The politicians making it to our national elections are almost always tainted by greed, self-interest, and being that PLAYER. Our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE whether black, white, and brown citizens had a duty to HOLD THOSE NATIONAL POLS ACCOUNTABLE by keeping our local and state elections free and fair. When we allowed US ELECTIONS to be made systemically rigged and fraudulent at state and local level ----we lost the power to make THESE FDR LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES real policies protecting our 99% of US citizens and our 99% of new immigrants.
We educate as to what policies were installed by FDR and global banking pols structured just to assure all wealth our 99% of citizens gained would be LOST.
NONE OF THE POLICIES BELOW ARE REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL CAPITALISM---THEY ARE ALL RIGHT WING GOALS OF KILLING REAL FREE MARKET COMPETITION.
Installing the US FED
Installing policies tied to designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES
Tying what is called our SAVINGS and RETIREMENTS to stock market.
Creating Federal and taxation regulations sold as holding corporations accountable while structuring them to be REGRESSIVE hitting our local domestic free market small and regional businesses hardest.
Top 10 New Deal Programs of the 1930s
FDR's Signature Strategy to Combat the Great Depression
by Martin Kelly
Updated March 04, 2018
The New Deal was a sweeping package of public works projects, federal regulations, and financial system reforms enacted by the U.S. federal government in an effort to help the nation survive and recover from the Great Depression of the 1930s. The New Deal programs created jobs and provided financial support for the unemployed, the young, and the elderly, as well as adding safeguards and constraints to the banking industry and monetary system.
Mostly enacted between 1933 and 1938, during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the New Deal was implemented through legislation enacted by Congress and presidential executive orders. The programs addressed what historians call the “3 Rs” of dealing with the depression, Relief, Recovery, and Reform--relief for the poor and jobless, recovery of the economy, and reform of the nation’s financial system to safeguard against future depressions.
The Great Depression, which lasted from 1929 to 1939, was the largest and most significant economic depression to affect both the United States and all Western countries. The stock market crash on Oct. 29, 1929, is infamously known as Black Tuesday and was the worst stock market decline in the history of the United States. Heavy speculation during the rising economy of the 1920s combined with widespread buying on margin (borrowing a large percentage of the cost of an investment) were factors in the crash. It marked the beginning of the Great Depression.
To Act or Not
Herbert Hoover was president when the crash occurred, but he felt that the government should not take stringent action to deal with heavy losses by investors and the subsequent effects that rippled throughout the economy.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, and he had other ideas. He worked to create numerous federal programs through his New Deal to help those who were suffering the most from the Depression. Besides programs to directly help those affected by the Great Depression, the New Deal included legislation intended to correct the situations that led to the stock market crash of 1929. Two prominent actions were the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, created in 1934 to be a watchdog over the stock market and police dishonest practices. The SEC is one of the New Deal programs still in effect today. Here are the top 10 programs of the New Deal.
Updated by Robert Longley
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)Civil Works Administration (CWA)
Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
Federal Security Agency (FSA)
Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC)
National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA)
Public Works Administration (PWA)
Social Security Act (SSA)
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Works Progress Administration (WPA)
We want to take today to remind our US and new immigrant 99% how the latest goal of national media in creating propaganda is aimed at describing WINNERS in this economic meltdown -------as we say over and again---there are no GLOBAL 1% in the US-----there are a very few GLOBAL 2% in US. When we use the mantra GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS----we are talking about families---the family wealth of those OLD WORLD BANKING FAMILIES tied to OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS is in the trillions of dollars.
A BILL GATES or a WARREN BUFFETT with tens of billions of dollars don't even make that GLOBAL 2% status.
When national media creates articles like these giving an estimated wealth of these powerful families those totals are liquid assets when most wealth is tied to property.
Our US national media runs headlines over and over and over these days telling us who is the US 1% of citizens giving wealth as low as $400,000 salary a year to make what are 5% TO THE 1% feel they are IN THE 1% WINNER BRACKET-----when they are going under the bus.
These OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEEN families see their wealth come and go---but they are almost always those BEOWULFS tied to global banking 1% working for those current families having that power.
Can a colony created with the wealth and power of those global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS ever be FREE to be that SOVEREIGN NATION? Absolutely. It is our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE who decide how our local cities and counties fund their development----
TO FIX BALTIMORE WE HAVE PLENTY OF LOCAL REVENUE RESOURCES WITHOUT GLOBAL BANKING.
Top 10 Most Powerful Families In History
Jamie Frater February 14, 2009
A week ago I removed a list (something I very seldom do) which had caused quite a stir; it was a list of the most powerful families. This new list is designed to replace the original and to give a broader view of some of the most powerful historic families while not excluding royal houses (who dominate this list as one would expect). Let us hope this is received better than the original (which I should add, was not without its merits).
