Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[mawilson 2,133]

Wealth has always been concentrated for many years in the hands of very few. That implies quite clearly that the majority of the affluent cannot, by logic, have amassed their riches from a 'rags-to-riches' ladder

Actually, it indicates the opposite. It's easier to multiply wealth than to build it from scratch, so if your assumption was true, we'd see the top 1% amass a lot more than 40% of total wealth.

[Zero Sum 305]

Actually, it indicates the opposite. It's easier to multiply wealth than to build it from scratch, so if your assumption was true, we'd see the top 1% amass a lot more than 40% of total wealth.

You may not have factored in to your conclusion the natural increase in population. Old Money grows by seeking new ways to make more of it. Case in point- financiers crashing our markets using risky maneuvers. And they stay über wealthy, with growing income over the last few decades, while more in the bottom 99% make less.

Normalizing for population, the top 1% is actually increasing their income by a lot more than the bottom 99% is decreasing its income.

[mawilson 2,133]

You may not have factored in to your conclusion the natural increase in population.

1 percent is 1 percent.

[Zero Sum 305]

1 percent is 1 percent.

They don't join the other 99%. Ever.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

1 percent is 1 percent.

Correct. For the statistic to hold, both populations must be growing proportionately.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

They don't join the other 99%. Ever.

Not true. The membership does change, just not as fast as some would hope. I would suggest for some minority populations, entertainment and sports (and illegal activity) been paths for many. And, the fall for some have been just as dramatic.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[웃 910]

2 Capitalist 1 Socialist

[Zero Sum 305]

Not true. The membership does change, just not as fast as some would hope. I would suggest for some minority populations, entertainment and sports (and illegal activity) been paths for many.

Correct, the 99% sometimes gets to join the 1%. Not the other way around, as I wrote. What some people would argue as something very much possible, is an exercise in fallacy.

[Zero Sum 305]

And let us consider what that 1% really is:

Rate of growth of Existing families + new members = rate of growth for the other 99%. Not noticing where the wealth is concentrated in that top 1% would be the next step in negating reality here as well.

1975 to 2005

Edited April 13, 2011 by Zero Sum

[mawilson 2,133]

Correct, the 99% sometimes gets to join the 1%. Not the other way around, as I wrote.

Works the other way too - wealthy people can go bankrupt and lose their wealth.

[웃 910]

2 Capitalist 2 Socialist

And let us consider what that 1% really is:

Rate of growth of Existing families + new members = rate of growth for the other 99%. Not noticing where the wealth is concentrated in that top 1% would be the next step in negating reality here as well.

1975 to 2005

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Correct, the 99% sometimes gets to join the 1%. Not the other way around, as I wrote. What some people would argue as something very much possible, is an exercise in fallacy.

You missed my edit. I have met many of the fallen. Think dot-com, think real estate, back in the sixties, think aerospace. And then there are all those child stars working as security guards on the Paramount lot, and former football stars selling cars on Ventura Blvd. Clint Walker was running a construction site clean-up business with the $70,000 he made after the Cheyenne series finally went into syndication.

[Zero Sum 305]

Works the other way too - wealthy people can go bankrupt and lose their wealth.

I couldn't imagine that many do.

You missed my edit. I have met many of the fallen. Think dot-com, think real estate, back in the sixties, think aerospace. And then there are all those child stars working as security guards on the Paramount lot, and former football stars selling cars on Ventura Blvd. Clint Walker was running a construction site clean-up business with the $70,000 he made after the Cheyenne series finally went into syndication.

A drop in the bucket compared to those that use their money to stay ultra rich. Notice the examples you cite are not exactly lining up at the unemployment line.

[mawilson 2,133]

And let us consider what that 1% really is:

Rate of growth of Existing families + new members = rate of growth for the other 99%. Not noticing where the wealth is concentrated in that top 1% would be the next step in negating reality here as well.

Again, wealth begets more wealth, so the fact that wealthier Americans can grow their wealth faster is not surprising at all.

Also keep in mind that the bottom 40 million of Americans have no wealth at all - they are in DEBT (zero or negative net worth.)

[Zero Sum 305]

Again, wealth begets more wealth, so the fact that wealthier Americans can grow their wealth faster is not surprising at all.

Also keep in mind that the bottom 40 million of Americans have no wealth at all - they are in DEBT (zero or negative net worth.)

Correct. How do you think at least some of that wealth grows? Its not exactly by simple reinvestment in themselves.

Furthermore, along the same line of thought, if its nearly impossible for old money to get lost, how come those at the top do not wish to invest more of it on the same nation that makes it possible for them to stay on top? Selfishness perhaps?