# Is the US becoming a banana republic? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 10, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976 "2013-12-10T14:29:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/261 "2013-12-26T17:24:43Z")
> [@Riga\_Marole](#): > > That’s not possible. It was\*\* NEVER \*\*better than it is right now. In the aggregate, that is correct, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/262 "2013-12-26T17:27:29Z")
It should be noted that the same is true of most of the world. It’s not unique to the U.S. We are living in mankind’s golden age, so it’s no surprise that most societies are freer, healthier, and more confortable than ever before. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/263 "2013-12-26T17:41:06Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > The US is not a banana republic, but it’s really hard to argue that it’s not on that path. Actually, it’s pretty easy to argue it’s not. It’s only the most facile examinations of economic markers to suggest the US is even on that path. That’s rather the point of most of the replies in this thread. Now if you were to claim the US is on the path to no longer being the pre-eminent economic power in the world, there’s room to argue. But to suggest the US is economically at or near banana republic status is nearly laughable (unless, of course, you mean the US is turning into a chain of apparel retailers - which is perhaps as far from the truth). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/264 "2013-12-26T18:03:20Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Overall, we are not all that near being a banana republic, except in the area of economics, where we are either at full banana republic status or fast approaching it. When is “B” day? If we’re “fast approaching it”, you must mean within the next generation or so, at least. Right? And please specify which economic metrics you are talking about that put us at “full BR status”. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/265 "2013-12-26T18:17:37Z")
> [@Riga\_Marole](#): > > That’s not possible. It was\*\* NEVER \*\*better than it is right now. I’m glad you agree. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/266 "2013-12-26T18:25:31Z")
> [@Riga\_Marole](#): > > That’s not possible. It was\*\* NEVER \*\*better than it is right now. You don’t even agree with that yourself (from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=711322) extolling the virtues of past Chicago): > [@It Fell Off The Back Of A Truck!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-fell-off-the-back-of-a-truck/677144/5): > > Yes! **Maxwell Street**! That’s it! Thank you! I’ve been trying to think of the name of that place for 3 days now. Nostalgia has got the best of me lately. Italian sausage, Italian beef, oooooooo! Parky’s hot tamales, mmmmmm! Riverview, wowwwww! The Hungry Eye in Old Town. hehehehe!( Oh, wait. You were being sarcastic. Amazing how your memory for the past is so selective. Not a single thing was wrong in Daley’s Chicago! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/267 "2013-12-26T18:26:09Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Actually, it’s pretty easy to argue it’s not. > > It’s only the most facile examinations of economic markers to suggest the US is even on that path. That’s rather the point of most of the replies in this thread. > > Now if you were to claim the US is on the path to no longer being the pre-eminent economic power in the world, there’s room to argue. > > But to suggest the US is economically at or near banana republic status is nearly laughable (unless, of course, you mean the US is turning into a chain of apparel retailers - which is perhaps as far from the truth). I suspect we are using different definitions of “banana republic economy.” You are probably thinking of a country that has only one of a few sources of wealth – say, banana plantations – over which a small number of wealthy families exercise control. I define a banana republic economically as rule by a small oligarchy, and by “small” I mean a tiny percentage of the population overall. That could be a lot of people, in a big country like the US. But when the Walmart heirs own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of US citizens, as is the case at present … banana, banana, banana, my friend. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/268 "2013-12-26T19:15:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > When is “B” day? If we’re “fast approaching it”, you must mean within the next generation or so, at least. Right? Purely in terms of economics, yes. I see no indication that the military leaders are taking a direct interest in politics, or that voting has been successfully rigged. Both could concievably happen within a generation. In fact, a military coup almost DID happen, back in the 1930s. And Rove and the Koch brothers are doing the damnedest to subvert voting, though not with any great success as yet. And just because something is trending in a particular direction, does not mean it will inevitably happen. > [@](#): > > And please specify which economic metrics you are talking about that put us at “full BR status”. We have huge wealth inequality not seen since the age of robber barons, our Congress is utterly dependent on money to get elected, and the Supreme Court has backed the situation up. We ARE there, economically. It’s no coincidence nobody ever got arrested for the malfeasance that led to the Great Recession. Instead we gave them enormous amounts of money and patted them on the back. That’s corruption. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/269 "2013-12-26T20:02:51Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Purely in terms of economics, yes. I see no indication that the military leaders are taking a direct interest in politics, or that voting has been successfully rigged. Both could concievably happen within a generation. In fact, a military coup almost DID happen, back in the 1930s. And Rove and the Koch brothers are doing the damnedest to subvert voting, though not with any great success as yet. And just because something is trending in a particular direction, does not mean it will inevitably happen. So, let’s say current trends continue. Trends that mean we are “fast approaching” BR status. At current trends, when is BR-day? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? > [@](#): > > We have huge wealth inequality not seen since the age of robber barons, our Congress is utterly dependent on money to get elected, and the Supreme Court has backed the situation up. We ARE there, economically. It’s no coincidence nobody ever got arrested for the malfeasance that led to the Great Recession. Instead we gave them enormous amounts of money and patted them on the back. That’s corruption. None of which is an essential ingredient of BR status. Note that relative inequality is not the same when the bottom 80% (or whatever) does not live in poverty (which is what makes BRs BRs). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/270 "2013-12-26T20:45:48Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > But when the Walmart heirs own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of US citizens, as is the case at present … banana, banana, banana, my friend. In what countries do the rich \*not \*control a disproportionate amount of the wealth? If every country is a banana republic, then none are. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/271 "2013-12-26T20:53:36Z")
BTW, for those busily spinning the notion that nothing like this has ever happened before (excuse me while I have the vapors) [check this out](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/12/26/tom_tomorrow_spin_cartoon_from_1994_predicted_patriot_act_nsa_surveillance.html). ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/272 "2013-12-26T20:54:01Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I suspect we are using different definitions of “banana republic economy.” You are probably thinking of a country that has only one of a few sources of wealth – say, banana plantations – over which a small number of wealthy families exercise control. > > I define a banana republic economically as rule by a small oligarchy, and by “small” I mean a tiny percentage of the population overall. That could be a lot of people, in a big country like the US. > > But when the Walmart heirs own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of US citizens, as is the case at present … banana, banana, banana, my friend. Agreed: the Walton heirs own a significant amount of assets in absolute terms, [$89.5 billion](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/waltons-net-worth_n_1680642.html). In relative terms it means that the richest family (not person) owns .075% of the total US net worth as defined by the UN (cited above.) And these numbers, I’m sure you admit, are meaningless without comparison, right? The richest family in the US owns 7.5% of 1% of the country, which, given the drift in this thread, must be a substantially higher percentage than that seen in more economically “enlightened” countries, such as Sweden, Germany, etc. And it has to be greater, otherwise the topic discussed would be “Is the West falling apart?”… but it’s not. It’s just about the US (again.) So, how does the US compare? The link below has some basic data: > **[Wealth Distribution.xlsx](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B956CzjkwM9vUVg0YUpKTTlVY3M/edit?usp=sharing)** > > Google Drive file. (Controls to zoom in/out are at the top left) I put together a simple chart showing the % of a nations wealth, as defined by the UN Wealth Report cited above, owned by the richest person/family within that nation (citation provided in-chart.) I can see why this is such a hot button issue with you, **NiceGuyJack** - you live in a country where a whopping _1.4%_ of it is owned by a single person (for the US, the equivalent would be if the Walton heirs owned $1.65 _trillion_.) That would piss me off too. On the other hand, I would direct my anger where it would benefit me the most… in your own backyard, not at some country more than 3,000 miles away. Yes, the Walmart people own as much as 40 million households who have negative to smaller net worth amounts… but other than Japan, as the richest family in their country, they own the smallest percentage of their nations assets than any of the more “enlightened” countries listed on the chart. So, for your definition of “oligarchy”, **Evil Captor** , I would argue that a country where 1.4% of it is owned by a single person is in far, far greater danger of falling into such than a country where .075% is owned by a single family. (But, seriously - almost 1.5%!? How did you let this happen?) ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/273 "2013-12-26T23:12:01Z")
