This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Charting America's 0.1% Exceptionalism
Lately Joseph Stiglitz' Vanity Fair article "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" has gotten a lot of airplay. Unfortunately, Stiglitz appears to have been a decimal comma off. As Jeff Gundlach presents in a slide in his latest presentation, it is really about the 0.1%. And that's where America's exceptionalism (in three generations of theft from the middle and lower-classes) really shins through...
»
- 11124 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I'm kind of new so I claim ignorance if this is common knowlege, but do people really get their financial news from vanity fair? is that why i can never time these damn swings? Jesus, all this time i thought i had to break my knuckles trying to learn finance and i could have just subscribed to a fucking magazine.
Welcome to the site. You may find yourself asking the question "Do people really....?" a lot.
thanks for the welcome, from the look of it i'll be drinking alot more too.
Friends don't let friends subscribe to Vanity Fair.
With friends like that...
That is a fringe benefit (and must be reported as such on your 1040, don't forget).
You just described my daily dilemmas in 1 sentence!
Congrats! +1000
No they don't but main publications refuse to print real news especially if it deals with wealth accumulation and inequality. The only three that do are non financial publications such as The Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair and Mother Jones--they're probably owned by good Jews.
Interestingly the Jews went from supporting social and economic equality for which they were vilified by anti-semitic media to supporting global banker elites types and now vilify and attempt to neutralize those that are in favor of income and wealth equality now that they monpolized all the media outlets.
augie: welcome to the site - you will find that there are a number of trolls planted on this site by the powers that be who are used in an attempt to deflect the focus away from the topics of the articles posted here. One such troll is the bigot troll who posts sweeping generalizations about specific groups as if all members of such groups act and think in lock-step, organized in some nefarious way. Bigot trolls have been used by TPTB down through the centuries as a way to get the masses to fight amongst themselves instead of focusing on where the true crimes are being committed.
Augie,
Don't worry...you'll be fine. Just buy shares of Apple tomorrow...premarket. You'll be earning 20% by the second half of the session. Rock on!
Cdad goin' on martini #2...
apple's Goin' to Da MOON just you wait and see, AAPL 400 by August. Ipads for everybody.
Vanity fair is for "opinion leaders," AKA white, liberal, upper middle class dopes who think they already know everything and thus don't have to think for themselves. Stiglitz is a socialist and a tool. This article, while accurately describing the symptoms (I'm guessing now because I haven't read this yet) doesn't come close to diagnosing the underlying disease (I'll bet). Sorta like Taibbi's article earlier.
Oh! So you engage in name calling and political bullshiting w/o having read the article.
talk about a punk ass snob who pretend to know everything.
NorthernSoul,
What name are you charging me of calling him.....Long Apple shareholder?
Fuck off, you thin-skinned twat.
Exactly - stick with the meaty stuff like People, Us, or if you're feeling sassy, you could even branch out an read...dare I say, Cosmo.
yeah...taibbi's article was a bummer...the poor wifes got a make a living too...everyone else is stealing ...so...
Not only does Taibbi understand the underlying disease, he explains it better than anyone.
Go read his book "Griftopia". He even gives ZeroHedge a hat tip toward the end.
Faber is the only "opinion leader" i listen to.
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14533
I love the liberal misconception that socialist entities benefit everyone. Yeah, especially when they are devaluing an asset that the middle lower class use exclusively because they can't afford to diversify into commodities or equities.
Skip to 5:55 if you don't want to watch the whole interview. I have to skip through becky's comentary for the sake of my blood pressure.
I guess the sarcasm about reading vanity fair didn't really come out as clear as i intended.
Unfortanately there's a persistant subsection of 0H that have never and will never understand sarcasm. Just the way it is.
You will fit right in here. Only the Looters have access to the dark pools!
No BS no hype no sarcasm.
VF is a GREAT read-period.
I'm getting hypnotized - turn them off.
Looks like that Japanese bet on Pearl Harbour was poorly thought out.
Good point. For all the effects, WWII might aswell have been planned by Japanese communists.
And...
Looks like that American bet on the US Constitution after 1990 waspoorly thought out.
Half of Japan were sharecroppers on an acre or less of land before WWII.
For whom, the Emperor?
Worst of all kids.
Why does this chart end at 2000... why not 2010?
It's the BLS revision window
Looks like the US high earners are going to be hit with 70 years of falling income...
you can squeeze blood out of a stone just tooo long for your own good..
I cry not....
The absolute level of wealth doesnt seem to matter to people. If you are in the top few deciles you still get a.lot more pussy in any era and at any level of material wealth.
