Ray Dalio: "This Is The Most Important Economic, Political And Social Issue Of Our Time"

Tyler Durden's picture

Every quarter, the Fed's Flow of Funds report discloses - among many other things - the total U.S. household net worth, and every quarter for the past two years this number has steadily gone up, hitting fresh all time highs with every new release, most recently $96.2 trillion, to widespread cheers from both the financial press and the public, as well as the administration. 

However, as we show every quarter, this aggregate number is largely meaningless in providing a status update on the financial state of the broader US population, as it masks a gaping chasm between the haves, or the top 10% of US society - those who benefit the most from this mostly financial-asset based increase in net worth, and the have nots, or bottom 90%, who remain largely locked out from such gains.

In fact, it was the Fed's own Triennial Survey of Consumer Finances which disclosed just how skewed this net worth distribution had become:

Today, none other than Bridgewater's Ray Dalio focuses on this topic, which he calls "the most important economic, political and social issue of our time", and defines it as "the two US economies"...

... that of the top 40% and the bottom 60%.

In an article published on LinkedIn this morning, Dalio writes that the Federal Reserve should more closely monitor the economic struggles of the bottom 60% of the economy when making policy since “average statistics” are camouflaging what’s really occurring in the U.S., precisely what this site has claimed quarter after quarter.

Dalio's argument focuses on the wide disparities in factors including labor, retirement savings, health care, death rates and education between the top 40% and bottom 60% of the country, and how average statistics fail to capture this increasingly bimodal distribution. And, echoing what we said most recently a month ago, the Bridgewater founder said it would be a “serious mistake” for the Fed to just focus on a national average as it could lead the policy makers to see a brighter economic picture than the reality.

Or, as we phrased it, "And there is your "recovery": the wealthy have never been wealthier, while half of America, some 50% of households, own just 1% of the country's wealth, down from 3% in 1989, while America's poor have never been more in debt."

Back to Dalio, who writes in his Daily Observations report that “because the economic, social, and political consequences of an economic downturn would likely be severe, if I were running Fed policy, I would want to take this into consideration and keep an eye on the economy of the bottom 60%." He adds that “similarly, having this perspective will be very important for those who determine fiscal policies and for investors concerned with their wealth management."

Dalio hardly breaks new ground when he then writes that the difference in the financial conditions for the two groups - largely due in part whether they can take advantage of the market rally or not, and for most of the US population, it is the latter - is a major cause of slowing growth. Furthermore, the gap between the two economies will only intensify over the next five to 10 years, as changes in demographics will challenge the government’s ability to meet pension and healthcare demands, while changes in technology will continue to impact employment.

The disparities he listed include:

  • The top 40 percent now has on average 10 times as much wealth as those in the bottom 60, up from six times as much in 1980
  • Just a third of the bottom 60 percent saves any of its income, compared to about 70 percent of the top 40
  • Premature deaths among those in the bottom 60 percent are up 20 percent since 2000, and the odds of a premature death within that group are twice as high as the top 40

His conclusion: "We expect the stress between the two economies to intensify over the next 5 to 10 years because of changes in demographics that make it likely that pension, healthcare, and debt promises will become increasingly difficult to meet and because the effects of technological changes on employment and the wealth gap are likely to intensify. For this reason, we will continue to report on the conditions of “the top 40%” and “the bottom 60%” separately (as well as on the averages), and we encourage you to monitor them too. "

* * *

His full note is below (link):

Our Biggest Economic, Social, and Political Issue The Two Economies: The Top 40% and the Bottom 60%

To understand what’s going on in “the economy,” it is a serious mistake to look at average statistics. This is because the wealth and income skews are so great that average statistics no longer reflect the conditions of the average man. For example, as shown in the chart below, the wealth of the top one-tenth of 1% of the population is about equal to that of the bottom 90% of the population, which is the same sort of wealth gap that existed during the 1935-40 period.  

To give you a sense of what the picture below the averages looks like, we broke the economy into two economies—that of the top 40% and that of the bottom 60%.* We then observed how conditions of the majority of Americans (the bottom 60%) are different from the conditions of those of the top 40%, as well as different from the picture conveyed by the average statistics. We focused especially on the bottom 60% because that’s where the majority of Americans are and because the picture of this economy is not apparent to most people in the top 40%. 