Wake up, Swede-ple! ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2013, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/274 "2013-12-27T03:41:48Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Agreed: the Walton heirs own a significant amount of assets in absolute terms, [$89.5 billion](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/waltons-net-worth_n_1680642.html). > > In relative terms it means that the richest family (not person) owns .075% of the total US net worth as defined by the UN (cited above.) Minor nitpick: Walmart stock has done well over the past three years; $145 billion is a better estimate of Walmart family wealth than your 3-year old figure. Major nitpick: The U.N. report you cited upthread, perhaps meaningful for some purposes, is an extremely peculiar choice for understanding wealth inequality, etc. Their measure includes unharvested forests, the future values of ores and fisheries, and _most importantly a huge portion of the “wealth” is human capital_ – more than $1 million for a typical working family. That $1 million estimate (for a family which might have much much less than that in financial assets) may be a fair estimate of the future value of their labor, but most of their wages will eventually be used for their own food, housing, etc. Since slavery is illegal in the U.S. the Walton family “owns” no humans at all, except themselves. The four richest Waltons own more financial wealth than the 150 million poorest Americans put together. No cherry-picking of irrelevant data, nor braggado about the leading zeros necessary in an irrelevant percentage figure, will change that. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2013, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/275 "2013-12-27T05:36:08Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Alarm is good. Let’s look at some history as well. > I graduated high school and entered college in 1968. > Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were shot, there was a police riot in Chicago, and Richard Fucking Nixon was elected president. There were no gay rights, no women’s rights. You could be arrested for living together without being married. You could get beaten up for having long hair. You could get beaten up in a race riot. Rochester had one of the first of the 60s, in 1964, which occurred literally outside the apartment I once lived in. I passed through burned out and torn down wastelands every time I took a bus downtown. You didn’t want to go to a hospital if you got beat up. Although there now existed vaccines against polio, virtually none of today’s everyday medicine and surgery existed even in the lab. The city was emptying out fast, but other cities were much worse. New York was a hellhole, and would hit bottom around 1975. I went to an inner city high school, seething with racial tension. The counselors confiscated boxes of weapons: I saw them personally. Security checkpoints didn’t exist. Maybe that’s why dozens of airplanes were being hijacked each year. Teachers tried and mostly failed. We scraped together 4 people for an AP American History class. The suburban high school two miles away had 3. Three full classes, that is. There were no ethnic cuisines unless you counted German and Italian. I didn’t eat Chinese food until I was in college. Supermarkets were the size of today’s drug stores. No specialty foods, no special diet foods, no prepared foods, and little to no fresh produce in winter except for a few expensive items flown in from California. Did I mention that George Wallace won several states in the election? Look him up. And J. Edgar Hoover was spying on everyone, especially Martin Luther King, whom he considered a Communist. Not a Communist Fascist like Obama. The real thing. The worst thing possible. He had records on every politician and regularly blackmailed them. His troops infiltrated every peace and protest movement. He wiretapped everybody everywhere, except for the Mob, which he didn’t believe existed. > If you would have told us this was the Golden Age and the U.S. would have gone into a decline since, we would have slit our wrists. The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible. > We paid no attention to the Depression and the War that our parents lived through. We could see with our own eyes how much was wrong. > But now things are reversed. We’re the old ones with the memories. You’re the ones who see all the bad things with your own eyes. You’re angry. That’s the natural order of things. > The only real difference is that we weren’t stupid enough to try to convince anybody that things were better during the Depression! You have certainly experienced a lot in your life so far. And although I may not have experienced it first hand, I am well aware of the upheaval of the 60’s and 70’s. But again, this was not unique to the States. There were riots and unrest elsewhere in the world. Student riots in cities all over Europe and Japan. There were even race riots in places like Singapore. Then in the 80’s and 90’s there was period of relative prosperity and calm. I have some recollection of the 70’s but I recall the 80’s and 90’s better. And this was again worldwide. And again, apart from universal healthcare, economically advanced countries shared similar trajectories in terms of cultural reforms in settling the unrests of the previous decades. You have a point that my perspective and experience is from a period of relative calm, and I do agree that there has been advances made. My issue is that there is a trend in the US to revert and dismantle what people fought so hard for. At least that is how I see it. I’m surprised you’re not alarmed by it as well. As for using Detroit as an example, creating a slum out of a once prosperous city does not seem like a step forward, however you want to twist it. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2013, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/276 "2013-12-27T06:39:16Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Agreed: the Walton heirs own a significant amount of assets in absolute terms, [$89.5 billion](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/waltons-net-worth_n_1680642.html). > In relative terms it means that the richest family (not person) owns .075% of the total US net worth as defined by the UN (cited above.) > And these numbers, I’m sure you admit, are meaningless without comparison, right? The richest family in the US owns 7.5% of 1% of the country, which, given the drift in this thread, must be a substantially higher percentage than that seen in more economically “enlightened” countries, such as Sweden, Germany, etc. And it has to be greater, otherwise the topic discussed would be “Is the West falling apart?”