And that is really why we chase wealth in the end....improved quantity and quality of pussy. Freud said so.
right but the printer flows forever...
It is always good to remember the French aristocracy thought they could use the proles to gain power over the crown.
How did that turn out?
test!
Turned out pretty bad for them IIRC. From the Jacobin regimen they implemented, (La Terreur) came the word "terroriste". (No kidding!)
Britannia doesn't rule this wave...
Britannia is in the exact same fuking boat ...Westminster and Washington are entirely inter-changeable only the British State parasites suck out 60% of GDP while the Apple Pie tape worms are only at 35% of GDP
Actually, every Western country is in the same boat, from Sweden to France. Is there an international plot?
No, just eternal parasites, and democracy which lets them do...
ZH published a histogram in Feb. it is actually another decimal point over...0.01%
For the few, by the few, frack the rest!
We're back to the robber-barron age, an age full of instability, wars, and financial crisis. Depressions are great wealth equalizers. The chart goes only to 2000, by now we must be off the charts where UK was before the English empire just faded away for the next 100 years before bottoming in 1980s.
Is OKenyan on that chart?
Do you work for the Red team?
Geez - I am surprised we are not up to our asses in expat Englishmen, French and Japanese folks. To listen to the folks talk about tax policy - shouldn't all of those people be fleeing to our wealth friendly shores? We have been assured that if we dain to tax the wealthy - they will all leave taking their ill-gotten gains with them and we will all be the poorer for it. I guess American Exceptionalism isn't that attractive compared with the fatherland/motherland/what have you.
Personally - I wish they would leave and take their wealth with them - it would be worth it to rid ourselves of them and their corrupting influence.
Germany is rich. France is regaining control of her old colonies, so they don't much feel the pain.
The other countries? Who knows? The propaganda that they are superior because we are all barbarous cowboys is strong.
Probably best if they stay there. On average, 70% of those fleeing socialism, vote for socialism in the new country.
Crazy, but true.
The US used to be where people came for freedom and liberty, but that was before we became a welfare state. Now we draw the lazy scum of the world.
" that was before we became a welfare state."
As this chart show clearly, the welfare state is limited to the 0.1%
Good catch!
LOL Useful idiots are in a spawning frenzy this spring.
Big Government allows big theft.
Socialism is the tool of the .01%, Bob.
The Soviet leadership had their dachas. It is always the same.
Say it three times while clicking your slippers, Rodent, and you'll be back in Kansas in a jiffy! There's no place like home.
Do you not see all the welfare states failing before your eyes?
Europe can't continue now they can no longer draft on US military expenditures, and a healthy trade surplus with the US.
Bob just thinks he deserves to take other people's money just because he is bob.
Hehehe.
Some naughty person junked both me and bob to see if he could start a junk war!
We have a welfare state AND the rich are getting richer.
Bob just won't face reality.
Governments who support incentives for non productivity will get plenty of it.
tct-as you well know, anything that is incentivized causes more of same. Anything that is penalized causes less.
so, pussy junksta': I'd wish to penalize you, but you are a coward.
- Ned
+1
Calling the plunder done by the 1%ers welfare is an injustice to the term welfare.
And that's what the chart above depicts? You got it backwards.
The bottom twenty percent get a free ride. Very few in that income category work.
The top 0.1 percent has special privileges and income opportunities unavailable to the rest.
Those of us in the middle have to work and play by the rules and support the socialism with our labor. That is what the graph shows.
Not just anybody could turn it into a projective test, troll. But I guess that's where trolls come in.
You're working hard tonight. I guess damage control is mission critical.
Naah.
Just bored.
Why are you here?
John Lennon tried it.......how did that work out?
Yes, quite...Tax policy is insignificant next to access to the printing press. Getting something of value for freshly printed fiat in infinite quantities is how the money is made and wealth stolen.
EX-FREAKING-ZACTLY.
I "love" these "insightful" charts on wealth concentration in capitalist-lite econimies. Let's see a chart from some capitalist alternatives, like, say, Cuba where all you have to chart is the wealth concentration of the Castro brothers against everyone else. I guess if wealth concentration is "bad", why then the chartist would TRULY hate Socialism, but that sentiment never seems to come through. Hmm; I wonder why.
BTW, socialist countries are much more politically "stable" and have excellent education systems, so doesn't that makes 3 strikes against capitalism? I wonder why people don't flock to get into socialist countries? Must be capitalist propaganda, right?
I may just leave at some point. I can work anywhere. And.the rest of you can see what the british experienced with the two decade NHS brain drain.
Reprieve from self-idolizing assholes?
ObamaCare did not address tort reform.
