This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Are You A Member Of The "1%" - In 2012 A Record 166 Americans Made Over $50 Million

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Never in US history have so many individuals earned over $50 million per year.

 

Never before has the divide between the wealthy and the poor been so wide (never).

 

The source of this catalyst for unrest in society, as Mark Spitznagel warned, is not runaway entrepreneurial capitalism, which rewards those who best serve the consumer in product and price. (Would we really want it any other way?) There is another force that has turned a natural divide into a chasm: the Federal Reserve. The relentless expansion of credit by the Fed creates artificial disparities based on political privilege and economic power.

 

The actual distribution of wealth in America is mind-boggling - the following shows the pattern of income is similar to a power-log function (often referred to by Didier Sornette as the basis for his bubble indicator)...

As Spitznagel concludes so succinctly:

"The Fed is transferring immense wealth from the middle class to the most affluent, from the least privileged to the most privileged. This coercive redistribution has been a far more egregious source of disparity than the president's presumption of tax unfairness (if there is anything unfair about approximately half of a population paying zero income taxes) or deregulation.

 

Pitting economic classes against each other is a divisive tactic that benefits no one. Yet if there is any upside, it is perhaps a closer examination of the true causes of the problem. Before we start down the path of arguing about the merits of redistributing wealth to benefit the many, why not first stop redistributing it to the most privileged?"

Finally, while the whole 1% meme may be so 2011 (now it is more 0.001%), for those wondering if they made the "cutoff", the answer is if you made over $200,000 then yes.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:33 | Link to Comment Alcoholic Nativ...
Alcoholic Native American's picture

I'm sure they are worth every penny.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:37 | Link to Comment Arius
Arius's picture

...and more... it will trickle down ... just watch

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:09 | Link to Comment AlaricBalth
AlaricBalth's picture

The max tax bracket in 1929 was 24% on income over $100,000, down from 73% on income over $1,000,000 in 1920. After that max tax rates fluctuated between 60% and 94% from 1932 to 1981. In 1982 Reagan and Congress lowered the max rate to 50% from 69.5%.

It would be interesting to graph these rates to coincide with the second chart.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:13 | Link to Comment Popo
Popo's picture

If wealth begets more wealth, it doesn't take a genius to see that eventually all the wealth ends up in just a few hands.

The only thing that ever prevents the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a tiny few is 'instability.'

Which is why "stability" is just a code word meaning, "the continued trend of wealth concentration into the hands of the few."

And it's why "instability" is of vital social importance. (And why the Fed is so entirely evil).

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:41 | Link to Comment Zer0head
Zer0head's picture

earned?

166?  try 666

 

and then add in the carried interest types, as in6662

 

take a drive thru some of America's wealthy hoods, for that matter wander thru the Upper East Side, Hamptons, Florida's or California's coastal jewels - there is so much fucking money out there it boggles the mind

 

check out the exec jet ports dotted across the US of A

$50m flying limos that cost $5k/hour to operate all tax free of course funded by almost tax free "income"

waiting lists for yachts

waiting list for $75k private grade school for the  preciouses

half million dollar bids for charity auction trinkets

spending the day on how to cut 500 jobs out of acme manufacturing company in asslick flyover country

if the great unwashed had just a hint of the decadent, opulent and outrageous lifestyles of some 40 something money manager who literally spends more on his energy bill in one of his 5 homes then some poor working stiff makes in a year in a retail outlet, which that same money manger bought and sold last year for a profit of untold carried interest tens of millions through a clever maneuver that included pressuring his Bangledeshi supplier to reduce the cost from 24cents/piece to 22 cents and converting staff here in the US from full time to temp. 

 

 

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:46 | Link to Comment JohnnyBriefcase
JohnnyBriefcase's picture

if the great unwashed had just a hint.

 

That's why we have awards shows and sports and tabloids and...

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:08 | Link to Comment markmotive
markmotive's picture

And the government's attempt at the redistribution of wealth (read health) only f@cks it up worse.

The Mises View on Healthcare and Free Markets:

http://www.planbeconomics.com/2013/11/the-mises-view-healthcare-and-free...

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 02:08 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

The secret to wealth redistribution is it's always about moving capital away from the many and into the hands of the few. There have been a few historical exceptions, but generally that's how it's supposed to work. 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 08:01 | Link to Comment GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

The hatred of the 1% can be bottled and used for great evil.

 

Mass millions killed so far.....and counting.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 08:43 | Link to Comment lewy14
lewy14's picture

The situation on the ground is... the billionaires (Buffet, Gates, Soros, Bill Gross, et al) enlist the poor and the disenfranchised (and justifiably bitter) middle class, and advocate expropriating "the 1%" (meaning those over $200K income and a few million in assets)... so they can pick up bargains - smaller family businesses, smaller companies, etc - and in return for enhancing the power of the state, they will be allowed to front-run the state. 

The millionaires - whether they got their wealth fairly or not - will be expropriated, and the concentration of wealth among the billionaires will only increase. 

And because the billionaires left standing will have taken the oath - All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state - they will be hailed as selfless heroes by the mass media.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:21 | Link to Comment eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

That number is ridiculously low...there are more than 166 Hedge Fund managers who made more that $50 mill last year.  There are more that 166 people in Silicon Valley who made more than $50 mill last year.  There are probably more hollywood stars (both movie and TV) and athletes that made more than $50 mill last year (think about endorsement deals).

Where the fuck did this number come from, Lois Lerner?

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:59 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

I don't believe anything the Bureau of Bullshit tells us.  Those numbers are what they are so they can justify raising taxes on married couples making only $250K.  Its just a means to put a ceiling on their earning potential.  And annual earnings and tax rates dont mean shit anyways.  The ultra wealthy control almost all of the wealth, so they can afford to go Gault if they need to and still live like kings.   Short of a wealth confiscation, how are they going to get at that?  Oh wait....