… but it’s not. It’s just about the US (again.) > So, how does the US compare? The link below has some basic data: > [Wealth Distribution.xlsx - Google Drive](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B956CzjkwM9vUVg0YUpKTTlVY3M/edit?usp=sharing) > (Controls to zoom in/out are at the top left) > I put together a simple chart showing the % of a nations wealth, as defined by the UN Wealth Report cited above, owned by the richest person/family within that nation (citation provided in-chart.) > I can see why this is such a hot button issue with you, **NiceGuyJack** - you live in a country where a whopping _1.4%_ of it is owned by a single person (for the US, the equivalent would be if the Walton heirs owned $1.65 _trillion_.) That would piss me off too. On the other hand, I would direct my anger where it would benefit me the most… in your own backyard, not at some country more than 3,000 miles away. > Yes, the Walmart people own as much as 40 million households who have negative to smaller net worth amounts… but other than Japan, as the richest family in their country, they own the smallest percentage of their nations assets than any of the more “enlightened” countries listed on the chart. > So, for your definition of “oligarchy”, **Evil Captor** , I would argue that a country where 1.4% of it is owned by a single person is in far, far greater danger of falling into such than a country where .075% is owned by a single family. > (But, seriously - almost 1.5%!? How did you let this happen?) First of all, where did you get the National wealth figures? I know you mention the UN Wealth report, but that has factors such as pollution and work force. It doesn’t measure real wealth. Can you provide a link? If you want to compare the wealth of an individual, shouldn’t it be against total actual wealth of all individuals and possibly the government and companies in a country? However that may be, I would appreciate if you could point out where I have said rich is bad? In fact, I have already admitted to being a capitalist myself. As for Stefan Persson, his main worth comes from being the main shareholder in the company H&M as well as having major stakes in Hexagon. So as the value of these shares grows, so does his wealth. And he has owned these shares for a long time. He also owns properties outside of Sweden, including an entire village in England. Correct me if my math is wrong, but wouldn’t the worth of an entire village in England be part of the English total? Or has this village become part of the Swedish national wealth simply by being owned by a Swede? The funky math aside, you can bet Stefan Perrson has paid a substantial amount in tax already and continues to do so. He can’t buy Swedish political loyalty, although his company would benefit with export assistance and tax breaks if he employs Swedes. Just like any other company operating in Sweden. If he is worth $28 billion after all the taxes he must have paid, he certainly deserves it. ---
**Author:** ![Riga\_Marole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riga_marole/32/7316_2.png) [@Riga\_Marole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riga_Marole)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2013, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/277 "2013-12-27T06:53:19Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I’m glad you agree. It’s even better today than when I wrote that yesterday! ---
**Author:** ![Riga\_Marole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riga_marole/32/7316_2.png) [@Riga\_Marole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riga_Marole)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2013, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/278 "2013-12-27T07:04:41Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I suspect we are using different definitions of “banana republic economy.” You are probably thinking of a country that has only one of a few sources of wealth – say, banana plantations – over which a small number of wealthy families exercise control. > > I define a banana republic economically as rule by a small oligarchy, and by “small” I mean a tiny percentage of the population overall. That could be a lot of people, in a big country like the US. > > But when the Walmart heirs own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of US citizens, as is the case at present … banana, banana, banana, my friend. An interesting comparison! I wonder if we can gain any insight into what a Banana Republic might look like if we take into consideration Bananas, Dole, Chiquita, other Latin American resources … and those (or that which) who call the shots and exploit them? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2013, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/279 "2013-12-27T13:41:16Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > First of all, where did you get the National wealth figures? I know you mention the UN Wealth report, but that has factors such as pollution and work force. It doesn’t measure real wealth. Can you provide a link? If you want to compare the wealth of an individual, shouldn’t it be against total actual wealth of all individuals and possibly the government and companies in a country? I have linked to the UN report a number of times in this thread. Were you reading my arguments, you should have already clicked on the link at least to make sure they said what I said they said. [Here is the home page for the report.](http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/article/iwr) [Here](http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/file/download/9927.pdf) is the report itself. It’s a 13mb PDF. I am confused by the arguments you made above, especially in light of your implied admission that you haven’t read the report. You tell me it includes “pollution” but doesn’t include “real wealth”. The only thing I can imagine this means is that you’re arguing it doesn’t include things like cash, stocks, bonds, etc? It does, on page 74. However, as noted: > [@](#): > > This includes estimates of the value of housing, consumer durable goods, and financial assets owned by households and non-profit organizations less home mortgages and other household debt. > Assets owned by the government are included in the estimates. The value of assets owned by firms is not estimated directly as this should be captured by the value of corporate equities, equity in non-corporate business, and corporate bonds. And pollution matters. 