The Bottom 60% Compared with the Top 40% and the “Average”

We will start off looking at income and the economic picture and then turn to some related lifestyle and political differences.

  • There has been no growth in earned income, and income and wealth gaps have grown and are enormous. Since 1980, median household real incomes have been about flat, and the average household in the top 40% earns four times more than the average household in the bottom 60%. While they’ve experienced some growth recently, real incomes have been flat to down slightly for the average household in the bottom 60% since 1980 (while they have been up for the top 40%). Those in the top 40% now have on average 10 times as much wealth as those in the bottom 60%. That is up from six times as much in 1980.
  • Only about a third of the bottom 60% saves any of its income (in cash or financial assets). As a result, according to a recent Federal Reserve study, most people in this group would struggle to raise $400 in an emergency.
  • The rates of income and wealth changes of the middle class have been worse than those changes in any of the other groups, once you account for the social safety net and taxes. The charts below show income, adding in the impact of taxes, tax credits, benefits, and transfers (including non-monetary government transfers like Medicaid and employer health insurance). Unlike the picture of real earned incomes shown earlier, all the quintiles had seen some growth until 2008. This was primarily driven by increases in transfers, benefits, and social programs (especially medical benefits). It also lights up some differences within the bottom 60%. Note that while the conditions of those in the bottom quintile of society are terrible, and worse than those of the middle class by most measures (e.g., income, health, death rates, incarceration rates, etc.), the rate of change in these conditions has been worse for the middle class. More specifically, the middle class has experienced less post-tax and transfer income growth than the bottom quintile since 1980 (see chart on the right), partially because government support to the bottom has provided more of a cushion—though in both cases, income growth has been very low.
  • The middle class has been especially hard-hit by manufacturing jobs declining about 30% since 1997, which is shown in the below chart.
  • Those in the top 40% have benefited disproportionately from changes in asset values relative to those in the bottom 60%, because of their asset and liability mix. The balance sheets of these two groups, shown below, are sharply different. Though the bottom 60% has a small amount of savings, only a quarter of it is in cash or financial assets; the majority is in much less liquid forms of wealth, like cars, real estate, and business equity. For the bottom, debt is skewed toward more expensive student, auto, and credit card debt.  
  • The increasing disparity in financial conditions is a major cause of the slowing of growth, because those in lower income/wealth groups have higher propensities to spend than those in higher income/wealth groups. Said differently, if you give rich people more money, they probably won’t spend much of it, whereas if you give poorer people more money, they will probably spend more of it, each motivated by the extent of their unmet needs and desires.**
  • Retirement savings for the bottom 60% are not even close to adequate and aren’t much improved as the economy and markets have recovered. Only about a third of families in the bottom 60% have retirement savings accounts—e.g., pensions, 401(k)s—which average less than $20,000. Further, as we do projections of pension finance, it appears unlikely that pension retirement benefits will be fully met. 
  • Death rates are rising and mental and physical health is deteriorating for those in the bottom 60%. For those in the bottom 60%, premature deaths are up by about 20% since 2000. The biggest contributors to that change are an increase in deaths by drugs/poisoning (up two times since 2000) and an increase in suicides (up over 50% since 2000). The odds of premature death for those in the bottom 60% between the ages of 35 and 64 are more than two times higher, compared to those in the top 40%.
  •  The US is just about the only major industrialized country with flat/slightly rising death rates.
  • The top 40% spend four times more on education than the bottom 60%. This creates a self-perpetuating problem, because those at the bottom get a much worse education than those at the top.
  • The bottom 60% increasingly believe others will take advantage of them: the percentage is 49% today versus 40% in 1990.

