• curiouscat.com
  • About
  • Books
  • Glossary

    Categories

    • All
    • carnival (41)
    • chart (8)
    • Cool (35)
    • Credit Cards (45)
    • economic data (62)
    • Economics (439)
    • economy (126)
    • Financial Literacy (292)
    • Investing (324)
    • Personal finance (356)
    • Popular (43)
    • quote (194)
    • Real Estate (120)
    • Retirement (65)
    • Saving (90)
    • Stocks (158)
    • Taxes (51)
    • Tips (129)
    • Travel (7)

    Tags

    Asia banking bonds capitalism chart China commentary consumer debt Credit Cards credit crisis curiouscat debt economic data Economics economy employment energy entrepreneur Europe Financial Literacy government health care housing India interest rates Investing Japan John Hunter manufacturing markets micro-finance mortgage Personal finance Popular quote Real Estate regulation Retirement save money Saving spending money Stocks Taxes Tips USA

    Recently Posts

    • New Health Care Insurance Subsidies in the USA
    • Individual Stock Portfolio Investment Planning
    • Finding Great Investments Keeps Getting Harder
    • Huge Growth in USA Corporate Debt from 2005 to 2020
    • Retirement Portfolio Allocation for 2020
    • Tencent Gaming
    • Tucows: Building 3 Businesses With Strong Positive Cash Flow
    • The 20 Most Valuable Companies in the World – Jan 2019
    • 20 Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog in 2018
    • An Inverted Yield Curve Predicts Recessions in the USA
  • Blogroll

    • Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog
    • Freakonomics
    • I Will Teach You to be Rich
    • Jubak Picks
  • Links

    • Articles on Investing
    • fool.com
    • Investing Books
    • Investment Dictionary
    • Leading Investors
    • Marketplace
    • Trickle Up
  • Subscribe

    • RSS Feed

    Curious Cat Kivans

    • Making a Difference

Investing and Economics Blog

Wealthiest 1% Continue Dramatic Gains Compared to Everyone Else

This richest 1% continue to take advantage of economic conditions to amass more and more wealth at an astonishing rate. These conditions are perpetuated significantly by corrupt politicians that have been paid lots of cash by the rich to carry out their wishes.

One thing people in rich countries forget is how many of them are in the 1% globally. The 1% isn’t just Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. 1% of the world’s population is about 72 million people (about 47 million adults). Owning $1 million in assets puts you in the top .7% of wealthy adults (Global Wealth Report 2013’ by Credit Suisse). That report has a cutoff of US $798,000 to make the global 1%. They sensibly only count adults in the population so wealth of $798,000 puts you in the top 1% for all adults.

$100,000 puts you in the top 9% of wealthiest people on earth. Even $10,000 in net wealth puts you in the top 30% of wealthiest people. So while you think about how unfair it is that the system is rigged to support the top .01% of wealthy people also remember it is rigged to support more than 50% of the people reading this blog (the global 1%).

I do agree we should move away from electing corrupt politicians (which is the vast majority of them in DC today) and allowing them to continue perverting the economic system to favor those giving them lots of cash. Those perversions go far beyond the most obnoxious favoring of too-big-to-fail banking executives and in many ways extend to policies the USA forces on vassal states (UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan…) (such as those favoring the copyright cartel, etc.).

Those actions to favor the very richest by the USA government (including significantly in the foreign policy – largely economic policy – those large donor demand for their cash) benefit the global 1% that are located in the USA. This corruption sadly overlays some very good economic foundations in the USA that allowed it to build on the advantages after World War II and become the economic power it is. The corrupt political system aids the richest but also damages the USA economy. Likely it damages other economies more and so even this ends up benefiting the 38% of the global .7% that live in the USA. But we would be better off if the corrupt political practices could be reduced and the economy could power economic gains to the entire economy not siphon off so many of those benefits to those coopting the political process.

The USA is home to 38% of top .7% globally (over $1,000,000 in net assets).

country % of top .7% richest % of global population
USA 38.3% 4.5%
Japan 8.6% 1.8%
France 7.5% .9%
UK 6.1% .9%
Germany 5.9% 1.1%
other interesting countries
China 3.4% 19.2%
Korea 1% .7%
Brazil .6% 2.8%
India .5% 17.5
Indonesia .3% 3.5%

Oxfam published a report on these problems that has some very good information: Political capture and economic inequality

In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
…
Since the late 1970s, weak regulation of the role of money in politics has permitted wealthy individuals and corporations to exert undue influence over government policy making. A pernicious result is the skewing of public policy to favor elite interests, which has coincided with the greatest concentration of wealth among the richest one percent since the eve of the Great Depression.
chart of kids income related to parents income and income inequality by country

The chart shows the correlation between kids and parents income and income inequality for each country listed. The more income inequality the more rigid the economic system is. Those countries with huge amounts of income inequality create economic systems to insure those that have rich parents are rich themselves.