The Rothschild family (often referred to simply as the Rothschilds), is an international banking and finance dynasty of German Jewish origin that established operations across Europe, and was ennobled by the Austrian and British governments. The family’s rise to international prominence began with Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812 – pictured above), whose strategy for future success was to keep control of their businesses in family hands, allowing them to maintain full discretion about the size of their wealth and their business achievements. Mayer Rothschild successfully kept the fortune in the family with carefully arranged marriages between closely related family members. Nathan Mayer Rothschild started his London business, N. M. Rothschild and Sons in 1811 at New Court in St Swithin’s Lane, City of London, where it still trades today. In 1818, he arranged a £5 million loan to the Prussian government, and the issuing of bonds for government loans formed a mainstay of his bank’s business. He gained a position of such power in the City of London that by 1825–6 he was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a market liquidity crisis.
In the toss-up between including the Plantagenets or the Tudors, the Plantagenet’s won because much of the development of the English culture and political system (which remains to this day) arose under their rule. Under the Tudors, the Church of England was formed and some say a golden age occurred, but the significance of the Plantagenet line is far greater (and furthermore, Henry VIII was descended matrilineally from the Plantagenet family anyway). The House of Plantagenet was a royal house founded by Henry II of England, son of Geoffrey V of Anjou. The Plantagenet kings first ruled the Kingdom of England in the 12th century. In total, fifteen Plantagenet monarchs, including those belonging to cadet branches, ruled England from 1154 until 1485. A distinctive English culture and art emerged during the Plantagenet era, encouraged by some of the monarchs who were patrons of the “father of English poetry”; Geoffrey Chaucer. The Gothic architecture style was popular during the time, with buildings such as the Westminster Abbey and York Minster remodeled in that style. There was also lasting developments in the social sector, such as John I of England’s signing of the Magna Carta (pictured above). This was influential in the development of common law and constitutional law. Political institutions such as the Parliament of England and the Model Parliament originate from the Plantagenet period, as do educational institutions including the University of Cambridge and Oxford.
The Nehru-Feroz Gandhi family is an Indian political family which has been dominant in the Indian National Congress for most of India’s early independent history. Three members of the family (Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, his daughter Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi) have been Prime Minister of India, two of whom (Indira and Rajiv Gandhi) have been assassinated. A fourth member of the family, Sonia Gandhi, is currently Congress President, while her and Rajiv’s son, Rahul Gandhi, is the youngest member of the family to enter active politics when he contested and won a seat in the lower house of the Parliament of India in 2004. The Nehru-Feroz Gandhi family is not related to Indian independence leader Mohandas Gandhi. The Nehru-Gandhis are the most prominent example of the tradition of dynastic leadership in Asian democratic countries.
Genghis Khan (pictured above) was the founder, Khan (ruler) and Khagan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, the largest contiguous empire in history.
He came to power by uniting many of the nomadic tribes of northeast Asia. After founding the Mongol Empire and being proclaimed “Genghis Khan”, he started the Mongol invasions and raids of the Kara-Khitan Khanate, Caucasus, Khwarezmid Empire, Western Xia and Jin dynasties. During his life, the Mongol Empire eventually occupied a substantial portion of Central Asia. Before Genghis Khan died, he assigned Ogedei Khan as his successor and split his empire into khanates among his sons and grandsons. He died in 1227 after defeating the Tanguts. He was buried in an unmarked grave somewhere in Mongolia at a location unknown. His descendants went on to stretch the Mongol Empire across most of Eurasia by conquering and/or creating vassal states out of all of modern-day China, Korea, the Caucasus, Central Asian countries, and substantial portions of modern Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Claudia and Julius Families
These two families are combined in one item as they were two of the most important families in Ancient Rome and eventually joined together to form the Julio-Claudian Dynasty that provided the most famous emperors: Caligula, Augustus (pictured above), Claudius, Tiberius, and Nero. These five emperors ruled the Roman Empire from 27 BC to AD 68, when the last of the line, Nero, committed suicide. These five rulers were linked through marriage and adoption into the familial gens Julio and gens Claudia. Julius Caesar is sometimes inaccurately seen as its founder, although he was not an emperor and had no Claudian connections; Augustus is the more widely accepted founder. The reigns of the Julian-Claudian emperors bear some similar traits: All came to power through indirect or adopted relations. Each expanded the territory of the Roman Empire and initiated massive construction projects. They were generally loved by the common people, but were resented by the senatorial class – a sentiment reflected by ancient historians. Ancient historians describe the Julio-Claudians as self-aggrandizing, mad, sexually perverse and tyrannical.
“Zhu” was the family name of the emperors of the Ming Dynasty. The first Ming Emperor, Hongwu (Zhu Yuanzhang – pictured above) opted to use the name Ming for the dynastic name. Ming means “Brilliant”. The Ming Dynasty was the ruling dynasty of China from 1368 to 1644, following the collapse of the Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty. The Ming, “one of the greatest eras of orderly government and social stability in human history,” was the last dynasty in China ruled by ethnic Hans. Although the Ming capital Beijing fell in 1644 to a rebellion led by Li Zicheng, which was itself soon replaced by the Manchu-led Qing Dynasty (the last Chinese imperial family), regimes loyal to the Ming throne (collectively called the Southern Ming) survived until 1662. Ming rule saw the construction of a vast navy and a standing army of one million troops. There were enormous construction projects, including the restoration of the Grand Canal and the Great Wall and the establishment of the Forbidden City in Beijing during the first quarter of the 15th century. Estimates for the late-Ming population vary from 160 to 200 million. The Ming dynasty is often regarded as both a high point in Chinese civilization as well as a dynasty in which early signs of capitalism emerged.