While conditions for the lowest income groups have long been bad, conditions of non-college-educated whites (especially males) have deteriorated significantly over the past 30 years or so. This is the group that swung most strongly to help elect President Trump. More specifically:

  • Now, the average household income for main income earners without a college degree is half that of the average college graduate.
  • The share of whites without college degrees who describe themselves as “not too happy” has doubled since 1990, from 9% to 18%, while for those with college degrees it has remained flat, at around 7%.
  • Since 1980, divorce rates have more than doubled among middle-age whites without college degrees, from 11% to 23%.
  • Prime working-age white males have given up looking for work in record numbers; the number of prime-age white men without college degrees not in the labor force has increased from 7% to 15% since 1980.
  • More broadly, men ages 21 to 30 spend an average of three fewer hours a week working than they did a decade ago; most of that time is spent playing video games.
  • The probability of premature death for whites without college degrees between the ages of 35 and 64 is nearly three times higher than it is for whites with college degrees, and the rate of premature deaths is up by about 25% since 2000 (while it is down for virtually every other demographic group). The US white population is unique among large groups in the developed world for seeing increases in their death rates. Below, we show premature deaths among working-age whites between the ages of 35 and 64. Again, the average obscures the picture. America’s non-white population isn’t seeing such a rise in premature deaths.

The polarity in economics and living standards is contributing to greater political polarity, as reflected in the below charts.

It is also leading to reduced trust and confidence in government, financial institutions, and the media, which is at or near 35-year lows.

In Summary

Average statistics camouflage what is happening in the economy, which could lead to dangerous miscalculations, most importantly by policy makers. For example, looking at average statistics could lead the Federal Reserve to judge the economy for the average man to be healthier than it really is and to misgauge the most important things that are going on with the economy, labor markets, inflation, capital formation, and productivity, rather than if the Fed were to use more granular statistics. 

That could lead the Fed to run an inappropriate monetary policy. Because the economic, social, and political consequences of an economic downturn would likely be severe, if I were running Fed policy, I would want to take this into consideration and keep an eye on the economy of the bottom 60%. By monitoring what is happening in the economies of both the bottom 60% and the top 40% (or, even better, more granular groups), policy makers and the rest of us can give consideration to the implications of this issue. Similarly, having this perspective will be very important for those who determine fiscal policies and for investors concerned with their wealth management. 

We expect the stress between the two economies to intensify over the next 5 to 10 years because of changes in demographics that make it likely that pension, healthcare, and debt promises will become increasingly difficult to meet (see “The Coming Big Squeeze”) and because the effects of technological changes on employment and the wealth gap are likely to intensify. For this reason, we will continue to report on the conditions of “the top 40%” and “the bottom 60%” separately (as well as on the averages), and we encourage you to monitor them too.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ultraticum's picture

The issue:  the Money Club (aka Fed) needs to be disbanded.

factorypreset's picture

No - the issue is that poor people aren't rich. Janet Yellen said so.  If poor people had rich parents, then they could invest in equities and get rich too!  See?  Easy peazy!

SWRichmond's picture

I told my children starting at a very young age: the middle class is going to be shredded, and you can be on the upward track or the downward track.  They listened.

The economy must work for everyone or it works for no one.  There must be jobs for all skill levels, and a path for economic self-improvement available to all who want it.  A growing economy could provide this, as it is constantly producing excess which is used for creating and building.  The looting-based economy cannot.

As it becomes more obvious that a major collapse is coming, the looting has become gross and overt, as the rich grab for that last bit of loot before the collapse occurs.  They think they will be able to keep it, maybe expat it to New Zealand.

They will not.


hedgeless_horseman's picture


Relax, Ray.  Like our Jewish rabbi, Jesus, said, we will always have the poor.

Stuck on Zero's picture

It's not just the Fed. It's the whole Federal Register. Nearly 100,000 pages of laws that enrich the top 1% at the expense of everyone else.

Life of Illusion's picture


debt promises will become increasingly difficult to meet


Escrava Isaura's picture

Guys don’t buy into this bulshit that is the central banks fault.

Innequality has to with taxation.

Growth has to do with allocating money to ‘credit creation by’ local banks. Credit creation to local bussines is what generate jobs and growth, and which the Japaneses call cartels. That’s the job of central banks and the nation’s treasury.

Professor Werner: As we can see, the neoclassical thesis has been rejected by the empirical evidence. In the 1950s, the designers of the Japanese economic system intentionally increased the number of cartels, in order to improve economic performance (Werner, 2003a). As we can see, as the number of cartels almost doubled to over 1000 by the late 1960s, while economic growth accelerated to double-digit figures. When, under US pressure, the number of cartels was reduced in the 1970s, growth dropped. The drop in cartels is accompanied by weaker and weaker economic growth. The deregulation drive culminated in the entire abolition of cartels by the end of the 1990s – and economic growth equally reached zero. A similar picture has been painted by the performance of many developing countries, including Argentina and African nations, which followed the economic advice of the Washington-based institutions. We conclude that the fifth of the central bank claims – that deregulation, liberalization and privatization enhances economic growth – has also been revealed to be fraudulent.





