All you need to know about modern Republican economics, in two graphs

Seriously. If you want to "follow the money", here it is. No amount of "a rising tide lifts all boats" rhetoric can conceal that fact that the policies that were actually put in place by Republicans have left about 99% of us low and dry for the last 35 years...

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/hOvvdcO.jpg)

EDIT: So to actually contribute to this thread.... what happened in the 90's that caused the upper 1% to grow at a huge rate? The 80's growth seems to be the Tax Reform Act of '86, did something specific happen in the 90's or is that just the dot-com/Clinton bubble?

I know people in Kansas who will respond "Nuh uh!"

You stand corrected, sir.

I suspect that is simply the economy taking off. GDP almost doubled over the period 1990 - 2000. From the graph, about twice as much of the increase went to the top 1% as went to the bottom 90% during the period, which makes sense since the boom was investment driven.

shoptroll wrote:

EDIT: So to actually contribute to this thread.... what happened in the 90's that caused the upper 1% to grow at a huge rate? The 80's growth seems to be the Tax Reform Act of '86, did something specific happen in the 90's or is that just the dot-com/Clinton bubble?

Part of that can be attributed to the rise of the knowledge economy and jobs that mandate an advanced degree.

Here's a map that helped me pin down, in my mind, what "1%" means.
IMAGE(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/54205889eab8ea1f034b6b6c-1200-706/state-one-percent-map-with-source.png)

I could see myself hitting those with an MBA and the right connections liking me, but that's a function of the past 33 years of my history (I'm 32). Without my education, uncommon skills, and a whole lot of privilege, those doors would be functionally closed to me.

You also had Clinton deregulating the banks in the 90's that gave rise to a lot of the sketchy financial products which led to huge returns for a lot of investors. That combined with the economic boom had the wealthy increasing their gains by a large amount.

wordsmythe wrote:
shoptroll wrote:

EDIT: So to actually contribute to this thread.... what happened in the 90's that caused the upper 1% to grow at a huge rate? The 80's growth seems to be the Tax Reform Act of '86, did something specific happen in the 90's or is that just the dot-com/Clinton bubble?

Part of that can be attributed to the rise of the knowledge economy and jobs that mandate an advanced degree.

Here's a map that helped me pin down, in my mind, what "1%" means.
IMAGE(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/54205889eab8ea1f034b6b6c-1200-706/state-one-percent-map-with-source.png)

I could see myself hitting those with an MBA and the right connections liking me, but that's a function of the past 33 years of my history (I'm 32). Without my education, uncommon skills, and a whole lot of privilege, those doors would be functionally closed to me.

I came here to ask for some numbers as to what the 1% meant. Thank you for this.

I would love to see a map with that data with the Average income and median income in all the states as well, just for comparison.

Seth wrote:

I came here to ask for some numbers as to what the 1% meant. Thank you for this.

Be careful, though. That chart shows just shows income. It doesn't show wealth.

To make the top 1% in terms of wealth you'd need a minimum of $4 million. The average wealth for the top 1% was $13.9 million.

Kamakazi010654 wrote:

I would love to see a map with that data with the Average income and median income in all the states as well, just for comparison.

Not a map, but it's based on 2012 Census data.

IMAGE(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/TacHnvxJfmlm2Sad89gWrA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/finance/2014-09-22/8af2d3c0-4289-11e4-b883-5308bd4c5b97_onepercenthousehold-income-table.png)

Thank you OG. That pdf is surprisingly mobile friendly, but can you explain this to me like I'm five: "how are they defining wealth?"

From here it looks like all liquid assets plus retirement accounts (401(k)s, pensions, etc) and equity. Am I close?

Seth wrote:

Thank you OG. That pdf is surprisingly mobile friendly, but can you explain this to me like I'm five: "how are they defining wealth?"

From here it looks like all liquid assets plus retirement accounts (401(k)s, pensions, etc) and equity. Am I close?

Wealth = Total assets minus liabilities of households at market value.

They make the point on earlier slides that things like retirement accounts, pensions, and the value of owner-occupied houses--the things that make up almost all middle-class wealth--are virtually irrelevant to the 1%.

When I win the Powerball tonight, I'm going to curl up in my 1%er bed with my 1%er wife and dream my 1%er dreams.

America is truly the land of opportunity!

Thank you OG. I'm struggling through the pdf on my phone. I should probably just wait till I get to a PC.

wordsmythe wrote:
shoptroll wrote:

EDIT: So to actually contribute to this thread.... what happened in the 90's that caused the upper 1% to grow at a huge rate? The 80's growth seems to be the Tax Reform Act of '86, did something specific happen in the 90's or is that just the dot-com/Clinton bubble?

Part of that can be attributed to the rise of the knowledge economy and jobs that mandate an advanced degree.

That's probably true, but I think a lot of the financial industry is consolidated in New England (educated guess here) which is why those states are much darker than the rest. CA has Silicon Valley which is definitely a product of the rise of the knowledge economy. And VA/DC is pretty self-explanatory

Kehama, Graham-Leach-Bliley didn't happen until 1999; that was the repeal of Glass Steagall. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act followed in 2000. So Clinton's major contributions to the problem come right at the end of the decade and can't explain the majority of the increase. (This is not to say that it's not horrible; it was. It was also a goal of Republicans for more than a decade, and Clinton was indeed reduced to horse-trading for legislation by the time his term was up...).