The House of Habsburg was an important royal house of Europe and is best known as supplying all of the formally elected Holy Roman Emperors between 1452 and 1740, as well as rulers of Spain and the Austrian Empire. Originally from Switzerland, the dynasty first reigned in Austria, which they ruled for over six centuries, but a series of dynastic marriages brought Burgundy, Spain, Bohemia, Hungary and other territories into the inheritance. The dynasty is named after their seat of origin, the Habsburg Castle in the Swiss Canton of Aargau. The dynasty’s motto is “Let others wage wars, but you, happy Austria, shall marry”, which indicates the talent of the Habsburgs to have their members intermarry into other royal houses, to make alliances and inherit territory. Empress Maria Theresa (pictured above) is recognized quite notably for it and is sometimes referred to as the ‘Great-Grandmother of Europe’.
The Ptolemaic dynasty was a Hellenistic Macedonian royal family which ruled the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt for nearly 300 years, from 305 BC to 30 BC. Ptolemy, one of the seven bodyguards who served as Alexander the Great’s generals and deputies, was appointed satrap of Egypt after Alexander’s death in 323 BC. In 305 BC, he declared himself King Ptolemy I, later known as “Soter” (saviour). The Egyptians soon accepted the Ptolemies as the successors to the pharaohs of independent Egypt. Ptolemy’s family ruled Egypt until the Roman conquest of 30 BC. The most famous member of the line was the last queen, Cleopatra VII (pictured above), known for her role in the Roman political battles between Julius Caesar and Pompey, and later between Octavian and Mark Antony. Her suicide at the conquest by Rome marked the end of Ptolemaic rule in Egypt.
The Mèdici family was a powerful and influential Florentine family from the 13th to 17th century. The family had three popes (Leo X – pictured above, Clement VII, and Leo XI), numerous rulers of Florence (notably Lorenzo the Magnificent, patron of some of the most famous works of Renaissance art) and later members of the French and English royalty. Like other signore families they dominated their city’s government. They were able to bring Florence under their family’s power, allowing for an environment where art and humanism could flourish. They led the birth of the Italian Renaissance along with the other great signore families of Italy such as the Visconti and Sforza families of Milan, the Este of Ferrara, and the Gonzaga of Mantua. The Medici Bank was one of the most prosperous and most respected in Europe. There are some estimates that the Medici family were for a period of time the wealthiest family in Europe. From this base, they acquired political power initially in Florence and later in wider Italy and Europe.
The Capetian dynasty is the largest European royal house. It includes any of the direct descendants of Hugh Capet of France. King Juan Carlos of Spain and Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg are members of this family, both through the Bourbon branch of the dynasty. Over the course of the preceding centuries, Capetians spread throughout Europe, ruling every form of provincial unit from kingdoms to manors. Besides being the most numerous royal family in Europe, it also is one of the most incestuous, especially in the Spanish Monarchy. Many years have passed since the Capetian monarchs ruled a large part of Europe, however they still remain as kings, as well as other titles. Currently two Capetian monarchs still rule in Spain and Luxembourg. In addition, seven pretenders represent exiled dynastic monarchies in Brazil, France, Spain, Portugal, Parma and Two Sicilies. The current legitimate senior family member is Louis Alfonso (pictured above), the Duke of Anjou, who also holds the Legitimist claim to the French throne. Overall, dozens of branches of the Capetian dynasty still exist throughout Europe.
Here we have a national media article telling us who those US 1% are------one thing that makes our US 5% global banking players LOOK wealthy is their ties to STOCK AND BONDS. As much as our US Congressional and national leaders want to look like they are millionaires----now billionaires------that is almost all on PAPER. They are LIVING FOR TODAY 5% TO THE 1% GLOBAL BANKING FREEMASON/GREEK PLAYERS who will lose almost all of what is sold as their WINNER WEALTH.
Below we see the article tell us this wealth accumulated by massive and systemic frauds and government corruption these few decades is INCOME INEQUITY----was ROMNEY'S VULTURE CAPITALISM raiding and sending US corporations into bankruptcy so they could be enfolded into GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS' hands LEGAL?
NO, ALL OF THE FINANCIAL WHEELING AND DEALING DURING CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA WAS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL---IT DOES NOT MATTER IF A CORRUPT SET OF POLS PASSED STATUTES.
THE ECONOMIST is the most raging far-right wing global neo-liberal economics media that we know when we read it the articles are stocked with MYTH-MAKING AND PROPAGANDA that those dastardly 5% freemason/Greek players will repeat over and over as REAL NEWS.
