy in each case have been “Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist-friendly cooperative governments, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions.” These conditions benefit the rich and educated of the time because only they are in a position to exploit them. Income inequality has been a prominent feature of Plutonomy.
In the present day world Plutonomies are given birth to and sustained by revolution in information and communications technology, financialization, globalization and friendly governments and their policies.
In a Plutonomy, consumers do not have their nationality. Thus there is no U.S. consumer or British consumer.
Globalization has converted the entire world into a single integrated market. “There are rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take. There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie.
Consensus analyses that not tease out the profound plutonomy on spending power, debt loads, savings rates (and hence current account deficits), oil price impacts etc., i.e., focus on the “average” consumer flawed from the start… Since consumption accounts for 65% of the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for the MSCIAC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumer is key for equity market participants.”
at 10:34 on July 10th, 2010
I agree Karen, thank god I'm extra handsome, cause I don't know how I would handle rich!
at 16:21 on July 10th, 2010
Barry, I'd gladly trade some beauty for an equal part of rich!
at 16:27 on July 10th, 2010
There is sufficient talent in the Hatter and O'Ragan pool to generate wealth. You guys need an agent like YJ.
at 22:33 on July 10th, 2010
Well, I guess that settles it, Jim. All we need is a name for our corporation!
at 02:34 on July 11th, 2010
GeorgeO'Hatterragan LLC