/View.info/ According to the table of the Federal Reserve of the United States, which is entitled “Distribution of household wealth in the United States since 1989”, the percentage of American private wealth owned by the richest 1% has increased from 5 % in 1990 to 36% today. That is more than seven times.
If it was a twentyfold increase instead, then the richest 1% of the population would already own the entire country, but instead they seem to be on track to reach that 100% around 2035.
They have roughly doubled their percentage of American private wealth every decade since 1990; and at this rate they would reach 72% around 2030. Once they own everything, everyone else will either work for them or be in their debt.
The poor 99% will no longer be able to buy what the companies owned by the richest 1% will offer for sale. Obviously a massive economic crash is coming, but no one can say how soon before approximately 2035 this mega crash will happen.
This table starts in 1989, so it doesn’t show the previous numbers, but other studies put the beginning of the rise in the concentration of wealth in America after World War II around 1981.
Before that, it was pretty much unchanged for decades. Perhaps Ronald Reagan was largely responsible for the change, but none of the subsequent American presidents did anything to reverse his policies based on the mantra – “Greed is good!”
Here is an excerpt from Reagan’s interview with the libertarian magazine Reason on July 1, 1975, published under the title “Inside Ronald Reagan”:
Host: Are there any particular books or authors or economists that have been influential in terms of your intellectual development?
Reagan: Oh, I’d be hard-pressed to name anything in that category. I am a voracious reader. Bastiat and von Mises, and Hayek and Hazlitt – I am one of the supporters of the classical economists.
These same ones formulated and created the mantra “Greed is good!” A philosophy now called libertarianism (which in continental Europe is instead called “neoliberalism”).
Before President Ronald Reagan, no head of state of the United States had been a libertarian. Except for the losing 1964 presidential candidate, Republican Barry Goldwater, who was a libertarian.
So the philosophy that “greed is good” was respected in the Republican Party for at least 16 years before the libertarian was elected President of the United States in 1980.
And after the end of Ronald Reagan’s term, America continues to be in the Reagan era to this day. The Democratic Party just adds hypocrisy to this by condemning libertarianism.
This position (being a libertarian while condemning libertarianism) is nowadays called “liberalism”.
Such ideological hypocrisy has become a secular religion, which is propagated especially by many religious people in America:
“Let God do it!” – they say. Or to put it another way, let’s stick to natural law.
Among some it is called “prosperity theology”. Because it effectively ushers the ultra-rich into a new type of sanctity, America’s billionaires, especially the Republican ones, will never object to it.
After all, it’s just another form of libertarianism that already deifies the rich and despises the poor.
As of 2014, the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans own almost as much wealth as 90% of everyone else. The richest 0.1% own more than all of the other 80%.
Also, America’s billionaires now have absolute veto power over any presidential candidate of either party, such as Bernie Sanders, whom no billionaire wants to become president.
Only candidates who are backed by at least a few billionaires have any realistic chance at all. A candidate for whom no billionaire expresses support is unlikely to win the nomination of either major party.
Unfortunately, too many Americans are manipulable enough to be fooled by the constant propaganda funded by the super-rich.
Any candidate who opposes the super-rich has virtually no chance of winning election to the federal government.
Many federal officials, as well as almost every Republican official, even openly defend the super-rich and at least implicitly denigrate labor and deify capital, i.e. the “entrepreneur”.
Such a situation would be impossible in any country that has an informed and reasonable electorate, because it would result in the majority of voters voting against themselves.
People don’t do that unless they are prompted. Such as thinking:
“I’m an entrepreneur” because they own, say, a hamburger joint or receive annuity income.
Anyone who isn’t backed by at least venture capitalists isn’t an “entrepreneur” that federal policymakers would cherish and worry about.
This is why today 36% of America’s private wealth is owned by the millionaires, whereas in 1990 only 5% was owned by these people. “Greed is good” makes it look good.
A larger and larger percentage of US private wealth is going into the stock markets because more and more of it is pure surplus that exceeds the ability of its owners to spend on their own consumption.
Also, as the Covid-19 crisis hits workers hardest and stock markets boom in 2020, the percentage of America’s private wealth held by the richest 1% is getting a special boost this year.
David Sirota’s investigative news blog The Daily Poster headlined “10 Statistics That Will Blow Your Mind” on December 30, and the top four were:
1. “The total cost of the $2,000 relief checks ($465 billion) is less than half the amount America’s billionaires made during the pandemic ($1 trillion). The total cost of the checks is less than the amount , with only 16 American billionaires increasing their net worth during the pandemic ($471 billion).”
2. “Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk made more wealth during the pandemic ($158 billion) than Congress just authorized in additional unemployment benefits for millions of Americans ($120 billion).”
3. “Jeff Bezos’ personal wealth grows more every second of 2020 ($2,800) than Congress is considering giving to Americans facing displacement, hunger and bankruptcy ($2,000).”
4. “Lawmakers in Congress get $3,300 in government money every week to come up with ways to block $2,000 welfare checks for millions of Americans.”
During this period, more and more of the country was owned by the richest 1%. More and more of the government is also controlled by the richest 1% because money brings power (such as the ability to hire and fire employees and other agents).
And in particular, it carries the power to hire lobbyists and do favors for members of Congress, as well as hire anyone who retires from public service, including not just former elected officials, but former career government officials.
The revolving door between serving the government and serving the people who fund election campaigns (the richest 1%) is spinning faster and faster as the richest 1% own more and more of the country.
If they will own 100% of the private wealth, they will also control the government 100% and therefore effectively own 100% of the government wealth as well.
It would be an absolute dictatorship of the richest 1%. But what would the US Constitution say about it?
The turning point actually came in 1976, when the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Buckley v. Valleo (although Justice Byron White partially dissented). That case said there could be no limits on the total political donations an individual receives.
Why? Because money is “speech” and the First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits any laws against “speech”, such as against lying or other forms of expression, no matter how harmful.
And what would be more harmful than allowing your government to buy itself?
The court decided that if more money meant more control over the government, then that was fine, but Justice Byron White, in his lone and telling dissent, said:
“The cases of Congress and of this Court have recognized this as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken.”
In essence, he wanted to turn the whole issue over to the legislators, who until then had been legally barred from dealing with it because of the unanimous decision, joined by “Judge” White himself.
This unanimous equation of “money” with “word” was the beginning of the end of America’s then limited democracy and marked the beginning of today’s American aristocracy – the American aristocracy of wealth.
But were the American founders in favor of creating an aristocracy? Wasn’t their main purpose to prevent such a thing from taking over here? Who hired these “judges”? Aren’t they actually traitors?
If it started on any date, it is: January 30, 1976.
Translation: SM
#Today #wealth