At the least trust fund baby country cultures you have Scandinavian countries. The USA has been moving to an increasingly trust fund baby focus over the last few decades with the expected increase in kids incomes being more related to their parents income than any other factor. In the USA now nearly 50% of someone’s income can be “explained” by their parents income. That is the math showing how income is correlated to factors (such as college education, degree type…) shows that 50% of the kids income can be calculated just using the parent’s income.

That is obviously a very anti-capitalist system. It is the essentially a nobility based system of kids inheriting their place in society instead of earning it. I have written numerous times about this corruption of the word capitalism by the talking heads and politicians in the USA being used to justify corruption. For example, in these posts: We Need to be More Capitalist and Less Cronyist, Anti-Market Policies from Our Talking Head and Political Class and Not Understanding Capitalism.

The corrupt political system adopting economic policy that favors those giving cash to politicians is very bad for our economy and society. We can change this by not electing corrupt politicians but we don’t seem even remotely interested in doing so. Until that changes the corruption system will continue to damage our society, country and world.

If we are lucky we will reduce the level of corruption in the the political parties in the USA and other rich countries. The level of corruption is likely to remain very high though. The rules are being made by those with cash to pay corrupt parties and only minor adjustments around the edges are able to blunt the full force of corruption. It would be wonderful if this corruption could be largely eliminated (such as petty corruption has largely, though there is still far too much, has been USA – bribes to get business license, bribes to avoid sanctions for unhealthy food preparation conditions, etc.).

The current system largely favors the very wealthy and powerful that get special favors only available to them. One way to participate is in those companies that benefit from the current corrupt systems (cable TV, ISPs, too-big-to-fail-banks, copyright cartel industries, health care…). The biggest exception I think is too-big-to-fail banks. In the other industries the executives take large portions of shareholders profits, because then can, but they have some limits where shareholders will finally throw them out.

So the executives many times their fair share of the economic benefits due to the corruption in Washington DC but there is a large amount left for shareholders. In the too-big-to-fail banks the executives treat shareholders like their customers – fools to be fleeced at every opportunity. So they have hugely profitable businesses supported by bought and paid for politicians and bureaucrats but they then take so much of the profits that owning those companies seems unwise to me.

But for many other industries you can participate in the benefits provided by the corrupt political parties in the USA by owning stock in those businesses they provide favors to for piles of cash. You don’t make the .01% global rich list by working hard and a normal job and saving 15% of your income. But you can make the 1% global rich list by doing that with a median income job in the USA (and most other rich countries). It might not be glamorous and you might be jealous of those that are better at exploiting the corruption to get ahead, but you still are better off than 99 our of 100 people economically. That is hardly something worth pity.

Now if your parents are poor you are going to have a much harder time getting to the point where you get a job where you earn a median USA income. It would be better if the USA improved a great deal, but even so, there are very few (if any) places you are better off being born (economically) than the USA. Of course, being born rich in a country like the USA where we elect politicians to create trust fund baby economic policies is even more lucky than just being born in the USA.

Related: Cash for Votes subreddit – Economic Fault: Income Inequality – How Economic Inequality Harms Societies – The Aim of Modern Day Political Parties in the USA is To Scare Donors Into Giving Cash – Rich Americans Sue to Keep Evidence of Their Tax Evasion From the Justice Department

January 26th, 2015 John Hunter | 1 Comment | Tags: Investing

Comments

1 Comment so far

  1. Adebayo Oluwole on January 27, 2015 10:50 am

    Whaoo! Is this true? The inequality gap is too wide. Can this trend change? And unfortunately, the rich make the rule.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

« Spread Betting and Contracts for Difference
Historical Stock Returns »
Copyright © Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog

    Personal Finance

    • Credit Card Tips
    • IRAs
    • Investment Risks
    • Loan Terms
    • Saving for Retirement
  • Archives

      All Posts
    • March 2021
    • January 2021
    • August 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • May 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • August 2018
    • May 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • June 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007
    • January 2007
    • December 2006
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • April 2006
    • March 2006
    • January 2006
    • December 2005
    • October 2005
    • July 2005
    • May 2005
    • April 2005
    • April 2004