Biden
Echoes Obama’s Broken Promise to ‘Buy American’
AP Photo/Patrick Semansky
9 Jul
2020169
Joe Biden is taking a page from Barack Obama’s old playbook
Thursday by proposing a $700 million ‘Buy American’ plan.
Economic nationalists stung by Obama’s betrayal of his similar
promises in 2008 will be skeptical.
Biden is expected to release plans calling for a $400 billion,
four-year increase in government purchasing of U.S.-based goods and services
plus $300 billion in new research and development in U.S. technology concerns.
Among other policies expected to be announced Thursday, he proposes tightening
current “Buy American” laws that are intended to benefit U.S. firms but can be
easily circumvented by government agencies.
That echoes a message that helped Obama and Biden win during the
last recession. In the 2008 campaign, the Obama-Biden campaign ran “Buy
American, Vote Obama” ads in states with large numbers of pro-labor voters. But
that plan was s crapped just
weeks after Obama took office.
“I think that would be a mistake right now,” Obama said in
February 2009. “That is a potential source of trade wars that we can’t afford
at a time when trade is sinking all across the globe.”
Biden did not provide any reassurance that the same
considerations would not once again result in a post-election return to
globalist trade policies. In fact, Biden has a far more extensive record of
supporting trade liberalization than Obama did. He supported both the North
American Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership.
“We don’t need to guess what a Biden economy would look like
since Americans have been forced to live through it once already,” Trump
campaign spokesperson Hogan Gidley said in a statement Thursday.
The Biden plan, which mimics the rhetoric of Trump’s “America
First” economic nationalism, seeks to take advantage of a weakness created by
Trump administration officials who have stymied recent efforts by Peter Navarro
to put that philosophy into policy. An executive order requiring federal
agencies to buy medical supplies and pharmaceuticals produced in America has
been left in draft form for months.
“That executive order has languished for months, however, amid
objections by some of Trump’s other senior advisers, including Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who have warned
that it could lead China to limit the supply of personal protective equipment,
or PPE, that it is sending to the United States,” the Washington Post reported Thursday.
Despite the appearance of economic nationalism, Biden’s
proposals appear to be incoherent and lack substance. Biden talks tough on
China but also criticizes the tariffs the Trump administration has imposed,
failing to indicate what policy tools a Biden administration would use to back
up the rhetoric. Instead of the “speak softly but carry a big stick,” Biden’s
plan appears to be to loudly implore China while carrying no stick at all.
The former vice president will discuss the proposals Thursday at
a metal works concern in Dunmore, Pennsylvania. It’s the first of a series of
addresses Biden plans as he shifts his line of attack against President Donald
Trump to the economy. It’s political turf the Republican incumbent once
considered a clear advantage before the coronavirus pandemic curbed consumer activity and drove unemployment to near-Depression levels .
An opening emphasis on manufacturing and labor policy is no
coincidence: Biden wants to capitalize on his union ties and deliver on oft-made
claims he can win back working-class voters who fueled Trump’s upset win four years ago .
Biden will continue in coming weeks with an energy plan to
combat the climate crisis and a third package on what the campaign has dubbed
the “caring economy,” with a focus on making child care and elder care more
affordable and less of an impediment to working-age Americans. Campaign aides
told reporters that all of Biden’s policies would target immediate recovery
from the pandemic recession and address systemic inequalities Biden says are
“laid bare” by the nation’s ongoing reckoning with racism .
“What’s going on here, we need to build back, not just to where
we were but build back better than we’ve ever been,” Biden told the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on Wednesday. “We’re going to
take a monumental step forward for the prosperity, power, safety and dignity of
all American workers.”
Republicans nonetheless have made clear they will attack Biden
on trade and the economy, framing the Democratic establishment figure as a tool
of the far left on taxes and a willing participant in decades of trade policy
that gutted American workers. Trump also has lampooned Biden as “weak on
China.”
On trade, at least, it’s a similar line of attack that Trump
used effectively against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Biden voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement in the
Senate in 1994, an anchor of Trump’s criticism and Sanders’ attacks before
that. One of Trump’s signature achievements is an overhaul of NAFTA , which he
accomplished with backing from many Democrats on Capitol Hill. In more recent
years, Biden has promised the include environmentalism and human rights in
trade deals, something economic nationalists warn could shift the focus away
from protecting American jobs and the U.S. manufacturing sector.
“Biden’s NAFTA destroyed 850,000 American jobs and his
inexplicable support for China killed millions more and forced 60,000 American
factories to close,” Gidley said.
