Over 42% of the stock market is owned by the richest 1%

[murdoch]

According to the last major survey by the Federal Reserve, the richest 1% of Americans own 42.2% of the stock market ( http://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/papers/wgt95.pdf ).

The 90% of us not in the richest 10% of Americans collectively own only 15.6% of the stock market. And most of THAT is at the top of that 90% as well.

This is a response to this nonsense about 50% of Americans owning stock.

The bottom line is there is two classes of people - the rentiers, the owners, the capitalists, and on the other side of that the workers. What matters to people who work for a living like me, and not capitalist heirs and parasites like Paris Hilton who live off the labor of others, is wages, low unemployment, and all of those things.

The interests of the stock owners, the capitalists, is in direct opposition to my needs and the needs of workers. They want (somewhat) high unemployment, we want low unemployment. They want higher dividends, higher profits, higher stock prices - we want higher wages. They want people working long hours, we want people working 8 hour days and getting plenty of vacation time.

[scheming daemons]

1. The. bailout. is. not. about. the. stock. market.

It is about thawing the credit freeze.


The market is the least of our worries.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. Fair enough. I wish that the "think of the retirees!" posters would agree. n/t

[Tallison]

9. Stocks may be collateral damage

as credit liquidity starts pulling business downs; whether they're public or not, the businesses that do business with them may be, and so on. In a global economy, we our fates are all intertwined, which is why regulation after stabilization is so important.

[stray cat]

10. They should be upset - they will lose everthing but the bad news is thats just a sideline!

If they are lucky and haven't retired they like myself will just have to hope they die at work working.

[girl gone mad]

12. There are better ways to thaw the credit freeze, imo. n/t

[stray cat]

13. Yes - that will pass congress?

[TBF]

20. Do explain the "credit freeze" in detail with the factors leading up to it.

You are being disingenuous.

[stray cat]

2. The effect of no liquidity on manufacturing and production is the concern

If manufacturing and production and retail including grocery stores stop functioning that will effect main street and jobs and meeting payrolls. Thats the concern - will it happen if we don't do anything - I don't know. But stocks are just a read out that will cause people to lose their retirement or keep working 5-10 more years (bad enough by itself)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. That 1% could pony up $1T fairly easily.

Country First!

[stray cat]

5. They just lost over one trillion in one day if they pull it out now

[RedEarth]

4. 50% of Americans could still own stocks

[EOTE]

7. The point is that it's a misleading statistic.

That very well may be true, but the breakdown in the OP suggests that the bottom half of the country, even the bottom 90% have a very, very small investment in the market.

[stillcool]

21. Isn't that true?

from the book "The Rich and the Super Rich" by Ferdinand Lundberg available for free download due to it's copyright expiration..Here: http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/0303socialcriticism.html

Center of Economic Political Control

We see, then, that 1.4 million households owned 65 per cent of investment assets, which are what give economic control. Automobile and home ownership and bank deposits do not give such control. The economic power of the upper 200,000 is greater than indicated by their ownership of 22 per cent ,of all assets; it amounts to 32 per cent of investment assets.

Experts concede that a 5 per cent ownership stake in a large corporation is sufficient in most cases to give corporate control. It is my contention that general corporate control lies in this group of 200,000 very probably and almost certainly lies in the combined group of 700,000 wealthiest households, slightly more than 1 per cent, owning assets worth $200,000 and more.

There is a danger here, as the erudite will recognize, of perpetrating the logical fallacy of division--that is, arguing that what is true of a whole is true of its individual parts. That argument here would be that because 200,000 households own 32 per cent of investment assets they each hold a stake of exactly 32 per cent in the corporate system. I do not make such a ridiculous argument First, this upper group concentrates its holdings for the most part in leading corporations, bypassing the million or so papertiger corporations of little or no value. Again, as just noted, far less than 32 per cent of ownership in any individual corporation is required to control it. Control, as we shall see, is the relevant factor where power is concerned. Usually comparatively little ownership is necessary to confer complete corporate control which, in turn, extends to participation in political control.

A man whose entire worth lies in 5 per cent of the capital stock of a corporation capitalized at $2 billion is worth only $100 million. But as this 5 per cent--and many own more than 5 per cent--usually gives him control of the corporation, his actual operative power is of the order of $2 billion. Politically his is a large voice, not only because of campaign contributions he may make but by reason of all the legislative law firms, congressional and state-legislative, under retainer by his corporation; for every national corporation has law firms in every state. There is additionally to be reckoned with all the advertising his corporation has to dispense among the mass media as a tax-free cost item, the lobbyists his corporation puts into the field and the cultural-charitable foundations both he and the corporation maintain.