NHS will seem lavish compared to ZeroCare.
I dunno.
I think the self idolizing asshole may be the guy who thinks he deserves to take other people's money and spend it on himself.
systemic theft from society by the parasites ...you Americans have forgotten what you left Europes scum run lands for!
It's a way more impressive graph to give the ratio of wealth held by the top 0.1% to the rest. That curve can go to negative infinity. In fact it can go to literally ten to the power of infinity. (Morbius)
And there go out of hours futures on the way up... of course, no one there to hear the screams of the few shorters that dared and left stops.....
Im screaming. I just knew this.two day bear market had to be over. Shoulda jumped back in today. Oh well.
From 2000 to 2010, I can see Al Gore standing on a chair with a ruler drawing the mark up line from 2000 to 2010!
we are talking about trickle down economics... these are the good guys
.
give it a minuate... boss says we all gunna do fine give us all good jobs too
If you want a more equitable distributin of income, I highly suggest the elimination of fiat and a 100% gold standard... But that would kind of put a crunch on government spending also!
When we were sold the 'trickle down economy', why didn't anybody raise any questions about the word "trickle"?
Chart looks like a history of a country that is being gutted from the inside out.
When you focus on the 0.1 percent i dont have a problem, but when you say 250,000 per year makes you a thief and part of the evil cabal i have a problem with that.
Dont force some of.the most productive people, the rest of the top five percent, to side with the 0.1 percent you oppose.
We will join them or go galt on you. Most of us have worked damn hard for what we have and we will either keep it or go galt. The government has yet to figure out how to tax.free.time and.idleness.
what if the 0.1 percent might prefer it the other way? dont forget the rule of the game...if i win i keep it all, if i lose we lose together...
They're manipulative narcissists going into a power faint. Like Scarlett O'Hara:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W43OWu6LIg
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
I like the vision of the power faint: seize the power and faint away so it is lost. - Ned
People are angry and they're willing to crucify anybody that has more than them (esentially focusing on the wrong people). They don't care if you worked harder or not. You become evil. They then want to distribute your money to not only those on the bottom that also worked hard but to those leechers that didn't spend a second working.
And no matter how hard I tried to explain it to some that it's wrong, I had very little success.
It is becoming a class warfare which I believe will lead to a destruction of current society and eventually either into a form of anarchy or dictatorship/totalitarian society or some sort of a combination of the two (cities under total control, everything else anarchy).
sfg (and great movies back when):
Which "people" are you talking about?
Saul was all about breaking the "status quo," which, of course is really the "status quo ante bellum."
So you are predicting class warfare as a physical v. verbal situation? Any thoughts regarding timing?
Insight to your belief(s) would also be helpful. Thanks in advance.
- Ned
I don't have a problem with people who make $250k or even $500k. On the other hand, if someone threatens to "go Galt" on us (the American people) I have to chuckle. Ayn Rand's novel was written with real capitalists in mind - that's the kind we don't have much of these days. A capitalist puts his own net-worth at risk in order to make a good or provide a service at a profit. If the idea is bad - or if it is poorly executed - he loses.
No, what we have an absolute shit-load of wannabe capitalists. We have people who want to be enrichened regardless of their poor ideas/gambles/strategies. They absolutely have nothing of their own "at-risk". I wish they would all "go Galt" on us - at least society would not have to pay for their stupidity.
I am sure going to miss seeing phrases like "price discovery" and "capital formation" and "arbitrage" bandied about after some of these guys go Galt on us...
We should encourage or actually force all billionares to "go galt" with one condition. They can never come back.
The further you go away from civilization, the lesser their paper wealth is worth.
Not many people that make 250k work hard. That is a freaking joke. Reading charts and graphs and telling your secretary to book you a flight to an asskiss-a-rama groupthink convention is not working hard. Working hard is not the same as working a lot of hours.
What's a few billion between lobbyist friends?
What's a few billion between lobbyist friends?
Tyler I did a presentation about it not long ago, want it? There is a smashed lamborghini in it :P
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/theelite.jpg
Wall St. executives' share in the top 0.1% income went from 11% in 1979 to 18% in 2005. Real estate (wall st. + gov ) from 1.7 to 3.7%. "Small Business" owners from 5.3 to 15.6.
Everyone else stayed the same or got pushed out.
During the same time frame Fed cut rates: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GS30?cid=115
Who controlled the Fed and who benefitted the most?
Can someone please explain to me the process by which my money (ie, "the middle class") ends up in the bank accounts of the rich and ultra-rich?