Global banking media like WSJ, Fortune et al will always try to make these 5% players look like WINNERS. All these supposed US 1% are simply 5% LOSERS.
Who exactly are the 1%?
The very rich in America increasingly work in finance, marry each other and care passionately about politics
Jan 21st 2012 THE ECONOMIST
MITT ROMNEY is not the first multi-millionaire to seek the presidency, nor the richest. Ross Perot, the record-holder, spent some of his billions earned from computer data on losing bids in 1992 and 1996. Since then men who owe their or their family's fortunes to oil, sport, publishing, trial law, ketchup, beer and bestselling autobiographies have followed.
But Mr Romney, who earned his $200m or so as a private-equity executive buying and selling companies, is the first candidate from the world of high-octane finance. As such, he illustrates the changing complexion of America's rich. The wealthiest 1% of Americans not only get more of the pie (see chart); they are increasingly creatures of finance.
The average household income of the 1% was $1.2m in 2008, according to federal tax data. The ultra-rich skew that average upwards: admission to the 1% began at $380,000 in 2008. The Congressional Budget Office puts the cut-off lower, at $347,000 in 2007, or $252,000 after subtracting federal taxes and adding back transfers. Measured by net worth, rather than income, the top 1% started at $6.9m in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve, down 23% from 2007.
The richest 1% earn roughly half their income from wages and salaries, a quarter from self-employment and business income, and the remainder from interest, dividends, capital gains and rent. According to an analysis of tax returns by Jon Bakija of Williams College and two others, 16% of the top 1% were in medical professions and 8% were lawyers: shares that have changed little between 1979 and 2005, the latest year the authors examined (see chart). The most striking shift has been the growth of financial occupations, from just under 8% of the wealthy in 1979 to 13.9% in 2005. Their representation within the top 0.1% is even more pronounced: 18%, up from 11% in 1979.
Steve Kaplan of the University of Chicago thinks finance explains much of the rise in inequality. Updating a series developed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Mr Kaplan notes that the share of income going to the 1% reached an 80-year high of 23.5% in 2007, only to sink to 17.6% in 2009 as the financial markets deflated (see chart). The trend is even more pronounced for the top 0.1%, whose share of total income rose to 12.3% in 2007 but sank to a still disproportionate 8.1% in 2009.
Mr Kaplan and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University note that investment bankers, corporate lawyers, hedge-fund and private-equity managers have displaced corporate executives at the top of the income ladder. In 2009 the richest 25 hedge-fund investors earned more than $25 billion, roughly six times as much as all the chief executives of companies in the S&P 500 stock index combined.
Although the 1% have been gaining share in most countries, a recent OECD report shows that the trend began sooner, and has gone further, in America. Some scholars, noting that inequality has risen more in English-speaking countries, think social and political values may play a role: in mainland Europe and Japan, corporate governance, tax laws and unionisation have tended to lessen income disparities. But the relatively large role of the financial sector in English-speaking countries could also be a factor: even more of the top 1% work in finance in Britain than in America.
Membership in America's 1% is relatively stable; three-quarters of the households in the percentile one year will still be there the next. Although the proportion shrinks over time, one study found that the vast majority of the top 1% were still in the richest 10% a decade later. Kinship plays a big part: rich parents tend to produce rich kids. High levels of educational attainment and stable families help in this. According to Gallup, 72% of the 1% have a college degree, and half have a postgraduate degree; those are two to three times the proportion of the other 99%. The 1% are more likely to be married and to have children.
The rich also increasingly marry people like themselves. Mr Bakija and his co-authors found that between 1979 and 2005, the share of spouses of the 1% who had blue-collar or “miscellaneous” service-sector backgrounds declined slightly, from 7.9% to 6.4%. The share of spouses who worked in finance, property and law rose from 3.5% to 8.8%.
Politically, Gallup polls find that the 1% are more likely than the 99% to identify themselves as Republicans (33% to 28%) and less likely to be Democrats (26% to 33%). A survey of 104 wealthy families in the Chicago area, led by Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, found the budget deficit was their leading worry, followed by unemployment; for the broader population, the reverse is true. Still the rich, like most voters, have eclectic views, often supporting liberal and conservative positions simultaneously. For example, Keith Whitaker, who advises wealthy families on behalf of Wells Fargo, says many of them sympathise with the Occupy Wall Street movement. A lot of them became rich by building businesses and consider Wall Street “the place where businesses are taken apart and run by someone else”.
Bob Perkowitz embodies these contradictions. A rich entrepreneur, he now devotes much of his time to a non-profit environmental outfit. He is a lifelong Republican who objects to George Bush junior's tax cuts for the wealthy, and backed Barack Obama in 2008. Having restructured companies himself, he has no trouble with Mr Romney's private-equity work but agrees with Occupy Wall Street that corporations have too much power.
