The Rich Have Gained $5.6 Trillion in the 'Recovery'; The rest lost $660 Billion

[Type Username Here]

Oh, are we getting ripped off. And now we've got the data to prove it. From 2009 to 2011, the richest 8 million families (the top 7%) on average saw their wealth rise from $1.7 million to $2.5 million each. Meanwhile the rest of us -- the bottom 93% (that's 111 million families) -- suffered on average a decline of $6,000 each.

Do the math and you'll discover that the top 7% gained a whopping $5.6 trillion in net worth (assets minus liabilities) while the rest of lost $669 billion. Their wealth went up by 28% while ours went down by 4 percent.

It's as if the entire economic recovery is going into the pockets of the rich. And that's no accident. Here's why

Continued in Source

http://www.alternet.org/economy/ric...hile-rest-us-have-lost-669-billion?paging=off


Reaganomics is alive and well.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

The Robin Hood Tax

The best way to move money from Wall Street to Main street is through a financial transaction tax -- a small charge on each and every sale of stocks, bonds and derivatives of all kinds. Consider it a sin tax on Wall Street's many vices. Such a tax could raise enough money so that every student in this country could go to a two- or four-year public college or university, tuition-free Just think what the elimination of increasing student debt would do to the lopsided wealth statistics. Just think of what that would do for jobs as colleges expanded to deal with the demand. It's not a wild-eyed demand: 11 countries are about to adopt such a tax.

I thought I've read studies before where this actually hurts GDP.

 

[newworldafro]

I thought I've read studies before where this actually hurts GDP.

Homeboy has been talking about this for at least 3 to 4 years, since I've been listening to him......when I first heard him mention it......

"Webster Tarpley and Abby Martin Discuss the Fiscal Cliff, Wall Street Sales Tax"
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5S_Abz71_o[/ame]

^^ that never going to materialize "Nasdaq dowJones" album needs this idea rapped about....

 

[NVME]

"Fannie and Freddie were private institutions that also considered themselves part of the Wall Street elite."

Statements like this are a very good indication that the article isn't written objectively.

 

[OsO]

"Fannie and Freddie were private institutions that also considered themselves part of the Wall Street elite."

Statements like this are a very good indication that the article isn't written objectively.

have you looked at the data though? i could care less about an objectively written article because in reality there is no such thing as a truly unbiased article.

what i do care very much about is whether the data stated in the thread title is accurate or not.

and if it is accurate exactly what we're going to do to remedy this situation before each and every one of us ends up broke and slaving for the corporations

 

[Malta]

We're going to end up like India with billion dollar homes overlooking slums.

 

[No1]

What you guys need to read is about how too big to fail is still a problem:

Global aspect of it:http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...financial_reform_too_big_to_fail_is_back.html

What's currently being floated in Congress by Brown and Vitter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ig-to-fail_n_3210863.html?utm_hp_ref=business

The reason I post this is because when these guys fukk up again, we're going to have to bail them out again if something isn't done. Even the New York Fed Chief knows it and is talking about it. So really, the people that helped put us in this mess, are in a position to do it again.

Now, pertaining to this article, I've never been on that site in my life, but though the numbers are true, it uses very simplified and presumptuous reasoning to reach it's conclusions about why this all has happened. BUT, I do agree with a lot of those points despite that.

Better solution to regulation, and more in-depth is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede...l-too-big-to-fail-six-things-the-fed-must-do/

And it's much more feasible than many of those ideas.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

alternet tho breh?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

alternet tho breh?

Alternet is good site. It's just a progressive-leaning news site like Mother Jones or Salon. I guess you figure it might be some Alex Jones-type shyt because of the name.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Alternet is good site. It's just a progressive-leaning news site like Mother Jones or Salon. I guess you figure it might be some Alex Jones-type shyt because of the name.

Yeah, I did. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[gho3st]

The rich needs to get richer so they can create more jobs. I never understood how politicians could expect us to believe this.

 

[NVME]

have you looked at the data though? i could care less about an objectively written article because in reality there is no such thing as a truly unbiased article.

what i do care very much about is whether the data stated in the thread title is accurate or not.

and if it is accurate exactly what we're going to do to remedy this situation before each and every one of us ends up broke and slaving for the corporations

Why that's important is because it takes credibility away from the whole article.That is a ridiculous statement...

After reading a statement like that I know the author started with a headline and tried to find ways to support their already determined conclusion or if I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt has no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Morph]

From 2009 to 2011, the richest 8 million families (the top 7%) on average saw their wealth rise from $1.7 million to $2.5 million each.

Reaganomics is alive and well.

..but wasn't this "recovery" engineered by Obama and his team? The ones behind the "American Recovery Act" and QE3, GM bailout, and God knows what other corporatist fukkery?

So where are the defenders of corporatism, Krugman, Keynesian economics, and QE3?

@ Robin Hood Tax

 

[TrueEpic08]

This would be funny if it weren't just tragic.

What you guys need to read is about ho too big to fail is still a problem:

Global aspect of it:http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...financial_reform_too_big_to_fail_is_back.html

What's currently being floated in Congress by Brown and Vitter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ig-to-fail_n_3210863.html?utm_hp_ref=business

The reason I post this is because when these guys fukk up again, we're going to have to bail them out again if something isn't done. Even the New York Fed Chief knows it and is talking about it. So really, the people that helped put us in this mess, are in a position to do it again.

Now, pertaining to this article, I've never been on that site in my life, but though the numbers are true, it uses very simplified and presumptuous reasoning to reach it's conclusions about why this all has happened. BUT, I do agree with a lot of those points despite that.

Better solution to regulation, and more in-depth is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede...l-too-big-to-fail-six-things-the-fed-must-do/

And it's much more feasible than many of those ideas.

1. Isn't the fact that "Too Big to Fail" is still a problem implicit in an article like this (Not to say that an explicit statement isn't needed, if extremely late, but just asking)?

2. If anything in that Forbes article was going to be put into place, it would've already happened. That's the type of stuff that economic and financial blogs have been wonking about since about 2009, yet nothing's changed. As anti-capitalist as I am, I'm not going to go on a screed about it. But I will say that you can't fix a problem regarding capitalist philosophy with mere infrastructural changes. Something much more major and fundamental needs to occur.

At least they're kinda-sorta acknowledging that it's a philosophical problem now.

 

[DrunkerThanAMotherfucker]

If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big exist.