The campaign’s outline ahead of Thursday emphasizes that Biden
wants a resurgence in U.S. markets before engaging in new trade deals abroad.
That includes joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Biden advocated when
he served as President Barack Obama’s vice president. Trump opposed TPP as a
2016 candidate and fulfilled his promise to withdraw the U.S. from the deal.
China is not a TPP member but could become one in the future.
Trump and Biden have called out China for unfair trade
practices, but only Trump has a record of implementing policies to combat those
practices.
Biden’s team insisted his approach falls within World Trade
Organization rules, but aides also acknowledged that a Biden administration
would try to modify an existing WTO deal, the Government Procurement Agreement,
which effectively creates a shared open international market for participating
governments to secure goods and services.
For now, Biden has not identified how he’d pay for the proposed
new spending. Aides said he has identified revenue sources for all ongoing
spending proposals but not for the one-time or short-term investments like the
$700 billion in procurement and research. That raises the possibility that
Biden could declare that spending to be deliberate deficit spending to
stimulate the struggling economy.
The 2009 stimulus plan eventually included some Buy American
provisions, over the objections of the Obama administration and largely at the
insistence of Congressional Democrats, but these were so watered down that they
were mostly symbolic. Even so, John McCain and other Republicans claimed they
were too ‘protectionist’ and attempted to strip them from the bill.
The Obamas tackle climate change and wealth inequality
By John Eidson
In
a remarkable commitment to their tireless fight against climate change and
wealth inequality, Barack and Michelle Obama reportedly are purchasing a magnificent $15-million oceanfront
mansion in
Martha’s Vineyard, presumably as a much-needed retreat to supplement the
$9-million mansion they already own in one of the most exclusive areas of the
nation’s capitol.
A
fierce opponent of fossil fuels and wealth inequality, the former president has
harshly criticized rich people for the oversized, carbon-gluttonous houses they
buy. On April 25, 2010, the president who would become fabulously wealthy
in retirement scolded Wall Street CEOs with this
admonition:
I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough
money.
His
views about the sin of making too much money haven’t changed. During a
speech last year in South Africa, this shining example of environmental
stewardship and unparalleled concern for the poor spoke passionately about the unfairness
of some people having more money than others in blasting rich people for their
excessively lavish lifestyles:
There’s only so much you can eat; there’s only so
big a house you can have; there’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean,
it’s enough.
That
direct quote came from the lips of a man who, along with his wife, is sitting
atop a nest egg estimated at a meager $135 million . But don’t feel
sorry for them, because there’s much more to come: with money barreling their
way like a runaway train, the concerned couple is rapidly becoming a billion-dollar brand .
Sharing with the less fortunate: During the five years from
2000-2004, a period when they earned $1.2 million, Barack and Michelle
Obama donated less than one percent of their income to
charity, ten times less than the tithing guidelines of their professed
Christian faith. Only when Obama decided to run for president did the
couple’s charitable instincts improve.
Protecting the planet : During his first full
day in the White House, President Obama was photographed without his suit
jacket. Senior advisor David Axelrod explained: “He’s from Hawaii, okay?
He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.” While
campaigning, Obama vowed to exhibit environmental leadership if elected: “We
can’t drive our SUV’s and eat as much as we want and keep our thermostats set
at 72 degrees. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen
[with me].”
In
decreeing that rich people make too much money and that global warming is an
imminent threat to our very survival, this ultra-wealthy man and his
ultra-wealthy wife decided to indulge themselves in another opulent mansion,
this one sitting on 29 oceanfront acres on one of the most exclusive islands in
the world. While homeless people are sleeping on the streets and our
planet is being destroyed by CO2, the Obamas are living large, a pitifully
small reward for two remarkable people who bend over backwards to show
leadership in the fight against climate change and wealth inequality.
An electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now
retired, John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta. American Thinker recently
published related article of his titled " Harrison Ford, Climate Hypocrite " and " A $600 fill-up? "
Nolte: Michelle Obama Condemns ‘White Flight’ After Purchasing
Home in Martha’s Vineyard
Gerardo Mora/Getty Images
JOHN NOLTE
31 Oct 2019113
5:28
Former first lady Michelle Obama condemned
white people for fleeing minority neighborhoods just weeks after she and her
husband purchased
a $15 million estate in
Martha’s Vineyard.
Martha’s Vineyard
is 95 percent white and just
two percent black.
Martha’s Vineyard is
almost as white as an Elizabeth Warren rally.