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:15 | Link to Comment quintago
quintago's picture

Those people are on the Cayman list.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:37 | Link to Comment Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Look at the column header: "wage earners". Carried interest is not wage. Structured bonuses and golden parachutes, options packages, dividends and trusts, passive losses against income AND capital gains are NOT wages.
Shows to go ya: treachery wins out over youth and enthusiasm (and 'entrepreneurship') everytime

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 02:11 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

If one has any questions about the US being an oligopoly, one simply needs to spend ten seconds looking at taxes...also a good example of how proficient the propaganda system is. 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:20 | Link to Comment seek
seek's picture

Tax rates/brackets mean nothing. It's the effective rate that counts. The US has never collected more than 25% of GDP in tax revenues (all sources) and the top end effective rate has been 35% +/- since the institution of the income tax. Rates are just a lie used to make you think the rich are/aren't getting screwed over. One page of the tax code is rates -- the other 20K+ pages are where the interesting freebies are.

The country did fine without an income tax for over 100 years. Nuke it again, crank excise and sales taxes up, send everyone a small rebate check every quarter and be amazed that collections and fairness increase.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:31 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

you do get paid to live in Alaska. That trend could continue in other states as well. talk about "social security." that Calpers thing in California is absolutely huge right now...one of the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the world actually. Texas could very much do the same thing and so could North Dakota. Same could hold true for the State of Washington as well. All of them in effect would be breaking free of the "Wall Street/DC Nexus" insodoing as well. Texas already has its own gold reserves. There is nothing to prevent these other States from doing the same thing. (an interesting one is the Pacific Northwest. they already have huge silver deposits up there and the cheapest electricity in the world basically. Work out a deal with British Columbia to supply an infinite amount of natural gas to them...that might get things moving in the right direction.) QE and the zero bound rate policy has made this the weirdest economic recovery ever that's fer sure. is it the best ever? the worst ever? definitely "most surprising ever."

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:48 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

10-4, seek.  + 1

Those are voluntary taxes to boot, you only pay when you consume, that would encourage savings.  Something could be wroked out (as you suggest) on the regressivity od sales taxes.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:33 | Link to Comment HungryPorkChop
HungryPorkChop's picture

I've never been in favor of ramping up taxes but this one area where the govt should have tax rates like 75% and 90%.  If you study history you'll note when the middle class was doing the best and growing like in the 50's and 60's the rich had sky high taxes.

It created a very strong incentive to invest in the workers with better wages, equipment and new manufacturing plants.   Otherwise all of that money went to the govt coffers.  So they could either be a hero and help out their workers or just pay all that money to Uncle Sam.   With incredibly low tax rates like 30% it creates a situation where someone making $50 or $100 Million hoards the money and puts into asset classes like the Stock Market or Real Estate. It does not trickle down to the average worker in any meaningful form that allows for good jobs or wage increases.  The last 10 years have proven that point beyond a reasonable doubt!

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:53 | Link to Comment mark mchugh
mark mchugh's picture

HPC you are 100% correct.  It's very disappointing to see the number of junks you got.  ZH has its fair share of dimwits who simply don't understand where wealth comes from or how tax policy works in practice.

Deficit spending has accounted for 100% of corporate profits since 2007, so the notion that the rich are "earning" their wealth is absurd.  Allowing corporations and rich individuals to hoard the deficit dollars blasted into the economy by the government ensures collapse.  The threat of taxation forces them to reinvest.  It's astonishing how many don't get it.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:03 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Sorry but you 2 are idiots.  No one paid 90% effective tax rates back then.  The tax code was full of loopholes.  You are just useful idiots to suggest it again. 

Who on earth would work 9 days out of 10 for the government?  Because thats what you are suggesting with a 90% tax rate.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:24 | Link to Comment mark mchugh
mark mchugh's picture

No shit, Sherlock

You think 'cause you're against taxes, you're a libertarian or something.  No, you're just a fucking retard who has no idea what tax policies work and what ones don't. Where do you think 2012's $1.2 Trillion in deficit spending wound up?  In the mattresses of poor people?

No, it wound up in the pockets of rich people who've convinced useful idiots like yourself that if you tax them things will get worse.  Avoiding taxes is easy:  Buy new equipment, expand, hire, pay more.  Do it well and your fortune increases.

The reason America's rich are scared shitless of taxation is because in their heart of hearts they know they are the real beneficiaries of the welfare state, and that they could not stand on merit.

Guess you'll be lobbying for removal of the debt ceiling too, right?

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:35 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

That made no sense.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:44 | Link to Comment mark mchugh
mark mchugh's picture

Yeah.  Thanks's for playing.  

The fact that someone displaying your mental acuity can "retire at 45" in this country tells me everything.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:12 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

You are only half right asshat. That trillion in deficit spending is made possible by the Fed. But throwing a married couple making 250K into the highest tax bracket is a fucking joke. Raising income taxes isn't going to get at the wealth that the rich have already accumulated. How much income tax doesnWarren Buffet pay? The rich don't pay income tax. They won't ever get their wealth confiscated either. Go ahead, jack up the tax rates. I'm not working 9 days out of 10 for your peice of shit government.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 02:26 | Link to Comment mark mchugh
mark mchugh's picture

First of all. at 250K, you ain't rich, and where do see ANYBODY suggesting that you get taxed at 90%?  And this definitely, definitely isn't MY piece of shit government.  I have but one simple request: Don't let the government borrow money.  period.  That's all.  Nothing else.