Until recently he split his time between conservative Charlotte, North Carolina, and liberal Washington, DC. His wife, Lisa Renstrom, used to manage hotels inherited from her father, a prosperous Republican businessman. Now she campaigns on climate change and backs Wealth for the Common Good, a group of rich people who back Occupy Wall Street. Her father used to give his occupation as “capitalist”. “I grew up believing that [capitalists] were making the world a better place,” she says. “The capitalism we have has left us with degraded infrastructure, threats to our health, and global warming.”
Most of the 1% prefer not to talk about their good fortune. As the New York Times recently observed in an article on the 1%, “Some envisioned waking up to protesters on the lawn; others feared audits by the IRS or other punitive government action.”
But Mr Perkowitz and Ms Renstrom are utterly typical of the 1% in that they are far more politically engaged than the average 99-percenters. Nearly all the rich people surveyed by Northwestern vote, 68% make campaign contributions, nearly half had contacted a member of Congress and a fifth had solicited contributions on behalf of a candidate. A good chunk of those calls were meant to help their businesses. But many were motivated by the common good, defined in as many different ways as the sources of their wealth.
This article created by WORLD BANK and global banking with all kinds of nice colorful graphs has a goal of making it appear that our ASIAN 99% are MIDDLE-CLASS WINNERS for example-----when as we discussed the definition of MIDDLE-CLASS in overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES is nothing like the definition for MIDDLE-CLASS in US and Europe. The MIDDLE-CLASS in Asia are those $30-70 a day white collar professionals maybe bringing home $500 a month. $500 a month in US is not even LIVING WAGE POVERTY LINE.
So, this article was written just to make our Asian 99% think they have made it to an AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS and to make our US MIDDLE-CLASS feel they cannot continue to be that ECONOMIC FUEL OF CONSUMPTION that fuels a US domestic economy.
The Asian global 1% are some of the lowest in wealth assets because all the wealth was earned in FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES to which they HOSTED----they did not OWN. Global banking 1% seem to want to myth-make by making it appear those ASIAN GLOBAL 1% HOSTS won more than they did.
Now that multi-national corporations are leaving CHINESE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and the Chinese global 1% are building their own ----using their natural resources for their own global corporations---they may indeed rise in ranking as global 1%. The Asian citizens we see traveling for work and pleasure are almost all global 2% ----not MIDDLE-CLASS.
What most of our 99% of Asian citizens being made EX-PAT in coming to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES do not know ---thinking they are coming for an US quality of life---is that they will remain trapped in that ASIAN enslaving poverty.
The #1 goal of these kinds of articles creating FAKE ideas of global wealth is ---making our US 99% of citizens think Chinese Foreign Economic Zone jobs offer a US MIDDLE-CLASS wage to promote our US 99% to become those EX-PATS.
'One may then wonder if the policies that are credited for creating the new “middle class” in China, Vietnam, Thailand, and increasingly in India might not at the same time be “impoverishing” the middle classes in the rich world'
Why the Global 1% and the Asian Middle Class Have Gained the Most from Globalization
May 13, 2016
It is by now well-known that the period from the mid-1980s to today has been the period of the greatest reshuffle of personal incomes since the Industrial Revolution. It’s also the first time that global inequality has declined in the past two hundred years. The “winners” were the middle and upper classes of the relatively poor Asian countries and the global top 1%. The (relative) “losers” were the people in the lower and middle parts of rich countries’ income distributions, according to detailed household surveys data from more than 100 countries between 1988 and 2008, put together and analyzed by Christoph Lakner and myself, as well as my book Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, which includes updated information to 2011.
The chart above, the Global Incidence Curve, shows the world’s population along the horizontal axis, ranked from the poorest to the richest percentile; real income gains between 1988 and 2008 (adjusted for countries’ price levels) are shown on the vertical axis.
The expansion of incomes around the median of the global income distribution was so overwhelming that it ensured global inequality’s decline — despite the real income growth of the top 1% and rising national inequalities in many countries. Real incomes more than doubled between 1988 and 2011 (though the extension to 2011 is not shown in this chart), a shift that involved large swaths of people (almost a third of the world population, most of them from Asia). And although our data for the past are quite tentative and in some cases not much better than guesses, it is still the first time since 1820 that global inequality is deemed to have gone down, from approximately 69 Gini points to around 64. (On the Gini scale, 100 would be complete inequality while 0 would be complete equality).
The chart can be (and was) recast in many other ways, from using market exchange rates instead of exchange rates adjusted for purchasing power parity, to calculating it over the percentiles fixed at the positions they had at the initial period (1988), but whatever adjustment one does, the essential features –the supine S shape—with the peak around the global median and the trough around the 80th -90th global percentile, remain. It is precisely the growth in the middle, fueled by the resurgent Asia, and the quasi-stagnation of incomes around the 80-90th percentile of the global income distribution where Western middle classes are, that have attracted most attention. They lead to an obvious question: does the growth of the Asian (or more generally global) middle class occur on the back of income stagnation of the Western middle classes? Or at least, are the two somehow related? The follow-up question: how long can it last?
In this context it is important to make two points. First, while we cannot ever fully convincingly establish causality between the two developments (because we are dealing with multifaceted processes that are way too complicated for that), the coincidence of the two developments will lead, and has led, many people to make that conclusion. But coincidence in time is not enough.