Martha’s Vineyard is
whiter than my subdivision here in rural North Carolina.
Martha’s Vineyard is
whiter than MSNBC.
During a Tuesday
appearance at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago, she said, “But
unbeknownst to us, we grew up in the period — as I write — called ‘white
flight.’ That as families like ours, upstanding families like ours … As we
moved in, white folks moved out because they were afraid of what our families
represented.”
“And I always stop
there when I talk about this out in the world because, you know, I want to
remind white folks that y’all were running from us.” She went on, “This family
with all the values that you’ve read about. You were running from us. And
you’re still running, because we’re no different than the immigrant families
that are moving in … the families that are coming from other places to try to
do better.”
Did I mention that Michelle and Barry just purchased a $15
million estate in Martha’s Vineyard, which is 95 percent white?
Oh, and did I mention the Obamas own a second home, an $8
million mansion, in the exclusive DC neighborhood of
Kalorama , which is 80 percent white and
just four
percent black .
Oh, and did I mention the Obamas have a third home, a $5.3
million mansion, in Rancho Mirage, California, which is 89 percent white and
just 2.6
percent black .
Oh, sure, the Obamas still own their Chicago home in Hyde Park,
which is at least 26 percent black. But you would think they could do better
than 26 percent!
I like Michelle Obama.
I have always liked Michelle Obama. I’ve never said an unkind word about her,
quite the opposite, and while I find her politics ignorant, she was a terrific
first lady.
But this is nuts…
Not only is she
attacking white people for seeking a better standard of living, which I can
assure you (as I will explain below) has little to do with racism, she is also
attacking whites after she herself “fled” to 95 percent white Martha’s Vineyard
(I will never stop repeating this point) and two other homes in areas where the
black population is less than 5 percent.
Worse still, she is
putting white people in a position where they can never win, where they are
damned if they do or don’t, where they are always and forever racist.
If white people move
out of a black neighborhood, they’re racists engaging in white flight.
But…
And this is important…
If white people move
into a minority neighborhood, they are also racists for either engaging in
gentrification — which is just another form of cultural genocide, donchaknow —
or cultural appropriation.
Now I’m going to tell
you a little something about white flight, from my own experience…
Because I was poor,
back in the mid-eighties, I lived in the inner-city of Milwaukee for two years.
My wife and I did not flee (my wife is not white, by the way) because of “icky
minorities” (did I mention my wife is not white?), we fled because it was not
safe to live there. It was never safe. Over those two years, we had been
mugged, robbed, and had our car stolen. That’s why we left.
And when we fled, it
was to a community that was still not as white as *ahem* Martha’s Vineyard.
In 2002, my wife and I
moved to California for nine years and lived in an East Los Angeles
neighborhood that was just four percent white. For nearly
a decade, I was outnumbered 96-4 and never gave it a thought because I was not
outnumbered. A darker skin tone, an accent, and different religious traditions
did not make my neighbors any less American than me, and when I am among
Americans I am among my own. We left because predominantly white leftists are
destroying California.
Then there’s my poor
dad…
He moved to the
Northside of Milwaukee in 1980, and spent decades, a lot of money, and a ton of
sweat, remodeling his home, building a garage, and paying that home off. He
intended to retire there. And yes, there were black people in his neighborhood
when he moved in, and for most of his adult life he worked in predominantly
black institutions. He never intended to move, and held on for as long as he
could… He didn’t flee because of black people. He was not forced to start all
over at age 67 because he suddenly decided he didn’t like blacks. He left
because he was robbed, because gangs started tagging his house and garage,
because it was no longer safe to live there.
You know…
If we’re going to shame
people for such things, what does it say to black people when other black
people, especially the first black president and his family, reject them? What
the hell kind of message is this to send to black Americans, especially when
the Obamas can afford the security to live safely in any neighborhood they
choose?
And if the Obamas
wanted to live in Southern California, why choose Rancho Mirage over Ladera
Heights, the Black Beverly Hills, a predominantly black neighborhood as swank
as any in America?
Shame on Michelle and
Barack Obama. They have the money and profile to make an important statement on
this issue, but they obviously prefer to live in overwhelmingly white
neighborhoods.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC . Follow his Facebook Page here .
Diamond
Life: Michelle Obama rents out $23-million Hollywood Hills mansion for a night
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/07/diamond_life_michelle_obama_rents_out_23_million_hollywood_hills_mansion_for_a_night.html
By Monica Showalter
Apparently,
a hotel, even a luxury hotel, was not good enough.