MEFOBILLS's picture

Japan used credit guidance windows, where bank credit (new bank credit as money) would be aimed at industrial targets.  As a consequence Cartels formed.  Said Cartels then competed with each other for market share.  Profit was down on the priority list, as this type of economy had enough money flowing in accordance with Say's law. Japan's "salaryman" then had guaranteed job and retirement.

I take Werner to task, because only in Germany has private banking not become predatory.  Japan is a case study of how banksters can take over an economy to the detriment of the people e.g. BOJ's purposeful bubble in the 80's.

Germany was unique due to Benedictine Monks, who over many 100's of years during middle ages, taught German people work ethic and high morals.  We see now the underlying structure of Germany in decay.

Also, Japan's credit guidance windows, and before that was Frederick List's economy ( in Germany - who Japan copied from) shows that bank Credit should only vector toward those things that can improve productivity - meaning industry primarily.  This is called industrial capitalism.

For Savings and general exchange, any economy has to have debt free money.   Werner is a good economist, but he has gone off the deep end with respect to private bank credit formation.  Private banks can be made to work, but only under strong legal guidance and with debt jubilees.  However, the history of private banking shows that they want to consolidate and become big.  Even small mittelstand banks in Germany are slowly consolidating now, in alignment with the ugly history of private credit banking.


Escrava Isaura's picture

Don’t you find weird that you don’t find one single libertarian here agreeing with your post after many hours?

I guess libertarian just in name, right?

And clueless.

Astonishing how brainwashing works both ways.

Not that you don’t know that.



itstippy's picture

MEFOBILLS uses too many words, too many references to things like "Say's Law", and too complex sentence structures.  Most of the new breed of ZeroHedge members haven't a clue what he's talking about.  

To get upvotes you must say something obsene about Janet Yellen's sex organs, blame "Joos" for something (or everything), use terms like "Libtard" and "Democruds", hate on Millenials, and/or denegrate the State of California.  Thoughtful discussion of economic matters is no longer the primary focus of ZeroHedge.  

A ZeroHedge post on global credit expansion and its impact on the World economy gets 6,000 views and a couple dozen comments.  A post on a degranged transexual ANTIFA Che Guevera wannabe gets 200,000 views and 300 comments.  

As our President would put it, "Sad."

Escrava Isaura's picture


The sentence here should go like this:

Do you know why you lack enough income, opportunities, and your state is poor while others are rich?

Because you embrace the bushtit called free market.

Good luck with your middle class dream.


Yog Soggoth's picture

Sorry, but your first cut and paste was to stupid to comment on. Central banks have no place in a free society. All the panics that happened before the Fed got snuck in were planned by the tycoons of the day who were financed by the same families that wanted the central bank., and helped by rats in high places. America was not only doing excellent, but leading the world in industry following Jackson's legacy. The only thing fiat is good for is cheap neverending labor and dropping the price of PM's for the truly wealthy to stack at a bargain. You guys are counting beans from the 50's and claiming it was because it was due to some structure that can be maintained? The post WW2 boom was due to advancements in science that made things a little easier labor wise, and had nothing to do with any monetary policy or reparations. Oh, people still knew how to put in a hard days work back then, and counties did not charge you money to go to work like they do now. Even with fiat, GDP is real and when unions killed manufacturing there went most of that. Put that into the abstract and it sounds like somebody planned it at the time, but it was just the 50's and it was not so bad yet.

beemasters's picture

Adding to the fear,

Vladimir Putin warns of future sci-fi super-human soldiers more ‘destructive than nuclear bombs’ who feel no fear or pain

"He can be a genius mathematician, a brilliant musician or a soldier, a man who can fight without fear, compassion, regret or pain."

We can safely assume some human prototypes might have already escaped - the Clintons being notable examples....brilliant liars without fear, compassion, regrets.
Jokes aside, we can forget all the current noises. GM humans might just be the greatest, most important challenge humanity will face soon.