Second, there is also a plausible narrative that the roles played by imports from Asia, as well as by offshoring and foreign outsourcing, link the two developments. One may then wonder if the policies that are credited for creating the new “middle class” in China, Vietnam, Thailand, and increasingly in India might not at the same time be “impoverishing” the middle classes in the rich world. If this is the case, we ought to get used to the apparently paradoxical situation that decreasing global inequality will coexist (or may be responsible) for rising national inequalities in the rich countries.
If we then visualize the world over the next 30-50 years, in which other, even poorer countries, become the “new Chinas,” the stagnation of middle-class incomes in the rich countries may continue. Sure, there would be unavoidable, difficult twists and turns in that scenario. For example, in a couple of decades China could join the rich world fully, and its then-higher wages would no longer be a “threat” to rich countries’ workers. The deindustrialization of the West and the North might have by then progressed so far that the numbers of workers affected by the new competition from the poor parts of Asia and Africa may be much fewer and thus politically less salient.
But the essential tradeoff may still remain: are increasing national inequalities the “price” we (the world) pay for decreasing global inequality and poverty? Is one “good” thing linked to another “bad” thing? This is a particularly pertinent question because peoples’ income comparators (the proverbial Joneses) are mostly people from their own country, rather than any random person in the world. Thus, the positive developments reflected in lower global inequality may not be something—however happy we may be that they are taking place—that matters much, politically speaking.
In a recent, unpublished paper, John E. Roemer, a political scientist at Yale University, and I propose a simple model that attempts to take into account the fact that people care about both their absolute income level as well as their relative positions in national income distributions — not global ones. The results are revealing. When we assume that people care only about their incomes, as one does in usual calculations of global inequality or as one does in a cosmopolitan view of the world (where citizenship is ignored), global inequality indeed decreases as we have described above. But when we introduce some concern with national inequality, the decline becomes less significant. When the concern is equally shared between one’s absolute income and one’s relative national position, the decline in global inequality becomes an increase.
The intuition behind this result is easy to grasp. In most countries, and especially in the big ones like China, India, the United States, and Russia, national inequalities have risen. So if people are more focused on national inequality, their concerns about what is happening at home will dominate the “objective” reduction of inequality across the globe.
This may be politically a more meaningful way to look at global inequality, and it leads to a somber conclusion. Even if globalization were to be associated with an absolute real income improvement for all, or almost all, and reduced global inequality, if it is also associated with rising national inequalities, the unhappiness stemming from the latter may dominate. Globalization may be “felt” to produce a more unequal world, even if it objectively does not. Then the very facts that are globally hopeful and reassuring may have domestic consequences that are the very opposite.
Branko Milanovic is Lead Economist in the World Bank research group and a visiting professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. His most recent book is Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization.
Who constitutes the 1% if you just look at the U.S.? Not surprisingly, it takes a massively higher income to crack the top percentile of wage earners: you’d have to make $450,000 in adjusted gross income (AGI) to make the cut'.
We talk about a US 1% BLACK BOULE-----as this article speaks to that same definition of US 1% whether black, white, or brown citizens.
CRACKING THE TOP 1% OF INCOME EARNERS IS NOT AS HARD AS YOU MIGHT THINK-----OH, REALLY?????
We would expect a media outlet tied to WALL STREET STOCK INVESTMENT to bring lots of myth-making. Investopedia does good job in explaining investment terms while being great big global banking propagandists.
If any US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE believe a mere $400,000 or even $1 million earning a year places someone in the global 1% ---or the global 2% ----
WAKE UP----YOU ARE THAT 5% GOING UNDER THE BUS.
So, while our US 99% may understand this myth-making----to global 99% of citizens coming to us seeking jobs that pay less than this ----they still think they are 1% WINNERS. These articles are written to recruit global 99% professional white collar workers to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES not knowing MOVING FORWARD will see even those wages disappear.
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals widened the FREDDIE AND FANNIE FEDERAL HOUSING AGENCY frauds to include home loans up to $600,000 just to make those 5% players feel they were in that 1%. Of course those mortgage loan frauds handed to professional unqualified citizens as PAY-TO-PLAY for ROBBER BARON sacking and looting our our US treasuries.
$32,000 a year is the US LIVING WAGE cutoff to being POVERTY.
- 30,250 Euros
- 2 million Indian rupees, or
- 223,000 Chinese yuan
Are You in the Top One Percent of the World?
By Daniel Kurt | Updated May 14, 2018 — 6:00 AM EDT
The growth of income inequality has long been a hot topic around the globe, but it wasn't until the “Occupy” movement that the amount of wealth concentrated in the top 1% of society received so much attention.
Indeed, it's an incredibly powerful club. According to Oxfam, a leading poverty-fighting organization, eight men own as much wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest in the world, and one in ten people survive on less than $2 per day. Still, the top 1% consists of a lot more than just eight people.