Former
first lady Michelle Obama had to go big, renting out a $23-million Hollywood
Hills mansion for...a night. The New York Post has the pictures of
it here . Several news
accounts explained it as possibly a rental to try and buy, something most
home-buyers don't get to do. Whether she actually paid is also a big
question mark, and if so, whether she paid market value (which would have
cost more than a fancy hotel) or received her night there a
"gift," which presents its own ethics problems.
Here's
what a local CBS report said the
place was like :
The Shark House, which is located in the 9200
block of Swallow Drive, is thus named due to its open air shark aquarium. It
also has a full spa, a humidor room, movie theater and walk-in wine room.
It's on the market, currently listed for a cool
$22.9 million.
A source told TMZ the Obamas may be looking at
real estate in the Hollywood Hills area, but that was not confirmed.
If
they're in the market to buy that, they've got a lot more money than the press
is reporting. We know they're loaded. But not that
loaded. Not Louis XIV loaded, which is about the range for this
sort of place. Or is it a sweetheart deal in the works we're talking
about? Maybe they'll end up buying it for "a
dollar." Don't know yet, but neither possibility makes them
look good.
It's
all part and parcel of the Obamas' long, luxurious post-presidency,
a nonstop vacay that costs taxpayers millions. It's as though
we're financing kings now, not retired presidents. For a while
there, the Obamas were jetting around with billionaires and
staying on private islands . Then they bought that expensive Kalorama
mansion in Washington, D.C., all supposedly for the benefit of their daughter
Sasha, who was finishing high school. Surprise, surprise, it
actually seems to primarily serve as a political watch post for longtime Obama
loyalist and consigliere Valerie Jarrett. They did some audience
tours and hung out with more billionaires. There were those
lucrative Goldman Sachs speeches by the celebrity
president (which certainly weren't based on economics anyone would want to
trade on).
And
all of this has been financed by taxpayers, who pay his $207,000 pension , along with bennies
such as unlimited air travel, transition expenses, office expenses,
presidential library funds, and lifetime Secret Service detail.
Apparently,
to the Obamas, there's no reaching that " certain point " at which
"you've made enough money."
For
Michelle, just call her "Mooch." Is this really what an
ex-presidency is supposed to be like? Hitting the money
jackpot? What he makes on his own is his own business (subject to
bribery laws), but taxpayers shouldn't be financing this level
of movie-star billionaire luxe life. Maybe it's time for some
pension reform from Congress. Would be quite a thing to see that
idea presented to the House's ruling Democrats.
OBAMAnomics:
Billionaire Class Enjoys 15X the Wage Growth of American Working
Class
The billionaire class — the country’s top
0.01 percent of earners — have enjoyed more than 15 times as much wage growth
as America’s working and middle class since 1979, new wage data reveals.
Between 1979 and 2017, the wages of the bottom 90 percent — the
country’s working and lower middle class — have grown by only about 22 percent,
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) researchers find.
Compare that small wage increase over nearly four decades to the
booming wage growth of America’s top one percent, who have seen their wages
grow more than 155 percent during the same period.
The top 0.01 percent — the country’s billionaire class — saw
their wages grow by more than 343 percent in the last four decades, more
than 15 times the wage growth of the bottom 90 percent of Americans.
In 1979, America’s working class was earning on average about
$29,600 a year. Fast forward to 2017, and the same bottom 90 percent of
Americans are earning only about $6,600 more annually.
The almost four decades of wage stagnation among the country’s
working and middle class comes as the national immigration policy has allowed
for the admission of more than 1.5 million mostly low-skilled immigrants every
year.
(Public Citizen)
In the last decade, alone, the U.S. admitted ten million
legal immigrants, forcing American workers to compete against a growing
population of low-wage workers. Meanwhile, employers are able to reduce wages
and drive up their profit margins thanks to the annual low-skilled immigration
scheme.
The Washington, DC- imposed mass immigration policy
is a boon to corporate executives, Wall Street, big business, and multinational
conglomerates as every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of an
occupation’s labor force reduces Americans’ hourly wages
by 0.4 percent. Every one percent increase in the immigrant workforce reduces
Americans’ overall wages by 0.8 percent.
Mass immigration has come at the expense of America’s working
and middle class, which has suffered from poor job growth, stagnant wages, and
increased public costs to offset the importation of millions of low-skilled
foreign nationals.
Four million young Americans enter the workforce every year, but
their job opportunities are further diminished as the U.S. imports roughly two
new foreign workers for every four American workers who enter the workforce.