😕 It significantly decreases the value of property, screws up your depreciation schedules, and it should be included as a liability if possible. Whether you agree with their specific formulation of the impact pollution has is one thing, but to argue that the quality of capital stock doesn’t matter doesn’t make much financial sense. Regardless, I’m sticking by the report. The purpose of assets is to build wealth and the purpose of wealth is to control more assets. The two, while not similar, are inexorably linked. To conclude: I have one family in Sweden with enough wealth to own 1.4% of the nations assets compared to a family in the US with enough wealth to own .075% of its assets. Make of that as you will, but I _won’t_ make of it as evidence that the US is a banana republic nor will I make of it evidence that the US is an oligarchy. > [@](#): > > However that may be, I would appreciate if you could point out where I have said rich is bad? In fact, I have already admitted to being a capitalist myself. You haven’t, nor have I made that point. > [@](#): > > As for Stefan Persson, his main worth comes from being the main shareholder in the company H&M as well as having major stakes in Hexagon. So as the value of these shares grows, so does his wealth. And he has owned these shares for a long time. Uh… ok. This is how the Walmart people own their billions as well. They own Walmart stock. (Please note that the post you’re responding to wasn’t aimed at you, though it did mention you in that one paragraph. **Evil Captor** is the one who mentioned the Walmart heirs.) > [@](#): > > He also owns properties outside of Sweden, including an entire village in England. Correct me if my math is wrong, but wouldn’t the worth of an entire village in England be part of the English total? Or has this village become part of the Swedish national wealth simply by being owned by a Swede? Questions of methodology are best left to the UN. I refer you to [the various authors of the report.](http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/article/read/iwr-authors) > [@](#): > > The funky math aside, you can bet Stefan Perrson has paid a substantial amount in tax already and continues to do so. He can’t buy Swedish political loyalty, although his company would benefit with export assistance and tax breaks if he employs Swedes. Just like any other company operating in Sweden. If he is worth $28 billion after all the taxes he must have paid, he certainly deserves it. Agreed. Same thing for the Walmart heirs. And how is the math funky? However, the fact still remains that, throughout Europe, your rich and elite own a far greater percentage of their respective nation’s wealth than those here in America. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2013, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976/280 "2013-12-27T13:59:42Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Minor nitpick: Walmart stock has done well over the past three years; $145 billion is a better estimate of Walmart family wealth than your 3-year old figure. > > Major nitpick: The U.N. report you cited upthread, perhaps meaningful for some purposes, is an extremely peculiar choice for understanding wealth inequality, etc. Their measure includes unharvested forests, the future values of ores and fisheries, and _most importantly a huge portion of the “wealth” is human capital_ – more than $1 million for a typical working family. That $1 million estimate (for a family which might have much much less than that in financial assets) may be a fair estimate of the future value of their labor, but most of their wages will eventually be used for their own food, housing, etc. > > Since slavery is illegal in the U.S. the Walton family “owns” no humans at all, except themselves. > > The four richest Waltons own more financial wealth than the 150 million poorest Americans put together. No cherry-picking of irrelevant data, nor braggado about the leading zeros necessary in an irrelevant percentage figure, will change that. Can y’all get your figures right? Is it “more than 150 million people” or “more than the bottom 40%” (128 million.) 1 in 5 Americans have a negative net worth. That’s 65 million people. Somebody flat-assed broke living on the streets with nothing to their name has a greater net worth than a family living in an over-leveraged McMansion and a SUV with a $30k note with an income of $129,000, all of it going to bills and payments, for the simple reasons that (1) 0\>-x and (2) income is not wealth. With 65 million people of _negative_ net worth, it’s no surprise that it takes an additional 85 million people with a _positive_ net worth to not only bring the balance up to 0, but then increase the balance to a positive $89 billion. I would think that if you’re looking to decrease this ratio (from top 150 million to top X million), then you would have a far, far greater impact by teaching people how to manage their money so they won’t end up with a negative net worth than worrying about people who, face it, are providing the poor with a quality and quantity of affordable goods unmatched in the history of man. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-becoming-a-banana-republic/675976.md?page=15)