Posted on 04/27/2013 12:08:54 PM PDT by Kaslin
There's a lot going on this week, so we didn't hear too much about that Pew Research Center report that shows the top 7% enjoyed an increase in average wealth to $3.2 million from $2.5 million while the rest of the nation, otherwise known as the 93%, saw their net worth slip to $134,000 from $140,000. It's the kind of thing the media typically jumps all over, and yet, there wasn't much. The same with that horrific building collapse in Bangladesh where the names of western companies with textile connections were released before any other pertinent information about the victims and losses.
I don't think the class warriors have packed it in, but this seemed like a golden chance to guilt large businesses and rich people into higher taxes or higher minimum wage in America or something in the realm of fairness. It was a chance to rail against trickle down economies and capitalism. Yet, there is a serious problem with all of this.
The fact of the matter is economics is trickle-up, and then like precipitation that's absorbed into clouds, it does rain down later. Rich people can't get that way without the masses. Endless waves of people must buy a product with healthy profit margins that eventually becomes profits, which are shared by the owners of the company making that must-have product (I was tempted to use Apple as an example, but maybe it's not the easiest way to make the point anymore). This is where the masses miss their cue as most are all too willing to buy the latest and greatest but see more bad than good in getting on the other end of that equation.
They don't see the value proposition of being an owner.
This is a serious problem because the main difference between the rich and everyone else is ownership. They get paid when the rest are opening their wallets. It's a simple concept but all too true.
Let me smile with the wise, and feed the rich-Samuel Johnson
In fact, we will be able to watch this concept play out in real time by one of the champions of the little people-George Soros. Yes, the financier that broke the Pound and is trying to rip down boarders for that one-word government, has made a big time investment. In a filing with the SEC, it was revealed Soros bought 17.39 million shares for a 7.9% stake in JC Penny (JCP). It's really remarkable that this beleaguered department store has been a magnet of the ultra-wealthy.
They all want a piece of the action: Martha Stewart, Bill Ackman, and now George Soros. What is so attractive about this investment, considered high-risk when Ackman was accumulating it a couple years ago at $22.00, to be such a beacon to the mega-rich? Its string of cathedrals spread across this nation designed to suck up as much money as possible from the masses. Yes, JC Penny is one of those places where the bottom 93% toss their money in the air and watch it trickle up into the pockets of those owners at the top. The thing is anyone in that 93% crowd could be an owner, too.
The stock was a little more than $13.00 a share not long ago, and even at $16.00, most people could pick up shares. In fact, skip a few sales (I think they've reinstated them), and you could pick up one hundred shares. It won't make you a billionaire over night but could put you on a path to something big where you are on the right end of the trickle.
Old Folks and Cat Food
The notion of old folks eating cat food to survive has haunted the consciousness of America for a long time and plays a major role in the prevention of real reform of social programs. It's a third rail topic (and I'm sure I'll get an earful today) where the elderly are always seen as the victims. The good news is older Americans are better fixed than ever before. The bad news is they might have to make extra sacrifices to help the youngsters.
Not only have older Americans seen their net worth increase since the end of the Great recession, but their incomes since 1984 have improved at almost twice the rate of inflation while the 54 and under crowd is trailing the rate of inflation.
According to Pew, some of the reasons for the abrupt difference in net worth include:
Delayed entry into work force and marriage
Higher student loans
More "non-whites" and single parents
Older American bought homes before crash
Older Americans working (in 1985 10% of 65 y/o worked, a record low, now it's more than 16%)
It's golden being golden, and while I doubt there will be a great sacrifice from those older Americans, perhaps younger folks will get it together, hit the bricks, hit the books, hit the chapel, and make it happen. Take it from those older Americans not fixed for the golden years, having to put all your faith into government checks is not a lot of fun.
During republican administrations liberals love to spout, “ The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” Turns out this is only true of democrats in power. Keynesian and Crony Capitalism produce a boom to the well connected.
There were more millionaires during the reign of FDR, DURING THE HEIGHT OF WORLD WAR II, than there were under Eisenhower, a mere ten years later. “Daddy Warbucks” (Annie) was not just a figment of some strip cartoonist’s imagination.
The entire tribe of millionaires did not disappear during the very heart of the Great Depression, either. Most of them had “gone Galt”, moving many of their assets OUT of the US during that period.
Switzerland was one of the very few safe havens during that time of worldwide financial crisis. We may never know just how much was moved there from the US in that time period.
But we know, with the advance of high-speed money movement, that a lot more of them are fleeing to other relatively safe havens even now.
I don’t understand the chart. It says “Net worth 2009” and the “Change from 2009.” Am I missing something, or does that not make sense?
I’m an “older American” and my net worth and income has dropped during the terms of the last two and current idiots in office
Gad, does anybody proofread this crap?
Kind of makes you lose faith in the whole article, doesn't it?
I suppose they meant "change from 1984". But that's a guess.
Some people just shouldn't play with numbers.
Soros net worth has gone from 8 billion to 19.5 billion since Obama took power.
My fear is you ain’t seen nothing yet; TPTB seem to be able to get away with anything they want. They have already sold all the gold in Ft Knox and precious metals in their warehouses times 100. Suppose they decide they can’t keep Ponzi USA going once the US Bonds and stocks crash and inflation takes off past 50% on the way to 350 to 500%; and they one-up the Cypress robbery. They sequester Wall Street, the banks, the ATM’s and credit cards; empty all the digits from pensions, savings accounts, hedge funds, insurance companies, etc, and fly off to Switzerland leaving the 99% busted without utilities, paid police and military, food, etc. Then Putin and Li send in peacekeepers to protect our dictator and to arrest/kill his enemies; deja Vu Russia 1917.
Just as the left doesn’t care that 93% lost wealth, they don’t care that the WH is closed to all but the wealthy.
Their concern for the non1% is as fake as all thier issues.
Why let facts or accuracy get in the way of a leftist screed.
Looks like the rotten bastard made a good investment!
I wish I could discern what the heck this article is talking about, but the meaning completely escapes me.
Well it proves again that the liberals are nothing but hypocrites
You need to read the last part of the chart that says Income change 1984 to 2009. Notice they are all in the +
Yes, I understand that, but what is the meaning of the second column? The first column is “net worth 2009”, and the second column is captioned “Change From 2009.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.