I don’t think that article answered my question.
Thanks!
Salary/dividend income only? Nothing about assets of value, like real estate?
How does that apply to corporations (vice individuals), which is what a lot of the frustration amongst the Occupy Wallstreet folks being directed towards?
Also: When the stat is stated as being “The richest 1% hold 40% of all wealth in the country…”, is the money being held by publicly traded corporations counted? Counted as the CEO’s personal wealth?
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/11/citibank-is-third-largest-holder-of.html\ This is where the danger lies. The JP MOrgan, Bank of America and Citibank have about 700 TRILLION dollars of derivatives floating around. It would not take much to bring the economy down again.
I heard on Tv that Citibank transferred their derivatives to the regular banks instead of the investment banks. That puts the backing of them on the backs of the people through the FDIC and the Fed.
Why is it we should not regulate these fuckers?
You linky no worky for me.
“Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog Washingtons Blog does not exist.”
I’m not sure. I’ve seen OWS people talk about wealth, and I’ve seen them talk about income–the top 1% of each set doesn’t necessarily overlap.
I think based on the complaints that it’d be top 1% total wealth that’s more validly representative of what OWS is angry about.
The overlap between “top 1% of wealth” and “majority/plurality shareholders and Board-of-Directors members of major corporations” is perceived to be relatively high.
Presumably, the value of the stocks of those corporations includes the perceived value of their cash reserves, and is “counted” indirectly when the value of the company’s extant shares is allocated to the owners of those shares.
Goldman is supposed to be claiming a 500 million dollar loss this quarter. They set aside 10 billion for bonuses. If they set a mere 9 billion aside, they would have had a 500 million gain.
But no matter how badly the company does, the bonuses are sacrosanct. They will get theirs. Pricks.
You do understand that when someone uses quotation marks they usually mean to indicate those words aren’t their own.
Again, I have no dog in this fight. I think the Occupy people are there for their own sincere reasons, and not fueled by an obscure or sinister agenda. However, that dude is part of the conversation.
Right. I thank you for the reply.
What I was wondering: Let’s say I own a buisness and factory here in San Diego. The factory itself is appraised at $20 million (land, building, stuff inside). I own it outright (no loans, not a publicly traded company). But my income is only what I can sell the product for. So I earn $200k salary per year.
The potential to sell the factory would put me in the top 1%, but until I do, the 200k/yr only puts me in the 94%.
I have a puny 401k retirement account. Are you saying that my money is being inadvertantly lumped in with thousands of other middle class chumps to make the members of the board of Fidelity seem richer than they are?
The particular calculator on that link looks at annual salary for an individual, not assets.
here is another. The idea is to put it in an account where tax payers would have to back it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/bofa-said-to-split-regulators-over-moving-merrill-derivatives-to-bank-unit.html and from the right wing Bloomberg report.
Ok, but that says something different than what you stated in post #962.
This link (which works) says, if I read it correctly, that BofA is trying to shift about 3 billion in shacky stuff to Federally insured institutions.
In post #962, you said that BofA was one of three that have a combined total of 700 trillion in dirivitives, and further stated that economic doom was still potentially a possibility.
I think 3 billion won’t topple the USA, let alone the rest of the western world. But if it does, I guess it’s a good thing that I just loaded up on my supply of microwave popcorn!
Which is, as succinctly put as possible, the difference between rhetoric and reality.
In my experience, though, those numbers would be highly anomalous–I mean, hell, the average place I’ve been employed has been worth around $2-3mil in fixed assets, and the owners have drawn paychecks in the vicinity of $200k-300k/yr. Similarly, my dad’s fixed assets are worth around $300k, and he draws around $70k/yr.
That is, I think the typical ratio between fixed assets and owner income is much, much different than your example implies that you think it is–at least for small businesses (and I’ve worked for a heavy manufacturing concern and two software companies, so my experience isn’t exactly wide). I’d love to see a cite.
