Patrick.net

Half Of American Households Hold 1 Percent Of Wealth

By Vicente   Follow   Thu, 19 Jul 2012, 3:19pm   3,775 views   57 comments
In Davis CA 95616   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (6)   Dislike  

That's the real MEAT of the situation. It's not about as Rick Santelli said, the neighbor next door who got "too much house" one they "didn't deserve" due to a liar loan. That is small change problem that a big shot like Rick shouldn't even stoop for.

In the end, the result of all this is STILL that Richie Rich gets richer, and the poor get poorer.

"The share of the nation's wealth held by the less affluent half of American households dropped precipitously after the financial crisis, to 1.1 percent, according to new calculations by Congress's nonpartisan research service.

By contrast, the share of total net worth held by the weathiest 1 percent of American households continued rising, hitting 34.5 percent in 2010. The top 10 percent's share was 74.5 percent."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/households-wealth-american-1-percent_n_1687015.html

Most Liked Comments

1. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,240 threads 6,173 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

   1   9:42am Fri 20 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (5)   Dislike   Protected   TMAC54 says Do I understand this correctly ? Our tax's are now used by the FED to loan at ZERO interest to the lenders. GUBMINT is the cause of the disparity. ie; We the PEOPLE took risk buying high priced property. Banks accepted the same risk lending on that same high priced property. WHO HIRED DA GUBMINT TO BE SO ONE SIDED ? Actually the Federal Reserve just prints the money they loan to banks! They don't need our taxes for that, and we can't stop them. It is a kind of taxation without representation, taxation on everyone else's money by diluting it. The Federal Reserve is just a private banking cartel created to protect the biggest banks from having to take losses. They protect the banks the expense of everyone else. Privatized profits and socialized losses make banking a wonderful business if you're big enough to have the Fed on your side. But you're right, the government itself is obviously very one-sided about bailouts. If you're a big bank, the government will loan or give you $800 billion, then another $800 billion, "whatever you need dude, so sorry your bets all went bad, taxpayers will cover it as long as you donate to my re-election campaign..." while the little guys who bet on their own house get very little or nothing (as it should be).

2. PockyClipsNow Follow Befriend 19 threads 1,536 comments Los Angeles, CA

   2   4:02pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike   if you cut a check for 100k to these 50% of americans within one year (proably one month) they would be back in the same category. Half of them would quit working until the money ran out!!! Seriously people do some of you guys have any experience with how most humans live? A dog with full belly will not hunt - half the country with $ in the bank will not work. I know this for a fact from experience. Look at how many people took max HELOC withdrawal and had no income for years then sqaut - its totally normal, not an exception. Its ants vs grasshoppers.

3. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,240 threads 6,173 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

   3   12:08pm Fri 20 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike   Protected   leoj707 says Reminds me of that old Eddie Murphy skit "White Like Me". The bank loan is at about 3:35... http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7msba_saturday-night-live-white-like-me_fun Yes, it's exactly like that! Fed to banks (same as quote from banker to white-face Eddie Murphy): "Take whatever you want! Pay us back whenever you can, or don't. We don't care! Ha ha ha." The Fed really doesn't care. They just printed the money for friends. Ordinary people like us do not qualify for such benefits.

4. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   4   12:42pm Fri 20 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike   Protected   Patrick says The Fed really doesn't care. They just printed the money for friends. Ordinary people like us do not qualify for such benefits. No, the reason that ordinary people don't qualify is because they're too lazy. It's their own fault. Now get back to work!

5. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 209 threads 4,515 comments Davis, CA

   5   9:52am Fri 20 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike   Peter P says One must be paid according to the power he has or it is a recipe for corruption. Mexico is a good example of this. $350 a month is like paying waiters minimum wage, and tips will fill the gap right?

6. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,240 threads 6,173 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

   6   6:02pm Fri 20 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike   Protected   If you ask the Fed, they will tell you that they absolutely must print up great gobs of cash for their friends or the world will end. So it was the only responsible thing to do... It's a Wonderful excuse, also used to drag us into Iraq when it was really a wacko Saudi who attacked America on 9/11. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? Ah, look at Bush-Saudi connection and all becomes clear. It will be used many many times in the future. Remember the next time you hear it: "Do what I say, no questions, or world will end." At this very moment, the remaining Syrian elite are broadcasting that the world will end unless the rebellion is crushed.

7. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 209 threads 4,515 comments Davis, CA

   7   3:44pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   FortWayne says And than you have people who have 5 rental properties and are still gaming the system for bailouts while appear to be dirt poor to the government.... An anecdote is not DATA. What's the trend, and tell me where you see this ending.

8. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

   8   3:51pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   Historically the top elites were true masters and starving to death was a real prospect. We are very far from that.

9. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

   9   4:00pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   Many underwater homeowners are in this predicament because they were greedy. In other words, they wanted more wealth for themselves, possibly at the expense of renters. Now they are complaining?

10. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,520 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    10   4:27pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   Peter P says I do not dispute that. My point is that history finds its ways. Unfortunately history will probably find a way to get us back to the "norms". However, that is not a reason for us to give up and let it happen. People evolve, society evolves and values evolve. While going back to an aristocratic system might be likely, it does not have to be inevitable.

11. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 209 threads 4,515 comments Davis, CA

    11   10:30am Fri 20 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   AlexS says no matter how much you pay the goons in blue, they still manage to engage in bullying, rape, gang-style killing, killing people in their custody, A friend came to the US from Sri Lanka many years ago. He was so struck by the HONESTY and straightforward process in his dealings with police and courts for small matters like traffic stops etc. that he went into law enforcement. I think you have NO idea how honest our police are compared to what is normal around the world. I was in Cabo San Lucas a few years ago diving off a small boat. We had a dive flag up and jet-skis were clearly violating our space in dangerous ways. I asked the divemaster if he would call the police or coast guard or something and he said "no point, they will only come if they need money, and they are good for today".

12. FortWayne Follow Befriend (13) 107 threads 3,864 comments

    12   10:36am Fri 20 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Chasing equality is a pointless cause, you assume that people want to be equal, people want to accomplish... but not everyone wants the same life. All equality achieves is spread poverty and make everyone poor while destroying the economic progress.

13. PockyClipsNow Follow Befriend 19 threads 1,536 comments Los Angeles, CA

    13   11:24am Fri 20 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   If the communists go to far the productive people leave and the country starves (like early days in russia, cuba had it bad for a long time). We are far from this. I dont see any exodus of hard workers - opposite still happens - brain drain from communist countries happens and smart people who get shit done come to the US.

14. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,520 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    14   11:28am Fri 20 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   PockyClipsNow says If the communists go to far the productive people leave Communism is not the only thing that causes this, any society where a bulk of the people lack opportunity will have this problem.

15. FortWayne Follow Befriend (13) 107 threads 3,864 comments

    15   3:32pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)   And than you have people who have 5 rental properties and are still gaming the system for bailouts while appear to be dirt poor to the government.... http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1214304 I don't really care how statistics can be skewed, I don't see super wealthy being a problem. I do see government dependence being a huge problem though.

16. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,520 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    16   3:59pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Peter P says Historically the top elites were true masters and starving to death was a real prospect. We are very far from that. Not sure what you are saying here. So.... we should wait until we get back to historical norms before trying to make any changes? Or, are the historical norms the correct way society should be run?

17. PockyClipsNow Follow Befriend 19 threads 1,536 comments Los Angeles, CA

    17   4:08pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   I know a guy who didnt work for a few years because he said 'i still have $1,200 in the bank so I dont need to work right now. He sponged off parents,girlfriends for years. Now hes employed half the time or so. (no work ethic - but a fun guy!) This type of attitude is held by at least half the population.

18. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 209 threads 4,515 comments Davis, CA

    18   4:10pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   PockyClipsNow says This type of attitude is held by at least half the population. It is.... because you say so? Thanks for clearing up that half of the population are just useless deadwood we can toss in an oven. We'll put you in charge of deciding which half then.

19. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,520 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    19   4:14pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Peter P says I suspect that historical norms better reflect human nature. I agree, but another aspect of the historical norm is that every now and then the masters get slaughtered by those teetering on the brink of starvation then new masters are chosen and the cycle restarts itself. Peter P says Nor do I think we should actively promote that. I think that we should actively discourage a return to historical norms. However, over the last 40ish years we have chosen to revamp our system so that we move closer to the historical norms. The article posted is yet another example that this is happening. If nothing is done wealth will continue to concentrate and the peasants will begin to sharpen their scythes.

20. thomaswong.1986 Follow Befriend 15 threads 3,093 comments

    20   4:16pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Vicente says It DOESN'T MATTER if someone somewhere got "too much" house for a few years. No one bought More or Too much House... they overpaid ! Its all about prices. The saying.. "they bought more house than they could afford" wasnt the real issue.. the term has been over used and ignores the real issue at hand... is all about the real sustainable prices... today, its the same home as before during the "Price" bubble! no bigger no smaller!