Even though researchers say 30 percent of the workforce could lose their jobs due to
automation by 2030, the U.S. has not stopped importing more than a million
foreign nationals every year.
For blue-collar American workers, mass immigration has not only
kept wages down but in many cases decreased wages, as Breitbart News reported . Meanwhile, the
U.S. continues importing more foreign nationals with whom working-class
Americans are forced to compete. In 2016, the U.S. brought in about 1.8 million
mostly low-skilled immigrants.
John Binder is a
reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder .
Study: Elite Zip Codes
Thrived in Obama Recovery, Rural America Left Behind
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/10/study-elite-zip-codes-thrived-in-obama-recovery-rural-america-left-behind/
4:49
Wealthy cities and elite zip codes thrived
under the slow-moving economic recovery of President Obama while rural American
communities were left behind, a study reveals.
The Economic Innovation Group research, highlighted by Axios , details the massive
economic inequality between the country’s coastal city elites and middle
America’s working class between the Great Recession in 2007 and Obama’s
economic recovery in 2016.
Between 2007 and 2016, the number of residents living in elite
zip codes grew by more than ten million, with an overwhelming faction of that
population growth being driven by mass immigration where the U.S. imports more
than 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants annually.
The booming 44.5 million immigrant populations are concentrated mostly in the
country’s major cities like Los Angeles, California, Miami Florida, and New
York City, New York. The rapidly growing U.S. population — driven by
immigration — is set to hit 404 million by 2060, a boon for
real estate developers, wealthy investors, and corporations, all of which
benefit greatly from dense populations and a flooded labor market.
The economic study found that while the population grew in
wealthy cities, America’s rural population fell by nearly 3.5 million
residents.
Likewise, by 2016, elite zip codes had a surplus of 3.6 million
jobs, which is more than the combined bottom 80 percent of American zip codes.
While it only took about five years for wealthy cities to replace the jobs lost
by the recession, it took “at risk” regions of the country a decade to recover,
and “distressed” U.S. communities are “unlikely ever to recover on current
trendlines,” the report predicts.
A map included in the research shows how rich,
coastal metropolises have boomed economically while entire portions of
middle America have been left behind as job and business gains remain
concentrated at the top of the income ladder.
Economic growth among the country’s middle-class counties and
middle-class zip codes has considerably trailed national economic growth, the
study found.
For example, between 2012 and 2016, there were 4.4 percent more
business establishments in the country as a whole. That growth was less than
two percent in the median zip code and there was close to no growth in the
median county.
The same can be said of employment growth, where U.S. employment
grew by about 9.3 percent from 2012 to 2016. In the median zip code, though,
employment grew by only 5.5 percent and in the median county, employment grew
by less than four percent.
“Nearly three in every five large counties added businesses on
net over the period, compared to only one in every five small one,” the report
concluded.
Elite zip codes added more business establishments during
Obama’s economic recovery, between 2012 and 2016, than the entire bottom 80
percent of zip codes combined. For instance, while more than 180,000 businesses
have been added to rich zip codes, the country’s bottom tier has lost more than
13,000 businesses even after the economic recovery.
The gutting of the American manufacturing base, through free
trade, has been a driving catalyst for the
collapse of the white working class and black Americans. Simultaneously, the
outsourcing of the economy has brought major wealth to corporations, tech
conglomerates, and Wall Street.
The dramatic decline of U.S. manufacturing at the hands of free
trade—where more than 3.4 million American jobs
have been lost solely due to free trade with China, not including the American
jobs lost due to agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS)—has coincided
with growing wage inequality for white and black Americans, a growing number of
single mother households, a drop in U.S. marriage rates, a general
stagnation of working and middle class wages, and specifically, increased black
American unemployment.
“So, the loss of manufacturing work since 1960 represents a
steady decline in relatively high-paying jobs for less-educated workers,”
recent research from economist Eric D. Gould has noted.
Fast-forward to the modern economy and the wage trend has been
the opposite of what it was during the peak of manufacturing in the U.S. An
Economic Policy Institute study found this year
that been 2009 and 2015, the top one percent of American families
earned about 26 times as much income as the bottom 99 percent of
Americans.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on
Twitter at @JxhnBinder .
R ecord high income in 2017 for top one percent of wage earners in US
In 2017, the top one percent of US wage earners received
their highest paychecks ever, according to a report by the Economic Policy
Institute (EPI).
Based on newly released data from the Social Security
Administration, the EPI shows that the top one percent of the population saw
their paychecks increase by 3.7 percent in 2017—a rate nearly quadruple the
bottom 90 percent of the population. The growth was driven by the top 0.1
percent, which includes many CEOs and corporate executives, whose pay increased
eight percent and averaged $2,757,000 last year.