Dammit Walter's picture

The thinking about what the FED should do gets pretty twisted the closer you are to the FED spigot.   The FED is a fraud and distorts allocation of capital as compared a hard/honest money regime.  It benefits those closest to the newly created money.

I tried to explain to a banker friend how gold-backed-currency could easily be used to facilitate banking activity of credit creation to which he posited that it would be impossible to have enough gold to supply credit to all that needed it.  

I explained that it was his thinking that was wrong that there "needed to be more gold".  Merely increase the value of gold and divide it into smaller amounts.   This could negate any need for obtaining more gold.   A banker only knows how to create credit from thin air to supply the "need for credit".   Of course increasing the dollar value of gold per ounce would be DEFALTIONARY which is a horrible monster to a banker and the run for the hills at the mention of that which cannot be spoken of.  Also that asset prices were skewed and inflated and needed to come way down to earth levels where a wage could support the purchase of the items.  Strange looks ensued as he was obviously waiting for me to show him my severed head collect next...

Imagine a world where DEFLATION impunes borrowers and rewards savers.   As gold-backed-currency rises in value, assets fall in value.  A world where one would not have to play games with their savings to allocate it to the right investments constantly like Scrat the squirrel.  A world where "capital gain" of physical assets like houses, land, collectibles fall in value... and eliminates "capital gain tax" theft.  Deflation take care of the retirement savings problem of retirees not having enough saved because the FED squashed the yield on simple CDs and Treasuries with ZIRP/NIRP polcies, because products would tend to cost less and less going into retirement years, and saved money purchasing power would buy more as time goes on.  Perhaps not a perfect world, but better world for certain.  


Åristotle's picture

"new bank credit as money)" and "debt free money"

This induction is contradictory. These a two distinctly separate things, debt and money, neither of which can be qualified by the other.

Check you way. Mises was wrong. Debt cannot be money. Debt facilitates the exchange of a currency which either is or is not money.

MEFOBILLS's picture

Debts and Credits are created as part of our evolutionary heritage, and are outside of the money realm.  For example, when you loan your lawnmower out, a credit/debt relation has been formed.  One party is a lawnmower debtor and the other is a lawnmower creditor.  To cancel the relation, the lawnmower is returned.

Debt money came into being as a type in 1694 with advent of Bank of England.  This particular form of money pops into being from nothing and disappears when it pays down principle.  When it pops into being, it is with a DEBT INSTRUMENT on the other side.  When you hypothecate yourself with a loan, you have created money that has a debt relation.  The debt instrument is held by the bank as a creditor, and you are a debtor who has to pay it back.

Mises was a sophomorist who has done great damage.

The Tally stick system of England, prior to 1694, had a money type that was issued by the King.  If you loaned out your lawnmower, or Goats (to eat the grass) and didn't return the goat, then a talley stick would transfer to settle the goat debt.  You then had a talley stick.  But, this stick as money would NOT DISAPPEAR.  It's action was exactly the same as the over 2000 year history of gold coins.

The talley stick could only be recalled in taxes - so it was  a form of debt free money.

If you are going to use Aristotle as an avatar, maybe you should read what he wrote about money.  Aristotle was the first to notice, correctly,  that money's true nature is law.

Åristotle's picture

MEFOBills: Logic speaks for itself:

Comparing loanmowers or goats to a debt instrument is mixing things that are unrelated as if they are the same things. They are not. We are concerned with what is debt and what is money.

The lender who does not have an actual item of capital to lend such as a mower instead lends the borrower a currency which they can go out and purchase their own mower.

If the lender has the currency already in hand and the borrower returns the money plus interest then the lender has earned the interest on the money. What if the loan is not returned? No problem, the lender loses and that was the risk they took. Prudently, they ought to have taken this into account. What if the lender did not have the currency in their possession to begin with and instead created it at the time of the loan and the loan is not returned? What if this happens a thousand times over or a million times over as with fractional reserve systems during the housing crises? Is it prudent to lend what one does not have?

As for Aristotle, we look not to who says what but to what is being said. That is, we honor truth above our friends. We look to the fact not the person who claims the fact. In Nicomachean Ethics, Book V part five in which you cite him as claiming money comes from law, several sentences later in the same passage he contradicts himself and says it does not.