Know why? Because when government's start borrowing money, delusional dimwits like you a) start making 250k b) Think you're rich. c) Start identifying with people who actually are rich. d) Think people want all your money.

I just don't want you to have MY money, get it?

When the budget's balanced, you can keep it all.  But what I discover again and again is that people like you don't want a balanced budget because you are actually a beneficiary of the welfare state (you certainly quack like a duck).  In other words, you're a parasite.  Without the government's sugar, you'd be lucky to be slingin' burritos.  

So just say it: I like deficit spending because I'm a parasite.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 02:45 | Link to Comment mark mchugh
mark mchugh's picture

I think it's adorable that you lumped yourself in with people making 200 times more than you too.

Maybe we should get a kid who cuts his grandmom's lawn to discuss tax policy next.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 08:13 | Link to Comment Watauga
Watauga's picture

The happy couple:

Gross income: $250,000

Total paid federal and state income taxes: $50,000

Total paid Social Security and Medicare: $15,000

Total paid in real estate, personal property, sales, gas, etc. taxes $20,000

Total paid for college tuition, fees, room, and board for two children: $80,000

Total paid in communications and utilities: $8,000

Total paid for gasoline for commuter cars: $5,000

Total paid for health, life, car, and property insurances: $20,000

Leaving $42,000 net for household, of which $35,000 is put into retirement savings in the hope the govt will not steal it before they retire.

A man and a woman--the happy couple--with a combined income of $250,000, has $7,000 of expendable income for food, toiletries, cleaning supplies, car maintenance, and any extras.  There are no nights out, or vacations, medical deductibles and co-pays, or investment funds.  They may not even pay all the bills.

Now, you may ask, why would anyone spend $80,000 for two college students?  Well, in-State rates are about $30,000, and out-of-State rates are about $40,000.  Why send the kids out of State?  Because the only good colleges in State accept thousands of students with grades/SAT scores/extracurriculars way below those of their kids, leaving only the lower level schools for many top students of the wrong "persuasion" (e.g., 4.32 GPA with 5 APs, 730/700/670 SATs, and all-State athlete in two sports cannot get into State Univ #1; hmmmmmm. . . ).  The best out-of-State schools, however, gladly will accept these students. 

Which brings us to this--not only do these kids not get into State U #1, they don't get in because kids with much lesser qualifications DO get in.  And guess what, our happy couple GET TO PAY for these less-qualified kids through both federal and state taxation AND higher tuition all around (paying, in this case, the higher tuition at out-of-State  U #1).  What a stinking racket.  Talk about true wealth redistribution!  The happy couple pay for local public education for all (even though most kids with the means go to private school at high cost just to avoid the risks and dangers of public schools in the area), breakfast, lunch, and dinner for all, after school care for all, special services for all, and state U for all.

So, let's go back to the top.  Let's say it is reasonable for the federal govt to tax the happy couple at about $5,000 to pay for govt services provided pursuant to the govt ENUMERATED POWERS.  And say the state total is about $1000.  $85,000 - $6,000 = $79,000.  That $79,000 SHOULD BE THE HAPPY COUPLE'S to do with as they please.  Instead, it is STOLEN from them and used to buy votes.  Period. 

Yes, there is NO doubt that the wealth redistribution also largely goes NORTH to the monied interests.  Probably more goes that direction.  But the GUY IN THE MIDDLE, which includes our $250,000 per year happy couple, pays SOUTHWARD as well.  Bottom line--the guy in the middle is ruined. 

 

 

 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:08 | Link to Comment Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

I'm a libertarian, and as such I almost agree with you here (and gave you green).

Fact is, these people didn't earn this money, they paid off a corrupt bunch of gangsters to make their crimes legal.

Taxation really is not the answer.

Legislating these vermin into a cell or a noose is.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:37 | Link to Comment nope-1004
nope-1004's picture

For I tell you, it will be easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven.

'Nuff said.

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:50 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

Why would anyone want to push a cigarette through the eye of a needle?

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:10 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

It's a lot easier to thread your needle through a camel toe.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:25 | Link to Comment Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

A needle?

Speak for yourself bro.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:37 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

I was, of course, speaking purely as an ananonymystical Chinese Citizenism citizen who had not yet had his daily dose of tiger penis and bear gall bladder in human fetus broth in order to make big(ger) the diminutive chinaman peepee.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 02:43 | Link to Comment Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

Haha. OK then. Green.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:49 | Link to Comment Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

France was experiencing regressive taxation before the Revolution. I think starvation was what probably kicked it off though. We may have a bit more of a wait.

Miffed;-)

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 04:03 | Link to Comment resurger
resurger's picture

+50 Mio

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:47 | Link to Comment prains
prains's picture

pretty soon $50 Mil is going to buy you three eggs

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:12 | Link to Comment PT
PT's picture

Yeah, 20 years ago 50 mil could buy 500 really nice houses.  Now it will buy 50-100 houses.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 06:49 | Link to Comment pomlad5
pomlad5's picture

on the egg farm they just bought for 100k.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 06:11 | Link to Comment JB
JB's picture

The top .1% controls 40% if the wealth.

The top 20% controls NINETY-THREE PERCENT of the wealth.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 07:19 | Link to Comment doctor10
doctor10's picture

Could care less who made how much.

Do care who made how many JOBS. In so doing, how much have they returned to their communities? Any of these 50X milllionaires industrialists? Any run large software companies? 

Or have they all high frequency traded themselves into "privelege" with an obliging and compliant SEC/CFTC?  Or  are these adept taxpayer theives recycling a piece back to the regulators and politicians that enable the status quo?

