The wealth of the 1% just hit a record $44 trillion
The wealth of the 1% just hit a record $44 trillion
Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the "wealth effect."
Key Points
- The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter.
- All of the gains came from stock holdings thanks to an end-of-year rally.
- Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the “wealth effect.”
The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter, as an end-of-year stock rally lifted their portfolios, according to new data from the Federal Reserve.
The total net worth of the top 1%, defined by the Fed as those with wealth over $11 million, increased by $2 trillion in the fourth quarter. All of the gains came from their stock holdings. The value of corporate equities and mutual fund shares held by the top 1% surged to $19.7 trillion from $17.65 trillion the previous quarter.
While their real estate values went up slightly, the value of their privately held businesses declined, essentially canceling out all other gains outside of stocks.
You're viewing part of a thread.
That would be a very much communist way of doing things. Do I need to explain why communism didn't work, doesn't work and won't work?
That isn't even remotely the same as communism. That is capitalism with an upper income limit.
You don't have some people earning $100 million a year and others making $25,000 a year under communism. That's only possible in a capitalist economic structure.
Your understanding of communism is on par with that of Joseph McCarthy.
Communism is everyone gets a Camry, Prius, Crown Victoria, F150, or Expedition. 3 years after you pay for it.
No it isn't.
Yes that is the literal textbook definition.
It creates literally same structure as socialism in my country (which btw attempted to reach communism). Paychecks were essentially set, so no one has an income higher than X, everyone had either žiguli, skoda, trabant or tatra car.
So whilst I agree that ultra rich people should be taxed more (or contribute to the solution of world problems more), setting a high limit may just affect the persons' possible achievements.
You actually think if people worth $100 million getting taxed at 100% above that $100 million equals socialism or communism? Really?
Either people have unlimited income or its communism?
You are right the scale is different, but essentially it is the same idea.
Apart from many other issues this proposal has, limiting possible individuals' achievements (just like socialistic regimes in the last century) is one of them
It is in no way the same idea.
Communism is about the workers controlling the means of production and distributing things according to people's needs. This has zero to do with that.
I mean it's not a secret what communism is, so I don't know why you don't know what it is, but here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Also, Karl Marx wrote extensively on the subject. Believe it or not, limiting upper income levels was not something he ever wrote about. Probably because that wouldn't even be a thing in a communist society.
Well yes, but you cannot achieve communism in one day. To get there, you firstly need socialism which is a direct path to communism.
And the idea of limiting higher limit of income very much reminds this pattern.
No, that has nothing to do with socialism either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
The whole idea of income requires capitalism. You don't seem to understand that basic fact.
Even in socialist countries like Czechoslovakia you had income (a sign of capitalism) but it was purposefully limited, so no one earns too much. This is literally the same.
It's almost as if they weren't actually socialist countries.
Next you'll be telling me that the elections in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are unfair, which is why we shouldn't have democracy.
Please stop commenting on politics if this is your level of education on the matter. Communism is absolutely not relevant here, because communism is
a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).
You haven't even begun to understand if you think communism is related to this discussion.
I have mentioned what communism is in my other post. It is in accordance to your definition.
However, to get to communism, you firstly need socialism and this idea is very close to socialist practices that were present across the europe in the last century.