THUS, MONEY IS A MATTER OF JUSTICE FIRST. This is why it belongs in the discussion of Ethics and not Politics. Only afterwards when people implemented laws did money become subsumed into legality.

But no mistake:

WallHoo's picture

You have completely messed things in you mind...You totally dont get what mefobills is saying...Mainly because you are missing accounting skills (cant blame you,if you are not an accountant).


Credit is indeed something natural within our society and there is no escape from it.Debt based money on the other hand is not...


His metaphor on the loanmower is spot on,the only difference is that you are thinking of "i give a loanmower then i take it back and then i regive it(relent it) so my books are balanced,no excess loanmowers have been created out of nothing since only god can create something out of nothing".But you are missing the point,banks lend deposits,that can be deposited and redeposited a thousand time or a million times (as you say).


Ever since the zeitgeist documentary came out and people learned about the term fractional reserve banking this term is spout out of everybody mouths like farts.


There is no country on earth that practises fractional reserve banking(except maybe singapore) as everybody has it in his mind where banks make loans out of thin air.In order for a bank to make a loan,the said bank must first have the money in its books (liability side=deposits/asset side=cash, of the balance sheet) and must also comply with the reserve requirments of the banking system it operates in,in order to make the loan.Usually the reserves of the banks are stocks(bottom right in the liability side of the balance sheet),thats why you see the stock market booming with no end.


To put it simply I,that am not a banker can loan out a 10 dollar/euro bill as many times as i like as long as i receive DEPOSITS and dont wait for the said 10 dollar/euro bill to come back to me(debt payment) in order to loan it out.Practically it is imposible to keep track of all the 1,2,5,10,20,50,100, dollar/euro bills or gold pieces(for the gold bugs) that exist in the economy in order to prevent me from issuing a loan without extending credit beyond the money supply.Thats why we have the reserve system in the double book keeping method in order to keep track of credit.


Money is indeed a law thing(creature) and theres no need to be debt based.Credit on the other hand is something natural that occures within our society and it can be freely created by anobody.But as long as this credit is "good" for paying debts and taxes it must be regulated and chaneled into wealth producing industries or there will be bubbles since naturally humans search for comfort and security and these can be found only in economic rents.The only thing that resembles to a fractional reserve system(in our system) is the fact that banks upon the creation of credit,they(the banks) create a debt instrument which they can give as collateral to the central bank and the said central bank(out of nothing) can exchange that for reserves in the books of the bank(commercial),thus giving her(the bank) space for more loans.

Dammit Walter's picture

The problem arises when you agree to loan your one goat to several people simultaneously... and then someone eats your goat! 

The problem with money is not the money, its the bankers that rehypothecate assets multiple times and create more claims than can be satisfied in the real world.  When the fruad is exposed, then crash (run on the bank) naturally ensues.  Fruadulently created money always produces a boom of malinvestment and a bust which corrects the malinvestment.  Mises shows correctly the boom-bust relation of the bankers fraud.  The bigger the fraudulent boom, then the bigger the correction bust.  

bania's picture

It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.

whackedinflorida's picture

So let me get this straight.  Liberals and big business want open borders, letting in millions of unskilled laborors.  Of course those new unskilled workers dont have any money.  Those unskilled workers then bid down the cost of labor for the native born unskilled workers.  So they end up poorer than they otherwise would have been.  Those same groups then are in favor of / take advantage of the H1-B1 visas to bid down the price of middle-skilled to higher skilled labor.  

Anyone opposed to observing these basic economic facts and having a problem with open borders is then a deplorable racist.  Can't even discuss the problem without being called names.  

Then these same people are the ones complaining loudest about economic disparities, and how we need to do something to solve the problem (anything other than actually identifying and solving the problem).  Anyone opposed to their solutions (more government handouts, more deficit spending) is a deplorable racist.  

dark pools of soros's picture

its called bait and switch... hucksters swindle with words of hope and actions of slaughter

eclectic syncretist's picture

Actually, the globalist bankster promotion of open borders has a simpler motive than wage suppression. By using mass immigration they intend to dilute out the culture of major economic powerhouses like the US and Germany (and everywhere else, for that matter). Once the current culture has been eliminated, they believe that the people can be brought to a point where they forget about the past, and thus become primed to accept the next historical iteration of failed fiat policy.

fulliautomatix's picture

Open borders and mass migration are supposed to lead to fewer wars. Not so far.