 

for some reason my bet is the latter-but could be wrong

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 09:01 | Link to Comment doctor10
doctor10's picture

"The relentless expansion of credit by the Fed creates artificial disparities based on political privilege and economic power"

 

Almost. But not quite. What it has done is create a class of serfs and overlords. that's what their investment in "Homeland Security" is ultimately all about.  None of the serfs getting through TSA and getting close to the enclaves in Darien and Palm Beach

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:37 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Names.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:48 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Thorstein Heins. Destroying companies ain't easy, ya know...

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:56 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

lol...inducted into the Hall of Dorks on just the name alone.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:10 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Is this what we have degraded to on here? Ripping on the old guy from "Back to School"?

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:14 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Touchdown GreenBay !!! Sorry, what were we talking about ???

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:21 | Link to Comment robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

Without a billionaire owner there would be no Packers.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:23 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

LOL. But the packers are owned by the greenbay community...

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:34 | Link to Comment robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

OK, but they'll never win the SuperBowl at home without a billionaire owner.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:15 | Link to Comment AlaricBalth
Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:38 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

Meritocracy, you are either born with it or not!!!!

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:08 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

Pshhh. That's silly. I was a poor kid with parents that told me to go to college if I wanted a decent job. Went to college, went in debt, and could still retire at 45 if I live responsibly and save my money.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:00 | Link to Comment post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

tell your wife Morgan Fairchild I said hello

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:40 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

I wonder what percentage of residents in Zimbabwe made over 50 million a few years back. 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:40 | Link to Comment tricky75
tricky75's picture

Is this data reliable? I'm surprised it's not more. How many billionaires are there in the US?

Half of them probably make > $50mm p.a. and you have the one-offs like lottery winner and CEO of IPO'd company selling shares.

I'm suprised it's not 500 or 1,000

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:51 | Link to Comment alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

a lot, if not most, people in that lofty perch of the earning stratosphere do not "personally" earn much if any money. It is all largely funneled through their "corporation" (a company created for the sole purpose of running their personal income through) for the tax advantages it provides.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:04 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

A lot, if not most of middle-class and lower-class income earners take all the tax advantages they can, including deducting interest, getting free money for kids, creating a "small business" for the primary intent of deducting a portion of their house's cost from their income, deducting their vehicle cost, deducting their travel costs, etc. So what's your point?

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:06 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

Actually, I see your point was where the stats came from. Just being my normal argumentative self.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:40 | Link to Comment Tegrat
Tegrat's picture

Sick of the income jaelousy. Give all the poor people today all the rich peoples money. in 20 years the poor will for the most part still be poor and the rich will figure a way to become rich again.

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:03 | Link to Comment alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

Are you really so naive as to believe that the majority of "rich" people in this country are self made? Conservatively, more than 50% of them started out with inherited wealth and without that trust fund safety net, most would have been in the fucking poor house after their first bad trade/investment/decision...whatever.

And now, instead of a rich daddy, they've got the endless deep pockets of uncle Ben and his gang of merry thieves.

Nobody ever said it was gonna be "fair"....but I think "unfair" has been taken to a whole new level. It's been fucking institutionalized.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:05 | Link to Comment SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

So are you just jealous of rich people handing over their wealth to their kids?

There's nothing wrong with inheritance, rich people can choose how to use their money. It is something called FREEDOM, so don't go on hating people who inherit wealth.

Uncle Ben on the other hand, is a whole different story altogether but it has never been about him donating money to either class. It has always been about him creating market inefficiencies and bubbles.

Anyone in the markets would have benefitted from uncle Ben not just the "rich".

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:52 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

As soon as you have some kids, pay off a house, and then decide to donate all money and house to the poor upon death - as well as refuse to teach your kids about the trade/profession that enabled you to provide for them - that is when you get to recommend that people richer than you should have to leave their children without knowledge and wealth they achieved over their life.

Who are you to assume that the rich unjustly aquired their wealth? That's the same as assuming the poor are criminals or drug addicts. It's bigotry, plain and simple.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:07 | Link to Comment mark mchugh
mark mchugh's picture

When public debt is the source of virtually all private wealth (as it has been since 2007), an awful lot of people acquired their wealth unjustly.  If you want to support the rights of rich people, fine.  Just make sure you oppose deficit spending too, because no one should be getting rich in a country whose debt is compounding at 9% annually.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:15 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

So because of the actions of the government, people should be expected to limit their own income? What is the arbitrary debt level and income level required for the people to start writing checks to the IRS?

It's hard to say who gets their income unjustly. Do UPS employees get unjust money, since their business mostly depends on government and large corporations, which depend on said compounding national debt?

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:38 | Link to Comment mark mchugh
mark mchugh's picture

The problem with deficit spending is, to some extent, it flows everywhere, but in the end it gets concentrated in the hands of a very few.

There are two kinds of "rich" people: Those who are exposed to market forces, and those who are protected from them.  Hankenstein Paulson accumulated the better part of a billion dollars by lobbying congress to allow Goldman to increase their leverage so the could "invent" and promote financial weapons of mass destruction.  If the amount of money any one individual could earn in finance was limited, maybe these greed-psychos wouldn't be so inclined to think up ways to put the country's future at risk.  And that's just one example.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 10:34 | Link to Comment Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

As long as deficits are eliminated only through spending cuts, I am 100% with you.   Giving the government more money will never solve the deficit problem. 

The most recent example - This year will produce record federal tax revenues, yet the deficit is among the largest in history. 

I understand the politicians do not have the will to cut spending, but more tax revenues is not going to solve the deficit problem.  So let's constrain the government as much as possible. 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:09 | Link to Comment SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

"When public debt is the source of virtually all private wealth (as it has been since 2007), an awful lot of people acquired their wealth unjustly."

Sorry mate but this is just a case of people who can identify opportunities and who can't. 