The EPI report is only the latest exposure of the gaping
inequality between the vast majority of the population and the modern-day
aristocracy that rules over them.
The EPI shows that the bottom 90 percent of wage earners
have increased their pay by 22.2 percent between 1979 and 2017. Today, this
bottom 90 percent makes an average of just $36,182 a year, which is eaten up by
the cost of housing and the growing burden of education, health care, and
retirement.
Meanwhile, the top one percent has increased its wages by
157 percent during this same period, a rate seven times faster than the other
group. This top segment makes an average of $718,766 a year. Those in-between,
the 90th to 99th percentile, have increased their wages by 57.4 percent. They
now make an average of $152,476 a year—more than four times the bottom 90
percent.
Graph
from the Economic Policy Institute
Decades of decaying capitalism have led to this
accelerating divide. While the rich accumulate wealth with no restriction,
workers’ wages and benefits have been under increasing attack. In 1979, 90
percent of the population took in 70 percent of the nation’s income. But, by
2017, that fell to only 61 percent.
Even more, while the bottom 90 percent of the population
may take in 61 percent of the wages, large sections of the workforce today
barely pull in any income at all. For example, Social Security
Administration data found that the bottom 54 percent of wage earners in the
United States, 89.5 million people, make an average of just $15,100 a year.
This 54 percent of the population earns only 17 percent of all wages paid in
America.
However unequal, these wage inequalities
still do not fully present the divide between rich and poor. The ultra-wealthy
derive their wealth not primarily from wages, but from assets and
equities—principally from the stock market. While the bottom 90 percent of the
population made 61 percent of the wages in 2017, they owned even less, just 27
percent of the wealth (according to the World Inequality Report 2018 by
Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman).
The massive increase in the value of the stock market,
which only a small segment of the population participates in, means that the
top 10 percent of the population controls 73 percent of all wealth in the United
States. Just three men—Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates—had more wealth
than the bottom half of America combined last year.
Wages are so low in the United States
that roughly half of the population falls deeper into debt every year. A Reuters
report from July found that the pretax net income (that is, income minus
expense) of the bottom 40 percent of the population was an average of negative $11,660.
Even the middle quintile of the population, the 40th to 60th percentile, breaks
even with an average of only $2,836 a year.
As the Social Security Administration numbers show, 67.4
percent of the population made less than the average wage, $48,250 a year in
2017, a sum that is inadequate to support a family in many cities—especially,
with high housing costs, health care, education, and retirement factored in.
For the ruling class, though, workers’ wages are already
too much. The volatility of the stock market and the deep fear that the current
bull market will collapse has made politicians and businessmen anxious of any
sign of wage increases.
In August, wages in the US rose just 0.2
percent above the inflation rate, the highest in nine years. Though the
increase was tiny, it was enough to encourage the Federal Reserve to increase
the interest rate past two percent for the first time since 2008. Raising
interest rates helps to depress workers’ wages by lowering borrowing and
spending. As the Financial Times noted, stopping wage growth
was “central” to the Federal Reserve’s move.
Further analysis of the Social Security Administration data
shows that in 2017, 147,754 people reported wages of 1 million dollars or
more—roughly, the top 0.05 percent. Their combined total income of $372 billion
could pay for the US federal education budget five times over.
These wages, however large, still pale in comparison to the
money the ultra-rich acquire from the stock market. For example, share buybacks
and dividend payments, a way of funneling money to shareholders, will eclipse
$1 trillion this year.
Whatever the immediate source, the wealth of the rich
derives from the great mass of people who do the actual work. Across the United
States and around the world, workers, young people, and students have entered
into struggle this year over pay, education, health care, immigration, war and
democratic rights. This growing movement of the working class must set as its
aim confiscating the wealth and power of this tiny parasitic oligarchy.
Society’s wealth must be democratically controlled by those who produce it.
OBAMA: SERVANT
OF THE 1%
Richest one
percent controls nearly half of global wealth
The richest one percent of the world’s population now controls
48.2 percent of global wealth, up from 46 percent last year.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/10/how-barack-obama-and-his-crony.html
The
report found that the growth of global inequality has accelerated sharply since
the 2008 financial crisis, as the values of financial assets have soared while
wages have stagnated and declined.