Those acts played more of a role in 2007-2009 than they did in the 90's, is what I'm arguing.

which makes sense since the boom was investment driven.

Monetary disorder... lending too much money into circulation. The people that are getting rich are the ones that work with the money that's being printed.

This, by the way, is the exact process I keep talking about, that of the economy reorienting itself to serve the people printing money, not the people generating wealth.

Well, yes, but it was 25 years ago that that cycle began, Malor, and we've gotten nowhere near Zimbabwe. In fact, it crashed 25 years ago, and we recovered, and went through another entire crash and are recovering from that, without the downfall of the country or the system. There's a lot wrong with what's going on, but your dire scenarios have never played out in the US. You need to recalibrate your predictions. We all get that you don't like the fiat money system, but you have to admit, if you look at your predictions of doom, versus what's actually happened, you've been remarkably off track...

Kehama wrote:

You also had Clinton deregulating the banks in the 90's that gave rise to a lot of the sketchy financial products which led to huge returns for a lot of investors. That combined with the economic boom had the wealthy increasing their gains by a large amount.

And also wealth consolidation in the form of mergers.

Robear wrote:

Kehama, Graham-Leach-Bliley didn't happen until 1999; that was the repeal of Glass Steagall. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act followed in 2000. So Clinton's major contributions to the problem come right at the end of the decade and can't explain the majority of the increase. (This is not to say that it's not horrible; it was. It was also a goal of Republicans for more than a decade, and Clinton was indeed reduced to horse-trading for legislation by the time his term was up...).

Those acts played more of a role in 2007-2009 than they did in the 90's, is what I'm arguing.

I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, that often times the effects of any particular piece of legislation won't really be felt for almost 10 years down the line.

dp

I think we'll find that Citizens United is one of the exceptions, though, with near-instant effect.

Put another way, your theory says we all should have gone down in flames in the 90's... I doubt your conclusions because you never seem to question, much less change, your assumptions about the economy.

if you look at your predictions of doom, versus what's actually happened, you've been remarkably off track...

All you have to do is look at the government debt figures to see that doom is absolutely inevitable. We owe somewhere north of $70 trillion, and we can never pay it off. The economy isn't big enough. It doiesn't matter how big and powerful you are, you can make promises you can't keep, and we have done that, to an extraordinary degree. There is zero hope that can make good on our debts. We WILL default. It's not if we will default, but when, and how. (printing money to pay your debts is a slow-motion default, one that's usually much worse than just defaulting: ask Venezuela.)

We just keep kicking the can down the road, and the problems keep getting worse. Eventually, things will come to a sudden stop. It *almost* happened in 2008, but they just barely pulled us out of the fire. Just, just barely. The entire financial system almost crashed, and that should never, ever, ever, ever, EVER be possible, short of nuclear war or a global extinction event.

The idea that the entire economy could crash in the 1970s would have been laughable.

It's fragile, and it's getting more fragile by the month, because the only acceptable outcomes are 'boom' and 'slightly less boom'. Interest rates are at ZERO, and they have been at zero for around ten years, and they've been directly pumping large amounts of cash into the system for about five. Only now are things starting to take off, and they're going to go crazy again, and do even MORE damage. This bubble -> bust -> bubble -> bust cycle is incredibly damaging.

The zero interest rates alone should tell you that we're f*cked. The interest you should have gotten from your savings, for the last ten years, has been stolen from you, and everyone else just like you. And it was given to these hyper-rich people, who are hyper-rich *because* your savings are being stolen from you.

And we just get sicker, and sicker, and sicker, and you never change your assumptions either.

Even as you're put in the poorhouse, you cheer the people and the policies that are putting you there.

edit: and you're in one of the few industries that's still doing reasonably well; about 95% of Americans are in worse shape than you are.

nel e nel wrote:
Kehama wrote:

You also had Clinton deregulating the banks in the 90's that gave rise to a lot of the sketchy financial products which led to huge returns for a lot of investors. That combined with the economic boom had the wealthy increasing their gains by a large amount.

And also wealth consolidation in the form of mergers.

It seems unlikely that that would have much of an effect on personal wealth distributions, just corporate wealth distributions. Typically a merger doesn't end with one CEO destitute and the other CEO with twice the money, it ends with the higher ups in either company getting money.

Malor wrote:

you cheer the people and the policies that are putting you there.

Not this sh*t again...

Robear wrote:
Malor wrote:

you cheer the people and the policies that are putting you there.

Not this sh*t again...

Yeah Robear, get the Koch brothers' dicks out of your mouth and explain yourself here.

Koch... Isn't that a Deutsche name...? That's probably why I submit automatically to their authoritarian demands.

Robear wrote:
Malor wrote:

you cheer the people and the policies that are putting you there.

Not this sh*t again...

Oh, come on, you are strongly in support of our central bankers.

Malor, you recently mentioned that "support for something you opposed does not mean that they approve of the worst case scenario you imagine at the end of that belief" as something you wanted to work on. Work on it harder, please. You're doing very badly at that right now.