Such a man, worth only $100 million net, is clearly a shadowy power in the land, his ownership stake vastly multiplied by what he controls--other people's property as well as his own. And there are more than a few such.

On the other hand, many intelligent citizens today complain in the face of the alleged complexity of affairs of feelings of powerlessness. Their feelings are justified. For they are in fact politically powerless.

The actual power of such concentrated ownership, therefore, is much greater than its proportion in the total of investment assets. The corporate power of the top 200,000, and certainly of the top 700,000, is actually 100 per cent. The power of this top layer corporatively would be no greater if it owned 100 per cent of investment assets. Actually, it might be less: It would then receive no support from many tremulous small holders but would probably find them in political opposition.

As to distribution of investment assets among smaller property holders, 1 per cent are owned by the $5,000 to $9,999 group, 7 per cent by the $10,000 to $24,999 group, 11 per cent by the $25,000 to $49,999 group and 15 per cent by the $50,000 to $99,999 group, or 34 per cent in all. In this group of comparatively modest means one finds some of the most voluble supporters of the established corporate way. Within their own terms they are all winners, certainly hold some financial edge. Most of them, as their expressions at stockholder meetings show, greatly admire the larger stockholders. In their eyes, a divinity doth hedge the large stockholders.

[dmallind]

8. Which about mirrors their income

So of course would mirror their ability to spend money accunulating equities.

This may, heck does, demonstrate income inequality, but not much else.

Now ask yourself who would be hurt more by a collapse. The 50% of Americans whose retirements depend in large part on 401Ks, or the top 1% who have substantial real assets outside the market and no debt?

[Tallison]

14. Thank you

That people don't get this is exasperating.

[murdoch]

19. What the hell is "income"?

There is a vast array of newspeak out there to describe what used to be called "political economy", before that term was thrown into history's dustbin, as you don't want to admit there is some political element to the economy.

Most people make their "income" by working - by wages.

Most of the people in the top 1% make their "income" by rentierism - interest, rent, and most importantly profit. They do not have to work and they do not work.

You're speaking as if the people in the top 1% are all hard-working doctors or something who have more money to buy stocks. Closer to the truth is they are Paris Hilton types who have capital they inherited which is always self-valorizing.

[dmallind]

22. It's all that

I have no problem saying that there is a pretty large political element to the economy, but that's not all that relevant. The point I'm making that is somehow apparently controversial is that people with more money invest more money. I'd prefer a less egregious gap between the very rich and the very poor but my wishes are worth as much as yours. Reality is people with more moeny own more equities.

And armchair Marxism aside, income is exactly that - income. Whether you think anyone who doesn't sweat and toil should get no more income than those who do doesn't change a thing either. Accountants get income. Doctors get income. CEOs get income. Paris Hilton gets income. What you call work or not changes that not one whit. I might even agree. Doubt I would completely but whether I do or not makes no difference at all to what IS.

BTW top 1% (which I am not in, not that it matters) starts at $336,000. The Paris Hilton types are a tiny frction of the top 1%. They will of course have a greater number of shares than the $330K doctor or middle executive per person, but that 1% isn't as rarefied as you imply. $336K a year is a nice chunk of change I'd be very content with (heck I'm content with a lot less) but it's not trust fund heiress territory.

[whistle]

11. Well the 778 point drop yesterday cost investors $1.0 trillion or $1.285 billion per point

...so our $700 billion won't even come close to helping bailout real market losses will it.

The solution has to be production and jobs and work. Let the speculators and gamblers fall on their asses and thus disappear.

Then you'll see real investors with the long term interest in America come back into the system.

The rally that we are seeing today in the markets is the Federal reserve printing more money and injecting that hyper-inflationary paper into the system. It will just set the markets up for a greater fall as the currency values continue to erode.

BushCo and his cronies have no idea how to manage the economy and McCain as admitted he is no better.

[LiberalHeart]

15. Am I allowed to still post on DU if I don't hate the rich?

Would we be better off if the rich just pull out all their cash from banks and Wall Street and let the poor solve this problem?

I do not understand this class warfare that's been going on here lately.

And, no, I'm not rich.

[stray cat]

17. If the class warfare was rationale and well informed it might not be so bad

and it would have depth and not just a hatred of anyone with stocks.

[LiberalHeart]

18. Here's the class warfare I'd like to see:

The law-abiding versus the criminals. I like Marcy Kaptur's call to get to the bottom of the crimes that were committed.

[iiibbb]

16. Take my word for it... Paris Hilton is not going to suffer one iota...

People are disillusion. They think Paris, and Trump, and whoever else they have it out for are suffering through this.