Dissecting the top 1%

[Sbee]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/american-patrimony/

I love Krugman's blogs, we seem to be talking about the wrong groups. the .01% has seen the wealth share increase while high income earners are losing share, the 10-1% are losing ground.

 

[Gulo Blue]

This is a good one. It's not a new observation though; when the Occupy protests started, there were people saying that it isn't really about the top 1%, it's about a tiny top fraction of the top 1%. And it was over ten years ago I remember hearing that most of the wealth movement had nothing to do with the middle class; there was more going on between the top 3% gaining on the 10-3%.

What I really like about these two plots is how strongly correlated they are going all the way back. Even through the great depression the inverse relationship looks strong.

 

[Sbee]

another nice nugget about how the Koch brothers are the perfect poster children for the top .01%

Things Go Better With Kochs
Hey, I had to use that headline before someone else claimed it.

David Weigel reports that Democrats are finding the Koch brothers an effective fundraising tool ? emails that bash the Kochs raise three times as much as emails that don?t.

And you can see why: the Kochs are perfect villains. It?s not just what they are ? serious evildoers who use their wealth to push hard-line right-wing, anti-environmental policies that redound very much to their own benefit. It?s also what they aren?t: they?re wealthy heirs, not self-made men, they aren?t identified with innovation (which you can at least argue for Bill Gates), they haven?t made money for other people like Warren Buffett. So focusing on the Kochs is a way to personalize a vision of conservative politics as a defense of people with unearned privilege.

And here?s the thing: that vision is basically right. Very few of the superrich are movie stars, even if the usual suspects love to pretend otherwise. Not many are innovators. A fair number are self-made wheeler-dealers, but a growing number probably were born to great wealth.

In effect, Koch-bashing is a way of making Piketty personal and concrete. It?s the real thing.

 

[Michchamp]

another nice nugget about how the Koch brothers are the perfect poster children for the top .01%

Things Go Better With Kochs
Hey, I had to use that headline before someone else claimed it.

David Weigel reports that Democrats are finding the Koch brothers an effective fundraising tool — emails that bash the Kochs raise three times as much as emails that don’t.

And you can see why: the Kochs are perfect villains. It’s not just what they are — serious evildoers who use their wealth to push hard-line right-wing, anti-environmental policies that redound very much to their own benefit. It’s also what they aren’t: they’re wealthy heirs, not self-made men, they aren’t identified with innovation (which you can at least argue for Bill Gates), they haven’t made money for other people like Warren Buffett. So focusing on the Kochs is a way to personalize a vision of conservative politics as a defense of people with unearned privilege.

And here’s the thing: that vision is basically right. Very few of the superrich are movie stars, even if the usual suspects love to pretend otherwise. Not many are innovators. A fair number are self-made wheeler-dealers, but a growing number probably were born to great wealth.

In effect, Koch-bashing is a way of making Piketty personal and concrete. It’s the real thing.

it's crazy how much their money/PACs can distort election results.

also sick that these guys push that extreme "I-made-it-don't-tax-me-losers" philosophy, when their whole current generation of the family inherited everything. In libertarian positions/CATO institute, etc. they found a bunch of saps to gloss over the naked self-interest of the anti-tax, anti-regulatory political positions they push.

and even if they did build a company from the ground up... how exactly does that qualify one to talk about the economy, the legal system, and society at large??? It qualifies you to talk about running a for-profit business, period. Probably not even all for-profit businesses, just the ones in your same industry/region. It does not logically follow you understand how to run anything as complicated as a national economy, especially when there is an entire field dedicated to doing so that has existed for more than 100 years that these people (often) did not study at all whatsoever.

 

[Sbee]

it's crazy how much their money/PACs can distort election results.

also sick that these guys push that extreme "I-made-it-don't-tax-me-losers" philosophy, when their whole current generation of the family inherited everything. In libertarian positions/CATO institute, etc. they found a bunch of saps to gloss over the naked self-interest of the anti-tax, anti-regulatory political positions they push.

and even if they did build a company from the ground up... how exactly does that qualify one to talk about the economy, the legal system, and society at large??? It qualifies you to talk about running a for-profit business, period. Probably not even all for-profit businesses, just the ones in your same industry/region. It does not logically follow you understand how to run anything as complicated as a national economy, especially when there is an entire field dedicated to doing so that has existed for more than 100 years that these people (often) did not study at all whatsoever.

Ah yes, the American dream, being born with immense wealth and then having the genius and sheer determination to turn that into greater wealth via political influence.

at least the dems have a good boogey man now