In the aggregate, that is correct, yes.
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.
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).
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”.
I’m glad you agree.
You don’t even agree with that yourself (from this thread extolling the virtues of past Chicago):
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
In what countries do the rich *not *control a disproportionate amount of the wealth?
If every country is a banana republic, then none are.
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.
Agreed: the Walton heirs own a significant amount of assets in absolute terms, $89.5 billion.
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:
(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?)
Wake up, Swede-ple!
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.
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.
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.
It’s even better today than when I wrote that yesterday!
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?
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.
Here 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:
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.
You haven’t, nor have I made that point.
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.)
Questions of methodology are best left to the UN. I refer you to the various authors of the report.
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.
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.