5 ms·

Care to cite your source? EDIT: I'm sorry, but was my request for a source considered rude? I don't understand the knock. I would really like to see some data

Care to cite your source? EDIT: I'm sorry, but was my request for a source considered rude? I don't understand the knock. I would really like to see some data showing the consolidation of wealth, if it actually exists.

shingen 15y ago
It wasn't rude. The super rich in America control far less wealth today in proportion to the total economy than they did in 1900, when Rockefeller by himself controlled wealth equal to 1/45th of GDP. At his peak, Carnegie was even wealthier than Rockefeller. The ten richest Americans at the time controlled wealth equal to 1/20th of all GDP. To accomplish that feat today, someone like Gates would need to be worth nearly $350 billion. The top ten would need to be worth $800 billion. In the 19th century, private individuals used to fund wars, because they were more powerful and wealthier than the nation states going to war. The Morgan family, JP and his father Junius, funded wars by shuttling money through their banking empire on both sides of the Atlantic. Nation states had to borrow war funds from private banks & enterprises. The thought of that today is laughable, when the US military vaporized a trillion on the latest Iraq war alone. In the panic of 1907, JD Rockefeller pledged his wealth to stabilize the system - specifically he offered JP Morgan a guaranteed backing that he could use to assist the US Treasury in stabilizing imbalances that threatened to crash the economy. That notion would be comical today, when the Fed prints a trillion every six to eight months depending. The idea that the rich are richer today in relation to the economy, than the early industrial days of America, is an absurd myth that isn't backed up by any data. It's pure propaganda.
furyofantares 15y ago
Your phrasing reads with a sarcastic tone to me, intentional or not. But I'd also love to see a source, the claim alone does not convince me. I'm actually not even sure what the claim is, actually -- are we talking about the top 5%? The top 1%? And are we talking about distribution within the entire world or within some specific nations? I believe at least when you get to talking about the single richest person compared to their nation of residence, the richest person for the past few decades has controlled a smaller percentage of the wealth than in the early to mid 1900s or late 1800s -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures#North_American_figures_and_their_wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_f... -- but beyond that I have no idea how the distribution has changed either worldwide within nations.
ealloc 15y ago
Wikipedia is a reasonable starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United...
cschmidt 15y ago
Here are the Gini coefficients for the US over time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini_indices_over_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini... The Gini coefficient is the standard measure of income inequality.
- spindritf 15y ago
  Income is not wealth, income inequality is not wealth concentration (though perhaps could lead there).
  - cschmidt 15y ago
    I was simply trying to be helpful and providing data in response to someone who wanted some on wealth distribution. I can't believe you thought providing a source to closely related data deserved a downvote. Sure, wealth and income are not the same, but they must be pretty correlated. I have read that the Gini is higher for wealth that income, but I haven't seen data for American wealth Gini coefficients over time. If you have that data, then you could be constructive and provide it.

shingen 15y ago

It wasn't rude. The super rich in America control far less wealth today in proportion to the total economy than they did in 1900, when Rockefeller by himself controlled wealth equal to 1/45th of GDP. At his peak, Carnegie was even wealthier than Rockefeller. The ten richest Americans at the time controlled wealth equal to 1/20th of all GDP. To accomplish that feat today, someone like Gates would need to be worth nearly $350 billion. The top ten would need to be worth $800 billion. In the 19th century, private individuals used to fund wars, because they were more powerful and wealthier than the nation states going to war. The Morgan family, JP and his father Junius, funded wars by shuttling money through their banking empire on both sides of the Atlantic. Nation states had to borrow war funds from private banks & enterprises. The thought of that today is laughable, when the US military vaporized a trillion on the latest Iraq war alone. In the panic of 1907, JD Rockefeller pledged his wealth to stabilize the system - specifically he offered JP Morgan a guaranteed backing that he could use to assist the US Treasury in stabilizing imbalances that threatened to crash the economy. That notion would be comical today, when the Fed prints a trillion every six to eight months depending. The idea that the rich are richer today in relation to the economy, than the early industrial days of America, is an absurd myth that isn't backed up by any data. It's pure propaganda.

furyofantares 15y ago

Your phrasing reads with a sarcastic tone to me, intentional or not. But I'd also love to see a source, the claim alone does not convince me. I'm actually not even sure what the claim is, actually -- are we talking about the top 5%? The top 1%? And are we talking about distribution within the entire world or within some specific nations? I believe at least when you get to talking about the single richest person compared to their nation of residence, the richest person for the past few decades has controlled a smaller percentage of the wealth than in the early to mid 1900s or late 1800s -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures#North_American_figures_and_their_wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_f... -- but beyond that I have no idea how the distribution has changed either worldwide within nations.

ealloc 15y ago

Wikipedia is a reasonable starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United...

cschmidt 15y ago

Here are the Gini coefficients for the US over time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini_indices_over_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini... The Gini coefficient is the standard measure of income inequality.

spindritf 15y ago
Income is not wealth, income inequality is not wealth concentration (though perhaps could lead there).
- cschmidt 15y ago
  I was simply trying to be helpful and providing data in response to someone who wanted some on wealth distribution. I can't believe you thought providing a source to closely related data deserved a downvote. Sure, wealth and income are not the same, but they must be pretty correlated. I have read that the Gini is higher for wealth that income, but I haven't seen data for American wealth Gini coefficients over time. If you have that data, then you could be constructive and provide it.