This raises an interesting question: who exactly are the 1%? The surprising answer: if you’re an American, you don’t have to even be close to being uber-rich to make the list.
Ranking by Income
According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 a year will allow you to make the cut. $32,400 amounts to roughly:
- 30,250 Euros
- 2 million Indian rupees, or
- 223,000 Chinese yuan
Ranking by Wealth
The threshold is significantly higher if you look at the top percentile by wealth instead of income. To reach that status, you’d have to possess $770,000 in net worth, which includes everything from the equity in your home to the value of your investments. That’s equal to roughly:
- 720,000 Euros
- 49.8 million Indian rupees or
- 5.3 million Chinese yuan
There are a number of reasons for this disparity. One is that U.S. consumers tend to rely on credit more than their counterparts in, say, Europe. Credit card debt diminishes net wealth. The typical U.S. household carries a whopping $134,643 in debt, according to the most recent Census Bureau data.
Even so, many middle-class Americans who have spent years paying down their mortgages and saving for retirement belong to the upper echelon of the world's wealthy.
Pervasiveness of Poverty
The bar to enter the top 1% wouldn't be this low were it not for the extreme poverty that so much of the globe endures. For example, an adult in India has a median wealth of $608 in total wealth, according to a report by Credit Suisse. The average wealth of adults in Africa is even lower at just $411.
Compare that to the wealth of $49,460 for the average adult living in North America and $11,319 for Europeans. Now, the median wealth represents what most people have, the average will be much higher especially in countries where assets are so skewed toward the ultra-rich, like the United States. The average wealth of the U.S. wealthy is $344,692 per adult – this shows how much the few on top have, not just in the U.S., but globally.
Making 1% Ranks in U.S.Who constitutes the 1% if you just look at the U.S.? Not surprisingly, it takes a massively higher income to crack the top percentile of wage earners: you’d have to make $450,000 in adjusted gross income (AGI) to make the cut.
And to rank among the highest 1% of Americans by wealth? That requires net assets of more than $7 million, based on the latest Federal Reserve figures.
The Bottom Line
The term “top 1%” of global income may sound like an exclusive club, but it’s one to which millions of Americans belong. It’s a reminder of just how prosperous developed countries are compared to the vast majority of other people who share our planet.
OH, REALLY???? MILLIONS OF AMERICANS?
As we educate often---the term SANCTUARY CITY SANCTUARY STATE----is simply the same policies tied to being designated FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES except OBAMA added yet another layer of FAKE left social progressive to how US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES operate with DACA-----and as we discussed DACA is almost all about allowing global 1% and their 2% fill our US Federal, state, and local government offices.
While global banking 1% media inside US and overseas sell the idea that everyone from teachers to those earning $400,000--600,000 are 1% WINNERS----they are MOVING FORWARD all those laws in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES that will make US 99% and our 99% global labor pool be trapped in those third world earnings of $3-6 a day---$30-60 a day for white collar professionals and global banking 1% in US will call that $30-60 a day MIDDLE-CLASS.
READING ALL THESE HEADLINES OVER TRUMP VS SANCTUARY CITIES ----WE SEE NOTHING HAVING TO DO WITH REAL INFORMATION.....IT'S ALL THEATER.
To save our US quality of life standards for both US 99% and our 99% of new immigrants ----we must get rid of these FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE/SANCTUARY CITY designations.
How sanctuary cities work, and how Trump’s blocked executive order could have affected them
By Darla Cameron
Published Jan. 18, 2017 Updated Nov. 21, 2017
President Trump released an executive order on his fifth day in office to support immigration enforcement and punish local governments that don’t comply with federal authorities, but the order was blocked by a federal judge in November. Here’s how these policies work.
In some so-called “sanctuary cities,” officials refuse to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation. Because jails are typically run by counties, rather than cities, county policies can matter more to immigrants.
Federal officials must rely on local police to help enforce federal immigration laws, but the law doesn't require local authorities to detain illegal immigrants just because their federal counterparts make a request. In fact, federal courts across the country have found complying with the requests is voluntary.
“It’s a county’s policy around assistance with deportations that gauges how much at risk any immigrant is in terms of being filtered into this pipeline that Trump and company have promised,” said Kemi Bello, communications director at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
Trump’s executive order attempts to change this pipeline by directing federal immigration agents to target a broader group of immigrants for deportation. Previously, crime-based grounds for removal required a conviction. The order calls for the removal of those who “have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense” or pose a risk to public safety in the judgement of an immigration officer.
“It’s going to target more individuals who are undocumented who have had any sort of interaction with local law enforcement at all, including just an arrest,” said Phil Torrey, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who specializes in criminal and immigration law.
These discrepancies can lead to confusion when neighboring counties — or cities within the same county — have different policies.
“That’s why immigration is a federal responsibility. You cannot have 3,000 different policies, it’s chaos,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates reducing immigration levels.
Police and politicians in these areas say that honoring ICE detainer requirements could scare people away — they don’t want undocumented people to be afraid to contact the police if they need help. “They are relying on folks to not be afraid of the police to report crimes,” Torrey said. He also said Trump’s executive order will further discourage immigrants from contacting local police.
