Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The "end game" memo from Larry Summers. [View all]malaise
(296,149 posts)10. The Citigroup Plutonomy Memos: Two bombshell documents that Citigroup's lawyers try to suppress
http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html
<snip>
Citigroup explains how the "non-rich" consumers become increasingly irrelevant within the "plutonomies":
4) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as the U.S. consumer or the UK consumer, or indeed the Russian consumer. There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.
There are the rest, the non-rich, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie. Consensus analyses that do not tease out the profound impact of the plutonomy on spending power, debt loads, savings rates (and hence current account deficits), oil price impacts etc, i.e., focus on the averageconsumer are flawed from the start. It is easy to drown in a lake with an average depth of 4 feet, if one steps into its deeper extremes. Since consumption accounts for 65% of the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for 19.8% of the MSCI AC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumption is key for equity market participants.
The analysts of Citigroup then invent a new term - "The New Managerial Aristocracy":
THE UNITED STATES PLUTONOMY - THE GILDED AGE, THE ROARING TWENTIES, AND THE NEW MANAGERIAL ARISTOCRACY
Lets dive into some of the details. As Figure 1 shows the top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put together. Thats about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie!
Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the average U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better(or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together.
<snip>
Citigroup explains how the "non-rich" consumers become increasingly irrelevant within the "plutonomies":
4) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as the U.S. consumer or the UK consumer, or indeed the Russian consumer. There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.
There are the rest, the non-rich, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie. Consensus analyses that do not tease out the profound impact of the plutonomy on spending power, debt loads, savings rates (and hence current account deficits), oil price impacts etc, i.e., focus on the averageconsumer are flawed from the start. It is easy to drown in a lake with an average depth of 4 feet, if one steps into its deeper extremes. Since consumption accounts for 65% of the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for 19.8% of the MSCI AC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumption is key for equity market participants.
The analysts of Citigroup then invent a new term - "The New Managerial Aristocracy":
THE UNITED STATES PLUTONOMY - THE GILDED AGE, THE ROARING TWENTIES, AND THE NEW MANAGERIAL ARISTOCRACY
Lets dive into some of the details. As Figure 1 shows the top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put together. Thats about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie!
Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the average U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better(or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The valid, overwhelming objections to Summers have been laid out for Obama for MONTHS
Divernan
Sep 2013
#21
I read that and I agree. But I think that Summers did that because he wants the job.
Autumn
Sep 2013
#32
I remember he called them fat-cat bankers once, right before letting them off the hook
magical thyme
Sep 2013
#42
Those three years are the whole point - time to exploit the US for the benefit of the one percent
Divernan
Sep 2013
#22
What would happen? They wouldn't make him a multi-millionaire after the election.
magical thyme
Sep 2013
#43
Seeing how they have most of the money and all the big guns, it seems that way...
Octafish
Sep 2013
#36
Don't let the snap in Greg Palast's writing style throw you off. He researches
JDPriestly
Sep 2013
#37
The Citigroup Plutonomy Memos: Two bombshell documents that Citigroup's lawyers try to suppress
malaise
Sep 2013
#10
No need to wonder what all the WTO protestors from the past were protesting about.
L0oniX
Sep 2013
#28
Thanks, trumad. We should expel these creeps from our country forever and confiscate
Zorra
Sep 2013
#16
There is no stopping this. No wonder Obama's NSA is spying upon all of us.
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#23
Good read and I believe it ...inspite of Greg Palast being thrown under the bus here at DU.
L0oniX
Sep 2013
#26
So Summers talks to bank CEOs about international negotiations about banking
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2013
#27
Bookmarked. Really important must-read for ALL Americans (not just DU) nt
riderinthestorm
Sep 2013
#46