It has never been about rich or poor. Poor people who identified the opportunity made their wealth there as well sure it is bubble money, I don't deny that but turning it into class warfare when everyone had the opportunity to reap returns from this deficit spending is just out right hypocrisy. 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:01 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

Uhmm...so I'm curious.........what exactly has the instutionalized unfairness gotten people? They have a bigger house than you and a more expensive car. So what? Does that hurt you? Does that hurt society? Where is the problem here. I'm honestly trying to understand it.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:30 | Link to Comment Croesus
Croesus's picture

@ Tegrat: 

Truer words have never been spoken... 

@ Alien IQ: 

I partly agree with your post about inherited wealth, but that's not true in all cases. 

A lot of people who suddenly have a lot of money, go out and piss it away on dumb shit, and wind up right back where they were...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:36 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

No idea why either of you guys are getting junked. One look at the stats of lottery winners going broke backs it up completely. Shit if I were the 1% I would volunteer a 20% wealth tax in return for keeping the current system in place. They will recoup that in a year.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 11:43 | Link to Comment Croesus
Croesus's picture

DOWNVOTE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:44 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

How dare you. Obviously, it is reasonable for me to expect to live in a utopian society where everything is fair and their are no advantages to be taked - you know like colonial 'Merica! Where some people got to take huge amounts of land. And many of them cheated to get the good plots first. Wait...I think I realized I want to live in a communist nation.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:56 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

Better yet, if you gave all the rich peoples money to the poor, they'd each give the equivalent of a whopping $2000.....Oh what a difference that would make. Oh, you know what difference it would make? Inflation. It would cause nearly instantaneous inflation. What's with all the veiled communism around here?

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:48 | Link to Comment mark mchugh
mark mchugh's picture

You're the communist.

 

Tyler, please bring back the Captcha

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 05:35 | Link to Comment bunnyswanson
bunnyswanson's picture

2000 rich in every fucking poor person's pocket and you'd have shoppers on Main Street?  Supply and demand jacking up the price ?  Then increase production.  HELP WANTED.  You are a useless piece of shit who takes up space to derail a good fucking conversation.   Banks not lending is the garrotte around the neck of the upper middle class who tend to hire locally through family business ventures and medical facilities.

The rich stay rich by robbing the middle class.  It's cyclical.  But as we see, they are attempting to change that.  Slave labor is the new trend.  Work for food and a cot bitch. No Life For You!

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:40 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

and fifty million made under $166

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:45 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Not counting EBT, of course...

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:00 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Of course

but I prefer to call it SDT

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:14 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

OK Davey, I'll bite. SDT ???

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:26 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

dyslexic drinks, meant to say STD 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:32 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

PUI Davey !!!

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:42 | Link to Comment IndyPat
IndyPat's picture

Sounds like a good guillotine User Acceptance Test group to me.
So we can get the process down for the big show.

The big whale thieves paid to not make the list...like paying extra for an unlisted number. Have to root them out on the fly.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:51 | Link to Comment Debtonation
Debtonation's picture

The actual distribution of wealth in America is mind-boggling

By "wealth" you mean paper.  Real "wealth" is homes, cars, commodities, knowledge, friends, family.  While it is clear that real wealth is declining, the distiction between wealth and paper must be understood.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:55 | Link to Comment spinone
spinone's picture

We're talking distribution of income, not wealth.  Wealthy people don't have to work, they're already rich.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:20 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

True. But explain why that matters.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:03 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

I would prefer as system that encourages a prosperity of happiness and contentment over one of financial equality. Maybe legalization of pot IS the answer.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:03 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

NOW I know who can pay for my healthcare!

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:05 | Link to Comment Bennie Noakes
Bennie Noakes's picture

First, this post is misnamed. I didn't meet even one of the wealthy 166.

Second, I wonder where the top decile income figure came from and whether it is really accurate. Why did the top decile income plummet in 1942? Were all the fatcats drafted? What about all the war profiteers?

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:23 | Link to Comment AlaricBalth
AlaricBalth's picture

In 1942 max tax bracket was 88% on income over $200,000. Up from 63% in 1935.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:10 | Link to Comment Constitutional ...
Constitutional Republic's picture

End the Fed.

But first audit the Fed, and name its private shareholders so the world can see the guilty who have plundered with impunity in the USA and every land inhabited by a central bank.

They employ eCONomists to veil their theft in fancy words, and academics to do the same, whilst appointing politicians to give the appearance of 'democracy', 'choice'. All bull$hit.

We've been had, conned, bamboozled.

Their acolytes own Hollywood and other means of mass deception like the modern main scream media. Where did O'bomba go after losing his first debate to challenger Romney (another shill) ? He went with that B-level actor Bill Clinton to see a Hollywood 'mogul', Katzenburg. These people are all show, and no substance...unless they steal it from the gullible.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:07 | Link to Comment djsmps
djsmps's picture

Are Feinstein and Pelosi in that group?

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:19 | Link to Comment SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

And the Libtards say we need more government together with intervention to redistribute wealth. 

I say we need less government and government intervention. When we have that the wealth will allocate itself accordingly starting with whose business adds the most value to consumers.

Not some government manipulated bullshit creating market inefficiencies, bring back the Rockefeller-like demand for efficiency damn it!

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:33 | Link to Comment Constitutional ...
Constitutional Republic's picture

Rockefeller is a monopolist, a very un-American trait, given the history of the country's check and balances which he has methodically undone through his co-founding of the Trilateral Commission, a plot to hide the intentions of his co-conspirators who want a new feudalism. Bankrupting the USA  and demoralising all by making sure there is no hope is their biggest hurdle, but they are confident of success.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:50 | Link to Comment SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

So... what conspiracy drug are you smoking on?

