Ah but consider if the rich own 87% and the poor 13% and pension funds 40% and foreigners 17% then there is 157% to go around! Or maybe it's 87% of the rich directly own equities? Or maybe this is a wind up for clicks and gibberish. (I am also commenting ignorantly).
The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks
251–260 of 606 posts
Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, most of Elon Musks assets today are also not cash and highly dependent on the federal government going his way on key issues. He's certainly not dumb doing what he does if his goal is to get richer and more powerful. But unlike 200 years ago, we can watch live how that stuff plays out.
> certainly not dumb Perhaps but IMHO it’s a very high risk strategy and I doubt it’s necessarily optimal if more wealth is his primary goal (as opposed to his other seemingly highly megalomaniacal ambitions..) So far his actions haven’t really been that beneficial for Tesla (of course its sales growth might have significantly slowed down even if he stayed out of politics). SpaceX can only make that much even if it g…
I doubt money has been Elon's primary motivation for at least the last 25 years, possibly longer. He is seeking approval and recognition, maybe power. His love for Mars might go beyond the recognition he gets from it. But Money is just a gateway to all of these things, and in a way a byproduct.
Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poverty exists because people choose to drink beer instead of investing their wealth in the stock market? That's really the only explanation you can think of? If only all those people living paycheck to paycheck works just have the sense to put their money in the S&P 500! #endworldhunger
> That's really the only explanation you can think of? Another is the fact that many choose to own luxury items or buy drugs (tobacco, alcohol are included ) instead of... you know... saving. And then self-proclaim to live "paycheck to paycheck"⋆. Middle class gets poorer and the rich get richer because inflation is literally eating away the former's life savings while the other has doubled his net worth in just 10 y…
My public school never gave me any classes on financial literacy while children of global elites receive the best guidance for it. My classmates and I were then instructed by every counselor and parent to take out six-figure student loans with variable interest. We were teenagers in high school without fully-developed brains.
I can keep pulling examples out of the rabbit hat, just let me know.
Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks
#254I think about this from time to time and I suppose everything is cyclical in the end. Most of us would have been some peasant in the feudal age and when it gets really bad it always ends in a revolution of some sort. It's just on a global scale and timeframe now. As more of the population feels the effects of inequality they won't appeased by just fancy toys and shiny things, they will want change by force. My only s…
The population might not be happy, but they don't have the means to change it. Revolutions don't happen when people are mad, they happen when the ones who can afford armies and equipment sense the possibility of coming out on top. 250 years ago George Washington could have financed the entire Revolutionary War out of his own pocket and he still would have retained two thirds of his wealth. Instead he put the losses o…
I think that's a very narrow and largely inaccurate view of revolutions.
A lot of revolutions were carried out by people with very little resources - Mao led his army from under-developed hills, the October Revolution didn't have much of an industrial base either, nor did the left in the Spanish civil war (although the military eventually won, but hey, they had a fighting chance).
And aside from that, many revolutions happen relatively peacefully. For example Chile or South Africa. Although the latter case did have some violence and property destruction.
And aside from that, guns in the USA (assuming we're talking about this and not Europe) are cheap and plentiful. And a large, determined, but poorly-armed opposition has often beaten the smaller, well-armed forces of decadent states in the past.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that though - even a peaceful movement can succeed if it's widespread.
Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks
#255When I was at uni I read Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century", and parts of his newer "Capital and Ideology" (although I never quite got through that one). The big takeaway for me was that wealth inequality never improves without some major catastrophe (war, revolution, plague etc). The proposed model is really intuitive and compelling (tldr; return on capital has historically always been higher than real g…
Why Nations Fail was such a great book. I actually recommended it in another thread a few days ago.
I didn't know Acemoglu got the Nobel Economics Prize.
Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks
#256The title uses the stock stat because it's so unbalanced. But to me the scariest statistic is the other one mentioned in the article: "the top 10% also accounts for 50% of all consumer spending". This seems extremely fragile. Small changes in the behavior of the well-off can have big negative consequences for the entire country.
Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks
#257I was very surprised by the holiday budget. Less than 2500$ for 80% of the population? Does that mean that no one from these 80% stays in a Hotel or AirBnB for longer than a week with their family? No one travels overseas, or if so, only every 5 years or so? 2000$ is what you can easily spend on plane tickets for a family of 4.
I’ll refrain from piling on to signal that I, too, can travel on the cheap. But I did get a kick out of the shock and dismay that wealthy people might be good at managing their money.
If you’re not rich, but spend more than rich people do on stuff, you’re going to have a hard time getting rich.
Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks
#258I was very surprised by the holiday budget. Less than 2500$ for 80% of the population? Does that mean that no one from these 80% stays in a Hotel or AirBnB for longer than a week with their family? No one travels overseas, or if so, only every 5 years or so? 2000$ is what you can easily spend on plane tickets for a family of 4.
Yes? How long has it been since you checked what income percentile you are in? I would expect most of the posters here to be in the top 5%, with a short tail of unemployed and retirees.
The number of Americans with passports is at an all time high of 48%, and some of that is simply for convenience ID for internal flights.
Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Think about young people trying to buy their 1st home now, its becoming impossible. At least in Finland today it's much easier for young people to buy their 1st home now compared to 15 years ago. Interest rates are roughly where they were 15 years ago, but house prices in real terms have gone way down. There's also huge market asymmetry with large amount of vacant properties that nobody wants to buy, and relatively…
So, are young people buying their 1st home now? If not, is it actually easier for them to buy?
I'm not an expert on Finland but looking and economy and geopolitics young Finns might have a massive problem with the second secret ingredient to buying their 1st home - a job. Then looking at fertility ratio only people who can afford buying housing to their children decide to have children.
Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks
#260Yup, Joseph M. Juran noticed that in the 1940-ies and called that Pareto principle.