Millionaires projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth by 2019
Households with more than a million (US) dollars in private
wealth are projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth in 2019
according to a new report by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
This large percentage, however, only includes cash, savings,
money market funds and listed securities held through managed
investments—collectively known as “private wealth.” It leaves out businesses,
residences and luxury goods, which comprise a substantial portion of the rich’s
net worth.
At the end of 2014, millionaire households
owned about 41 percent of global private wealth, according to BCG. This means
that collectively these 17 million households owned roughly $67.24 trillion in
liquid assets, or about $4 million per household.
In total, the world added $17.5 trillion of new private
wealth between 2013 and 2014. The report notes that nearly three quarters of
all these gains came from previously existing wealth. In other words, the vast
majority of money gained has been due to pre-existing assets increasing in
value—not the creation of new material things.
This trend is the result of the massive infusions of cheap
credit into the financial markets by central banks. The policy of “quantitative
easing” has led to a dramatic expansion of the stock market even while global
economic growth has slumped.
While the wealth of the rich is growing at a
breakneck pace, there is a stratification of
growth within the super wealthy,
skewed
towards the very top.
In 2014, those with over $100 million in private wealth saw
their wealth increase 11 percent in one year alone. Collectively, these
households owned $10 trillion in 2014, 6 percent of the world’s private wealth.
According to the report, “This top segment is expected to be the fastest
growing, in both the number of households and total wealth.” They are expected
to see 12 percent compound growth on their wealth in the next five years.
Those families with wealth between $20 and $100 million also
rose substantially in 2014—seeing a 34 percent increase in their wealth in
twelve short months. They now own $9 trillion. In five years they will surpass
$14 trillion according to the report.
Coming in last in the “high net worth” population are those
with between $1 million and $20 million in private wealth. These households are
expected to see their wealth grow by 7.2 percent each year, going from $49
trillion to $70.1 trillion dollars, several percentage points below the highest
bracket’s 12 percent growth rate.
The gains in private wealth of the ultra-rich stand in sharp
contrast to the experience of billions of people around the globe. While wealth
accumulation has sharply sped up for the ultra-wealthy, the vast majority of
people have not even begun to recover from the past recession.
An Oxfam report from January, for example,
shows that the bottom 99 percent of the world’s population went from having
about 56 percent of the world’s wealth in 2010 to having 52 percent of it in
2014. Meanwhile the top 1 percent saw its wealth rise from 44 to 48 percent of
the world’s wealth.
In 2014 the Russell Sage Foundation found that between 2003
and 2013, the median household net worth of those in the United States fell
from $87,992 to $56,335—a drop of 36 percent. While the rich also saw their
wealth drop during the recession, they are more than making that money back.
Between 2009 and 2012, 95 percent of all the income gains in the US went to the
top 1 percent. This is the most distorted post-recession income gain on record.
As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) has noted, in the United States “between 2007 and 2013, net wealth fell
on average 2.3 percent, but it fell ten-times more (26 percent) for those at
the bottom 20 percent of the distribution.” The 2015 report concludes that
“low-income households have not benefited at all from income growth.”
Another report by Knight Frank , looks at those
with wealth exceeding $30 million. The report notes that in 2014 these 172,850
ultra-high-net-worth individuals increased their collective wealth by $700
billion. Their total wealth now rests at $20.8 trillion.
The report also draws attention to the disconnection between
the rich and the actual economy. It states that the growth of this
ultra-wealthy population “came despite weaker-than-anticipated global economic
growth. During 2014 the IMF was forced to downgrade its forecast increase for
world output from 3.7 percent to 3.3 percent.”
OBAMA’S
CRONY CAPITALISM – A NATION RULED BY CRIMINAL WALL STREET BANKSTERS AND OBAMA
DONORS
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/05/pritzker-obama-adds-to-his-harem-of.html
GET THIS BOOK
Culture of
Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies
by Michelle Malkin
In her shocking new
book, Malkin digs deep into the records of President Obama's staff,
revealing corrupt dealings, questionable pasts, and abuses of power throughout
his administration.
PATRICK
BUCHANAN
After Obama
has completely destroyed the American economy, handed millions of jobs to
illegals and billions of dollars in welfare to illegals…. BUT WHAT COMES NEXT?
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/05/patrick-buchanan-when-obama-bankrupted.html
OBAMANOMICS: IS IT WORKING???
Millionaires
projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth by 2019
By
Gabriel Black
18 June 2015
Households with more than a million (US)
dollars in private wealth are projected to own 46 percent of global private
wealth in 2019 according to a new report by the Boston Consulting
Group (BCG).