A monopoly will not and cannot remain a monopoly unless it maintains it's price at an affordable level for consumers. If they were to ever overcharge consumers, competition will come in to drive the prices down which will incite a price warfare and tell me again how is a price warfare harmful for consumers when people are trying to sell as low as possible and reduce production costs to maintain efficiency/margins?

A monopoly can only survive if they are producing efficiently, productively and able to undercut competition, all of which are beneficial to consumers and unbeneficial to the inefficient. 

 

ZH didn't used to be people full of bullshit conspiracies with 0 knowledge on economics. 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:22 | Link to Comment l8apex
l8apex's picture

BS.  And why did the price of a common phone drop so much after AT&T monopoly was ended about 30 years ago?  Oh that's right, it went from a monopoly to open market.  Monopolies use government regulation to maintain their status.  You know this, so what's the point of your post?

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:41 | Link to Comment SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

Come on you mentioned it yourself, GOVERNMENT REGULATION. 

In a free market, a monopoly is only possible when it has fulfilled all the criteria I have stated. Are you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?

An open market does not necessarily have to mean a model of perfect competition. Whether it is an oligopoly, monopolistic competition, perfect competition or monopoly solely lies in whichever firm or firms are able to produce efficiently and provide products/services at the lowest price. 

If only 1 firm is able to do so, it is a monopoly, if all firms are, perfect competition, if a handful are, oligopoly.

 

I have been pointing out the fact that we need free markets not government controlled markets, shithead. So I turn the question back at you, what is the point of your post? That monopolies are bad? 

A monopoly which results from an open market is not bad and the government is the one creating market inefficiencies.  "Monopolies use government regulation to maintain their status." - Fallacy of Composition.

I rest my case. 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:07 | Link to Comment SWCroaker
SWCroaker's picture

Tom DiLorenzo pointed out years back that monopolies come in two forms, from extremely efficient private industry, and from government protection.   In 19 closely examined "monopolistic industries" the prices of goods were seen to a) fall faster than the declines of other contemporaneous goods, and b) stay there (history actually puts lie to the myth that prices rise once all of the competition is laid low).  

Government sponsored monopolies, on the other hand, tend to bring out the worst: waste, inefficiency, fraud and dysfunction.   (When you're paid by the government for miles of railroad track laid, there is strong motivation to have the lines meander and wander willy nilly.)  The undying opportunity for more efficient competition present in free markets has no place in government monopolies.

http://mises.org/daily/5266/        <-- someone actually went and researched the history, and didn't just regurgitate common knowledge and theory.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:28 | Link to Comment SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

Thank you for supporting my stance. 

"Monopolies come in two forms, from extremely efficient private industry and from government protection."

That's what I've been pointing out since the dawn of day and that what we need is the former not the latter.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:33 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

Monopolies primarily survive due to barriers to entry and collusion among participants.

There are tarriff and nontarriff barriers. Look it up.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:47 | Link to Comment SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

Textbook Keynesian economics directly lifting out of the textbook. 

You are speaking in the context of a government regulated and controlled market. I am coming from the context of an open/unregulated market in which a monopoly can only survive once it has fulfilled my mentioned criteria. 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:34 | Link to Comment bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

I like some of what you said. I'm not sure if I'm missing something though - a company can become a monopoly by whatever means, government regulation, patents, efficiency, etc. At that point, it can likely maintain that monopoly even in a completely free market (for some time dependent on assets and potential competitor assets) through price manipulation as well as psychology manipulation. i.e. A large monopoly can afford to lose a lot more money than a start-up competitor.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:02 | Link to Comment SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

Yes, a company can become a monopoly either by being very efficient or through the government.

One thing I think would be good to take into account is that in a completely free market, the monopoly has to keep their prices low. If not firms who are able to produce efficiently with a decent profit margin and sell at a lower price will be able to windle down the monopoly's market share thereby making it no longer a monopoly.

If a monopoly were to undercut a start up competitor and pump out products at lower cost in hopes of busting the competitor, it would suck to be the competitor unless it can make itself more competitive but it is always good for the consumer (Which is the majority). The people who are actually buying the products will benefit from the undercuts in price and have access to cheaper goods.

So competitors unable to produce efficiently are forced out by the lower prices in which the consumer will benefit from and in the event prices start raising from the lack of corporations able to compete, to levels where there is decent profit margin again, competition will start popping up, thereby repeating the cycle.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:34 | Link to Comment 29.5 hours
29.5 hours's picture

 

 

@Sonof...

Not sure where you pick up this utopian idea of monopoly and the market. (planet of Trolls?) Monopoly can maintain itself for quite a while notwithstanding market forces *if* that monopoly uses the force of the state, backed by the state's judicial system and legislative power.

 

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:40 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

Nontariff barriers to entry.

Cant compete against a monopolist if you cant get into the market.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:54 | Link to Comment SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

Selective reading again?

Have you read the entire conversation from the start just to see that I've been approaching this topic from a free market POV?

Without government intervention?

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 09:19 | Link to Comment 29.5 hours
29.5 hours's picture

 

Yes, I read thru the posts -- not an easy task given the way ZH software organizes threads.

I just don't see the value of arguing, as you seem to be doing, from utopian assumptions of a Platonic ideal of the market system.

I worked for a monopoly my last 15 years service to the real form of capitalism. The Nielsen Company--as in TV ratings. Nielsen has been producing stats that advertisers and the entertainment industry pay big bucks for since the 1920s. Lots of very powerful capital coalitions have tried to break that monopoly since then.

In this case, the monopoly has not been maintained by using the instruments of state. It just takes one hell of a lot of capital, organization, time and connections to produce stats that television execs will shell out money for. Many have tried, all have failed.