From the perspective of the "wall street types", we are bad Americans. We didn't buy a huge house (or even one that required that big of a mortgage relative to our income), we don't go on vacations, we drive cars until they fall apart, we don't have fancy cell phones, and have only one TV in the house (which was bought close out years ago). We don't use home equity for anything, though we do keep a line available. Our credit card is used for convenience, not a replacement for true equity; as such, the balance is paid off in full each month. I'm still pissed about a $17 finance charge from 1996 when I missed the due date for my bill. Short of the mortgage, we have no debt. We save a minimum of 15% of income and put more away when possible. Most of our consumption is based on necessity (eg, food). Even then, we shop the deals to stretch our dollars. We do eat out occasionally, but economically.
For the life of me, I can't see where anything but a microscopic percentage of our income ends up in the hands of the rich. The only path I can possibly envision is via wealth transfers and support from the government. (Bailouts, QEx, etc). If that is the case, it seems to me that the chart above isn't the cause, but a symptom.
Help me understand how I am making the rich become the ultra-rich.
Y'know that gas you just put in your car? The heating bill that you just paid? Do you have wide fluctuations in costs that have nothing to do with actual realized changes in supply and demand?
Your 15% savings - in the bank? Or, perhaps invested in the stock market? Fund of funds? What kind of return are you getting after expenses?
In these troubled times - anything that you have to consume - is fair game for investors that never lose.
Your lifestyle sounds like you have a good handle on what is important - but you seem somewhat naive...and I do not mean to insult you.
I am more that willing to conclude that I am naive. On the other hand, I am not going to accept the standard talking point of "ultra-rich = evil" without some concrete evidence.
Are energy prices higher than they would be without the "rich"? If so, how much? Someone can point to a study on this, right?
If it is volatility you are talking about, then a simple statistical analysis of historical data should see it increasing. Is this so?
I pay no checking/savings account fees to my local bank. I do pay ~$30 for safe deposit box rental annually and $50 to keep a home equity line open. We have our mortgage through them and the rate was competitive went we got it. For fund investments, the fees I pay seem to be on the low end of the scale.
In as much as consumption being a fair game for investors that never lose, at what point does successful arbitrage become "evil"? If I can make the most money by selling a product that costs me $0.50 for $5.00, why should I sell it for anything less? Am I "evil" because I don't sell it for $0.75?
Don't take this as me being supportive of one side or the other, I just want some actual evidence.
This is the fucking chart I posted to look at
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/deja-vu-all-over-again-jeff-gundlachs-l...
I've been saying this for over a year here.
Which makes all this Rep/Dems argument stupid.
It really is simple isnt it? the oligarchy enriches their own(.1,1,.01%, whatev), appeases the peasants(food stamps-EUC-etc.), offshores our jobs, and then steals, taxes, or charges commissions on the productivity of the middle in the name of some bollocks or another. Any questions? Left or Right is the biggest insult to humanity. The concentration of power and thus globalization kills people, culture, the planet, and for what? Well, follow the money via energy, war, corporate profits, politics, and the financing of it all. The great phenomenon of the new normal is here but the question is are we, the middle, ready? Higher "taxes" in every way possible, fewer public services(austerity), and by paying taxes we show that we support it albeit indirectly. And if you're on the bottom or the top then enjoy the free ride while it lasts cuz it can't last forever. How will it end? It is ending and will continue to end poorly and bloodily. Isn't that the sad truth?
Rich pay others to advocate for their interests (lobbysts, PR consultants, etc.)
If you are not actively advocating for your fair share of profits, then your inaction gives consent.
In a war, protecting your fort isn't enough to win, especially when your fort is not even big enough for your self sufficiency. For the rich, defense alone would protect their status, but they are actually on the offensive!
Has Japan or Western Europe created any jobs since the divergence we took in 1980?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/global/30youth.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/business/global/01jobless.html
Wait until millions of desparate Chinese and Indian college graduates flood the labor market.
The REAL QUESTIONs are:
"Who is going to pay for The Royal Wedding?"
"Is it really 'Better then Expected?"
and
"No one could have seen this coming."
Someone that I once knew taught me that the easiest way to make money is to "find a way to insert yourself into the distribution channel of an existing profitable business"
As I look at all of the (non-end-user) entities investing in basic commodities - I cannot help but acknowledge that truth.
I can think of easier ways:
In and of itself this is only relevant to the extent that you think the pie remains finite - that wealth isn't created (or destroyed) but merely shifts around from one pile to another.
The first U.S. spike in the chart coincides with the 1986 changes to the tax code.
The second U.S. spike coincides with the explosion of Fannie and Freddie in the 1990s.
I don't think it should matter how much money one makes so long as they are a producer and not a parasite.