This large percentage, however, only
includes cash, savings, money market funds and listed securities held through
managed investments—collectively known as “private wealth.” It leaves out
businesses, residences and luxury goods, which comprise a substantial portion
of the rich’s net worth.
At the end of 2014, millionaire households
owned about 41 percent of global private wealth, according to BCG. This means
that collectively these 17 million households owned roughly $67.24 trillion in
liquid assets, or about $4 million per household.
In total, the world added $17.5 trillion
of new private wealth between 2013 and 2014. The report notes that nearly three
quarters of all these gains came from previously existing wealth. In other
words, the vast majority of money gained has been due to pre-existing assets
increasing in value—not the creation of new material things.
This trend is the result of the massive
infusions of cheap credit into the financial markets by central banks. The
policy of “quantitative easing” has led to a dramatic expansion of the stock
market even while global economic growth has slumped.
While the wealth of the rich is growing at
a breakneck pace, there is a stratification of growth within the super wealthy,
skewed towards the very top.
In 2014, those with over $100 million in
private wealth saw their wealth increase 11 percent in one year alone.
Collectively, these households owned $10 trillion in 2014, 6 percent of the
world’s private wealth. According to the report, “This top segment is expected
to be the fastest growing, in both the number of households and total wealth.”
They are expected to see 12 percent compound growth on their wealth in the next
five years.
Those families with wealth between $20 and
$100 million also rose substantially in 2014—seeing a 34 percent increase in
their wealth in twelve short months. They now own $9 trillion. In five years
they will surpass $14 trillion according to the report.
Coming in last in the “high net worth”
population are those with between $1 million and $20 million in private wealth.
These households are expected to see their wealth grow by 7.2 percent each
year, going from $49 trillion to $70.1 trillion dollars, several percentage
points below the highest bracket’s 12 percent growth rate.
The gains in private wealth of the
ultra-rich stand in sharp contrast to the experience of billions of people
around the globe. While wealth accumulation has sharply sped up for the
ultra-wealthy, the vast majority of people have not even begun to recover from
the past recession.
An Oxfam report from January, for example, shows that the bottom 99 percent
of the world’s population went from having about 56 percent of the world’s
wealth in 2010 to having 52 percent of it in 2014. Meanwhile the top 1 percent
saw its wealth rise from 44 to 48 percent of the world’s wealth.
In 2014 the Russell Sage Foundation found
that between 2003 and 2013, the median household net worth of those in the
United States fell from $87,992 to $56,335—a drop of 36 percent. While the rich
also saw their wealth drop during the recession, they are more than making that
money back. Between 2009 and 2012, 95 percent of all the income gains in the US
went to the top 1 percent. This is the most distorted post-recession income
gain on record.
As the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) has noted, in the United States “between
2007 and 2013, net wealth fell on average 2.3 percent, but it fell ten-times
more (26 percent) for those at the bottom 20 percent of the distribution.” The
2015 report concludes that “low-income households have not benefited at all
from income growth.”
Another report by Knight Frank ,
looks at those with wealth exceeding $30 million. The report notes that in 2014
these 172,850 ultra-high-net-worth individuals increased their collective
wealth by $700 billion. Their total wealth now rests at $20.8 trillion.
The report also draws attention to the
disconnection between the rich and the actual economy. It states that the
growth of this ultra-wealthy population “came despite weaker-than-anticipated
global economic growth. During 2014 the IMF was forced to downgrade its
forecast increase for world output from 3.7 percent to 3.3 percent.”
INCOME PLUMMETS UNDER OBAMA AND HIS WALL STREET CRONIES
collapse of household income in
the US… STILL BILLIONS IN WELFARE HANDED TO ILLEGALS… they already get our jobs
and are voting for more!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/09/soaring-poverty-in-america-good-time-to.html
INCOME PLUMMETS UNDER OBAMA… most
jobs go to illegals.
AS HIS CRONY BANKSTERS CONTINUE TO LOOT, INCOMES PLUMMET FOR
AMERICANS (LEGALS).
GOOD TIME FOR AMNESTY FOR MILLIONS OF LOOTING MEXICANS?
MORE HERE:
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/09/and-still-democrat-party-wants-millions.html
“The yearly income of a typical US household
dropped by a
massive 12 percent, or $6,400, in
the six years between 2007 and 2013. This is
just one of the findings of the 2013 Federal
Reserve Survey of Consumer
Finances released
Thursday, which documents a sharp decline in
working class
living standards and a further
concentration of wealth in the hands of the
rich
and the super-rich.”
No comments:
Post a Comment