In fact, at Nielsen, execs are fond of comparing Nielsen stats with the world's premier reserve currency!

 

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:23 | Link to Comment ejmoosa
ejmoosa's picture

That's just not the real story.  THe above $50 million distracts you from the 50 million plus that are being crushed out of the middle class and onto the government dole.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:16 | Link to Comment Zer0head
Zer0head's picture

you are correct

but guess what

almost 7 million Americans are part of the correctional community with almost 2.5 behind bars

 

so tonight the equivalent to the population of Chicago will be sleeping next Bubba, smelling his farts, hearing his snores and tasting his splooge

 

and the point is.

if no one gives a flying fck about those 2.5 million souls, the 50 million in the former middle class are just so many members of a latter day Holodomor

 

did anyone here today on the way to wherever pass by a homeless person

yesterday (Sunday) it was a cool evening here in the north east, squirrels fortifying their dreys, (human) mothers with their brood at the clothing outlets purchasing the latest in hi-tec outerwear - and there in one of the exits  between the Best Buy and clothing store an old woman hunched with not one but two shopping carts heading to God knows where as the November sun set in the western sky with temps falling into the thrities.

meanwhile I drove by

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:29 | Link to Comment Conax
Conax's picture

 They're just trying to save up to be jewish and buy another country.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:30 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

I've been avoiding Zero Hedge.

I just stopped by and I have to say this:

Where does one go to enlist in the class war?

Please - sign me the fuck up.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:25 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

Aw c'mon Bob. I used to worship you. You always gave me slack when I desperately needed it.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:32 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

now class, everyone stay in their seats until the principal sends you to recess

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 09:06 | Link to Comment lemarche
lemarche's picture

If you don t feel a majority is stealing a minority through money printing and bailouts directed at the few, good for you !! it means you are one of them...

However, "the few" generally loose when the majority are tired of being stolen.

No need to enlist, not a linear process, it bursts when it bursts...

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:36 | Link to Comment ManWithaPlan
ManWithaPlan's picture

Killing these people would do nothing. Go read Animal Farm. Teach you about a revolution son!

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:47 | Link to Comment Constitutional ...
Constitutional Republic's picture

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. You be a nihilist if you choose. I won't be. 

By the way, you'll die sooner than me and mine. Money talks. Bull$hit walks. Ante up.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:02 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Thank you.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:37 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

You want small government, its at 166 (officially) right there fer ya!

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:34 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

comment of the chain award

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:44 | Link to Comment Bosch
Bosch's picture

Millions of people in this country are getting dumber and lazier, thus they are easier to take advantage of.   

If you think you can successfully go through life and your only news source is TMZ or US Weekly, well then fuck you with a pitch fork. 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:01 | Link to Comment thewayitis
thewayitis's picture

 

  Yes BUT ....This year 2013 they are making $60 mill.  Whts the point

 

 

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:04 | Link to Comment walküre
walküre's picture

They make $209,000 each and every day average p.a. That's about 5x the average American annual family income

Why bother even showing up for work tomorrow? The fact that money is so disposable just means we should all stay home and ask to get paid 10x, heck 20x what we're getting paid!

WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT TO ALL THIS FUCKING WORTHLESS MONEY NONSENSE! PAY ME IN GOLD OR FUCK OFF.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:09 | Link to Comment All Out Of Bubblegum
All Out Of Bubblegum's picture

It's better to aim for a more worthy club than these pikers do.

 

"Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."

-H. L. Mencken

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:22 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

I made the 1% one year, 2012.

It will never happen again.

However it doesnt bother me. My dad grew up without running water and had a double crapper outhouse. I grew up lower middle class. The goings on of other people and their incomes never concerned our family. I have never thought about the rich at all.

The politics of jealousy, resentment, and blaming others for one's current station in life seems so childish. It makes me cringe for how people can embarrass themselves by talking and acting that way.

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:39 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

I do want to hang some bankers and crony capitalists. Not because they are rich and I blame them for my failings, but because they broke the law.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:18 | Link to Comment SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

-

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 00:28 | Link to Comment Walt D.
Walt D.'s picture

Just think - earn $50 million a year and after 1000 years you will be as rich as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are now. 

If you are an Obamillionaire (earning $200,000) you too will have $50 million after 250 years.

When you see the 1% propaganda, your antennae should got up - they are after your money, not the money of the 166 who made more than $50 million. They will steal the money from your bank account, not from the mega rich who own hard assets.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:04 | Link to Comment Handful of Dust
Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:41 | Link to Comment shitco.in
shitco.in's picture

Think about this.

Buy 100 Bitcoins today (~$23,000)

Have a guarantee that there will never be more than 210,000 people as rich/richer than you in the world, in the future.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:44 | Link to Comment syntaxterror
syntaxterror's picture

Huge 'fuck you' to obama and his redistributionist dick sucking clan

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 02:05 | Link to Comment Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

Beyond a certain point the over concentration of income in a few hands has a negative multiplier effect on the economy which in the short term is softened by personal  debt infusions and which then actually further compound the problem.

The uber wealthy need to be given personal responsibility for certain aspects of the economy.

They could for example be given responsibility for the treatment and prevention of diabetes. This in turn would lead them not only to find cures but to also put in place legislation regarding harmful sugar laden foods etc which at the moment they are promoting.

 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 02:33 | Link to Comment tofu mary
tofu mary's picture

Any moron who makes less than $50 million a year, leave now... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0mhX9hpq3g

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 03:14 | Link to Comment q99x2
q99x2's picture

System has been proven to implode when these kinds of symptoms appear.

Until then BTFD and be happy until you see those mushroom clouds. Ain't nobody going to fix nothing at this point. We are all going home.