Not as I understand it–a typical mutual fund provider (such as Fidelity) has its market value allocated in proportion to the stock issued. Your 401k, if typical, buys shares in a variety of mutual funds–so say you’re invested in the ZerielCo Mid-Cap Equity fund, you own ten shares of it, and there are one thousand shares total extant in the fund. Whatever the market value of ZerielCo Mid-Cap is, you’d be considered to own 1% of it for the purposes of this type of measurement–the board only “owns” the wealth if they are personally invested, although with mutual funds the board is generally the board by virtue of being heavily invested in the fund.
If that makes sense.
You have no dog in this fight, but you sure do not read cites, there is no need to Google, the cite I made does deal with the Adbusters guy **fake **controversy, antisemitism was not the point of his article and no other examples have been produced, hence, a fake antisemitism accusation.
It was a hypothetical. You need cites for those now?
I was concerned (only just this much, though: > < ) about the classification of “wealth”, and why I should believe that the top 1% “earners” should be scorned with a broad brush.
If you are willing to say it’s (99% standing up to the 1%) just rhetoric, I can agree with that appraisal, because I don’t understand, yet, why the OWS folks want to rhetorically lynch the coroporate types, and not the politicians who are spreading their legs for them.
Boehner is a pimp! But I didn’t know until this day that it was CitiGroup, all along.
“Lynch”? Nobody is talking about lynchings, even rhetorically. There is the matter of puppets and puppeteers however: who deserves the blame?
mlees’s questions have been mostly answered. Now let’s move on to his concerns. The policy implications of all of this are to move back to the tax rates of the Clinton era, at most. This is what the Republicans characterize as “Class warfare”, an argument which is rather silly. So people making over $500,000 might face a federal rate of about 40% on the marginal dollar – the tax/income ratio will typically be lower for them. And hedge fund managers will have to face a marginal tax rate of something over than the 15% they enjoy now: this is essentially an application of the Buffett Rule.
We tried Tea Partying, and it results in hysterics and a Federal Government that teetered on the brink of default last summer. Now it’s time to embrace textbook economics and tough minded analysis.
ETA: I don’t have a dog in this fight but what about those Glenn Beck allegations? I’m JAQ.
When it’s a hypothetical where the numbers are an order of magnitude off of my experience, and in a way that paints the subjects of the thread in an unfairly bad light, yes, it seems like a cite would become handy.
I mean, the purpose of your hypothetical was to show that not all the 1% were eeevul, right? The fact the hypothetical was that far off renders it useless to demonstrate anything.
It’s not very much rhetoric. The 1% does not in my experience typically fall into the “successful small business owner who is taking a relatively minimal salary for his hard, hard work”.
As for the politicians? You want my opinion, you don’t get mad at a bee for stinging, you just change the circumstances so he stops stinging. You don’t get mad at politicians for being buyable, you just dry up the [del]blatant bribes[/del] campaign donations.
Holy fuck. Point to where I said he was an anti-semite?
Time for another anaology that you are, of course, free to hand wave away: 
Who’s more evil, the drug seller (the politicians who actually write the favorable tax laws and buisness regulations), or the buyer? Your statement is like saying the drug pusher is less evil because there are so many buyers with so much money. They can’t help themselves, they MUST sell!
(I label the politicians as the drug pushers here, because they have the regulatory power.)
I thought busting the junkies was considered the failure of the war on drugs, and not chasing down the smugglers and pushers?
Holy density! I did not said you did, but the sources you quote did.. with no intention whatsoever to smear the movement, no sir, no way, no lo se.
You’re deliberately misrepresenting me.
Below is my first contribution to the discussion. I produced a link to Kalle Lasn’s exact words, with no commentary from my self or anyone else. I felt it was relevant and worth reading, especially when the accusations of anti-semetism were being thrown around. For you to lump me into that group without any reason is a real shit move.
I’ll graciously accept an apology.