LyLo's picture

That's the basic gist of it, yeah.

It's kinda sad, because I'm anti-immigration--because I love the environment and our beautiful deserts and forests, and because I love the American worker and want them to have a place at the table--I am clearly the worst.  It's one of the issues I regularly got silenced for on the left (ah, shadow ban, my old friend...).

All their beautiful "big tent" ideals washed away in only a few election cycles. 

It's going to be so funny when the Mexicans split and form their own party, which is what always happens in multi-culti utopias.  I'm curious how much the Democrats are going to regret making CA a single party state when suddenly that single party is La Raza.  That one's going to be so funny.   (I'm positive it will somehow, in their minds, prove that Republicans are racist that they suddenly have to work against the Latinos to keep their party from falling apart.  Good lord, I can't wait.)

Obadiah's picture

Yeah Not Shit, it's cra cra is it not?

gatorengineer's picture

His numbers are truly whacked.  Saying in his one graph the top 40% have a household income of 170K......  Bullshit.

Giant Meteor's picture

Seems you have a good handle on the situation.

As I have often pointed out myself, so called "illegal immigration" could have been stopped in it's tracks, had it not been the intended, if not stated policy, of both red team and blue team, at the behest of the money changers. The Ponzi scheme and it's vehicle called "globalization" needs debt, and especially debt slaves, to keep the top of the pyramiid (scheme) folks, in  the styles that they have become accustomed to. Most everything else has become a diversion to the royal bending over of said serfs and debt slaves, that they a are receiving. Good work if you can get it ..

libertyanyday's picture
So let me get this straight.......... the all time best way to put your words into someone elses mouth. 
chestergimli's picture

All of the immigrants, skilled, and unskilled labor are fighting over one thing-MONEY. Just get rid of all of it. Problems solved.

JRobby's picture

That right there is a fact!!!

You break 3 or 4 of these so called "laws" when you get out of bed in the morning. It gets worse from there.

Solio's picture

Do you mean, like, for dinner?

hedgeless_horseman's picture


No.  More like entertainment, as best as I can figure.

Like all these poor African-Americans I see driving with multiple tree-shaped deodorizers hanging from the rear-view mirror of their car payment, labeled Royal Pine.

Ever notice that it does not matter how many Royal Pine trees, these car payments still smell like Dank Jungle

And why almost always Royal Pine

Do these people really believe their car payment will ever smell like it belongs to the King of Norway?

Why don't I ever see the Coconut, Rainforest Mist, Watermelon, or Black Ice little trees? 

SMG's picture

I know you've been here for a while, and you are always posting divisive stuff.  Which exactly the Elites who cause our misery want.  All of fighting each other and not them.   Please reconsider what you post.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Humans are naturally diverse, regardless of my observations.

And from what I can tell, the elites seek a unified collective (herd of cattle).  

Viva la difference!

At a minimum, it's way more entertaining than sameness.   

Please reconsider what I post.

runswithscissors's picture

The DANK smell is from something other than the car payments.

chunga's picture

I think he initially wrote something to that effect before editing the comment.

lil dirtball's picture

> At a minimum, it's way more entertaining than sameness.

Fuck it ... the internet begets trolling. It's inherent in the design, so troll on. Maybe it will jar some of these ZH0mbies out of their stupor.

libertyanyday's picture

Its no longer africaner-american its NEGRO.

Dammit Walter's picture

LOL!  Watermelon......   Deuce Deuce?  Fried Chicken??   Purple Drank???

Hulk's picture

Yes but we didnt know the poor would be us !!!

Thats Different !!!

kgw's picture

Why do we have poor people? Because we have rich people... The other side of your coin. Simplistic in the extreme. 

Salzburg1756's picture

No, he said: “The poor you will always have with you.”

There's no "we" in his words; = they will be with you, not me. I'm out a here!

The Wizard's picture

Jesus, Jewish ?????? What kind of Jew was the Messiah?  Surely you are aware of the various types.

libertyanyday's picture

surely.............jesus is dead.

chestergimli's picture

No one is dead. Only their body expires and releases the spirit. Jesus is the exception.

fbazzrea's picture

we will always have the poor.

but i don't believe He was talking about 60% of the population.