When I was a kid I would have a recurring dream wherein an energy mass came from space and destroyed the earth.

Hey maybe it will be quick.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 04:05 | Link to Comment resurger
resurger's picture

Tyler i thought it will trickle down?

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 04:20 | Link to Comment EconoIdiot
EconoIdiot's picture

Gee Whiz!  I knew somebody would profit this year!

 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 04:19 | Link to Comment EconoIdiot
EconoIdiot's picture

Gee Whiz!  I knew somebody would profit this year!

 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 04:28 | Link to Comment EconoIdiot
EconoIdiot's picture

WoW!  Can one of you tough guys change my diaper!

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 04:29 | Link to Comment butchtrucks
butchtrucks's picture

In the years I have lived in the US I have come to understand that the American ideology of competitiveness and the individual and therefore capitalism in general, is a philosophy of abundance formed in what were several hundred years ago a virgin limitless land.

Americans are so inculcated with this ideology that they can never readjust their world view to one of cooperation in an age of scarcity.

After colonising and exploiting our own abundant land, we have spent the postwar years exploiting the abundance of the thirld world.  But when Asia and Latin America decided to stand up for themselves the US has begun to eat its own working and middle classes, with the rich relentlessly transferring wealth upwards to themselves.

The country has become the model for a capitalist horror show.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 05:17 | Link to Comment Bucket Boy
Bucket Boy's picture

Interesting Wiki on Pareto and his discovery of power law income dustribution. His work fueled Italian fascism. Some interesting comments and perspective by Mandlebrot as well.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 05:46 | Link to Comment muleskinner
muleskinner's picture

Who in the hell wants to be in the 1 percent at this point in time?

You're a pariah, a crook, a Bernie Madoff, a shithead non-pareil.

No thanks.

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 07:02 | Link to Comment kenezen
kenezen's picture

Me!

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 06:38 | Link to Comment muleskinner
muleskinner's picture

Global Warming is toast.  Sorry for the off topic post.

http://www.masterresource.org/2013/11/steele-book-climate-skepticism/#more-28308

Also:

As the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation shift to their cool phases and solar activity wanes, natural climate cycles predict that Arctic sea ice should recover within the next 5 to 15 years. Climate models have demonstrated that Arctic sea ice can recover in just a few years after the winds change.7 Allowing for a lag effect as subsurface heat ventilates and thicker multiyear ice begins to accumulate, recovery could be swift. If so, CO2 advocates like Mann and his allies who have based their political and scientific authority on predictions that Arctic Sea Ice will disappear by 2030 will likely suffer embarrassing unprecedented scientific and political repercussions.

 

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/jim-steele-why-antarctic-sea-ice-is-the-better-global-climate-change-indicator/

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 07:20 | Link to Comment kenezen
kenezen's picture

Unfortunately, Most money is made on OffShore Emerging Market Investment, and housed in Off-Shore
Environments like Burmuda's Re-Insureance programs removing all but 5% of taxes.

Most of our named Corporations we grew up with and Banks we all know in Wall St along with the Investor class that's making up some of these numbers all invest where the action is:  Emerging markets!!  .America's Industrial MFG is down to under to a "Real" 5% of available workforce. We're in decline big time. IMF created two alternative Reserve Currencies, The Chinese official newspaper (Very conservative) just came out for reduction of US dollar power! Schiff repeats his warnings  

AND IT's NOT HERE!

 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 08:02 | Link to Comment Pumpkin
Pumpkin's picture

166?  I would have expected it to be more than that. 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 08:57 | Link to Comment lemarche
lemarche's picture

I AM NOT !!!!! WHAT SHOULD I DO???...

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 08:58 | Link to Comment brucyy
brucyy's picture

I see ZH engaging in class warfare quite a lot these days. I guess that's right , the rich are too rich. But ultimately , who cares ? most people i know including myself , are too busy trying to make up a descent balance sheet. No point dreaming about taking paper from the super rich. they are not stupid enough , or their lawyer/advisor isnt. and beside ,massive redistribution should really take place , i can assure you this cash will never be given to the poors and needy... 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 10:21 | Link to Comment Purple headed w...
Purple headed warrior's picture

You do realise that you're turning into a bit of a leftist crackpot posting this none sense, I expect such articles from Krugman. What is largely assumed in all of this is that people stay in specific income brackets their entire lives - nearly everyone starts at the bottom, business owners can have several years of loss for example without them being ‘poor’ in any meaningful sense, but then a big income spike. Similarly people have spikes in income from capital gains, inheritance, lottery wins, wins in Vegas, selling homes, which is only there in a given year. There is HUGE amounts of churn in the economy, and mostly entertainment types exist at the upper income levels, far more than any CEO. If you want to argue GDP per capita is falling, that’s fine, the Fed is being run as a bent casino, people get poorer when there’s 10% real inflation. Socialist articles such as this are very concerned about ‘inequality’ yet you seem to have no real interest in what creates wealth, and what propeties of wealth should make it look more evenly dstributed? Should we pin Bill Gates and Buffett up against a wall and rape them for every cent then give it to the guy whou asks "do you want fries with that"?- No sane person can argue this arrangement would lead to higher living standards, by arranging resources such as this. This is also a non zero conception of the economy, it is not a pie, if some people are getting rich it does not mean other people have been made poor. Only the Fed makes people poor.

 

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 11:36 | Link to Comment lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Steal their fucking money... who cares. They are 166 people. What they gonna do... riot? LOL!

Tue, 11/05/2013 - 12:04 | Link to Comment poydras
poydras's picture

Below is the million a year list from 1914.  Income inequality was likely quite significant back then.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A06E4D61638E633A25756C2A...

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!