Discrimination is also a concern, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. “We find this involvement of local jails really troubling — it really undermines the idea that the criminal legal system protects everyone when a police stop is a gateway to deportation,” Lena Graber, center attorney, said.
How the promise could play out
Experts are skeptical that Trump could fulfill his campaign pledge to eliminate all federal funding from sanctuary localities, citing a Supreme Court ruling that funding can only be withheld if it is relevant “to the federal interest in the project.” Cities, counties and states with sanctuary policies get federal money from dozens of different departments, most of which are not related to immigration.
Trump’s Jan. 25 executive order asked the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withhold “federal funds, except as mandated by law” from sanctuary cities. This unclear wording that puzzled elected officials and municipal attorneys. Homeland Security funds could include money allocated to cities for counterterrorism.
Law enforcement grants administered to sanctuary jurisdictions by the Justice Department were already a target under the Obama administration. In May, the department investigated grant recipients based on potential violations of a federal statute that requires local agencies to share information on inmates with the federal government. Trump’s executive order also specifically mentioned this law, but as it stands, the law does not address detention requests. Torrey said local departments are in compliance if they keep the lines of communication open, whether or not they honor detention requests.
These grants make up a relatively small part of the federal budget and are not a substantial source of revenue for larger cities. Federal funds made up 10 percent of New York City’s $80.5 billion budget in 2015, and $60 million in justice grants is just .75 percent of the city’s grant revenue.
In 2015, the House passed a bill to prevent sanctuary cities from receiving one federal grant directly related to immigration. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program reimburses part of the cost of housing inmates during the second phase of deportation proceedings. The grants do not reimburse jails for holding inmates on detainer requests — that’s on their own dime, according to a report by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
But a Washington Post analysis found that many counties with sanctuary policies get little or no money from this program. The Department of Justice paid $165 million for the grants last year, with $18 million going to jurisdictions with policies of not cooperating with ICE.
Cutting funding isn’t the only way for the Trump administration to get places with sanctuary policies to help with deportation. Vaughan said another option is seeking an injunction in federal court to block specific policies, especially in jurisdictions that “will not cooperate in any way with ICE.” She said the worst offenders are Cook County, Ill., (home to Chicago), King County, Wash., (Seattle), and three counties around San Francisco.
These and other cities and counties have sanctuary policies that go beyond rejecting detainer requests. Some jurisdictions instruct police to not ask about immigration status; offer municipal identification cards to illegal immigrants; or offer interpreters in city offices. D.C. recently set up a legal defense fund for illegal immigrants. Deportation proceedings are held in civil court instead of criminal court, so defendants don’t have access to a public defender.
“I’m curious to see exactly what he does in terms of this defunding of sanctuary cities because it doesn’t make sense from a legal standpoint or a political standpoint,” Torrey said.
Trump’s order also asked DHS to identify localities that don’t comply with detention requests, and, once per week, to publish a “comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens.”
And lastly for now on REAL INFORMATION on wealth public policy------if our 99% WE THE PEOPLE both US and global citizens do not STOP MOVING FORWARD goals of planetary mining colonization which is sucking every dollar from our CIVIL SOCIETIES ----the reason we are being taken BACK TO DARK AGES-----all this worthless SCIENCE FOR SCIENCE SAKE driven only by the never-ending need to be the richest and most powerful SOCIOPATH------Below we see the national media headlines as that global 1% not satisfied with being MILLIONAIRES----had to be BILLIONAIRES---NOW they must be TRILLIONAIRES. Meanwhile, all of our modern CIVIL SOCIETY will be dismantled, our MOTHER EARTH devastated, all our NATURAL RESOURCES consumed for meaningless inventions and products needed to develop the technology to build these planetary mining slave colonies.
WE ARE DEALING WITH A SHIP OF FOOLS-----PLEASE STOP FOLLOWING THESE PIED PIPERS. DO NOT LISTEN TO 5% GLOBAL BANKING PLAYERS SAYING IT IS TOO LATE---
Space mining will produce world's first trillionaire — RT...
Apr 22, 2018 ... The next trillion-dollar industry will be in the mining sector, and the ... That could be a thing of the past, once space becomes our backyard,” Tyson said. ... suggested an asteroid-grabbing spacecraft could cost $2.6 billion,” it ...
The World's First Trillionaire Will Be A Space Miner | Zero Hedge
Apr 19, 2018 ... The World's First Trillionaire Will Be A Space Miner ..... Based on the same garbage 'digital' assets that many multi-billionaires own. Smoke and ...
The First Trillionaires Will Make Their Fortunes in Space | Big...
While the idea of mining space for resources is not a new one, we are closer than ... As NASA is set to retire its space shuttle fleet and get out of the business of ... to take one billion dollars and twenty thousand people to get a space shuttle into ...
Asteroid mining will make the world's first trillionaire -...
Apr 25, 2018 ... HAVE you ever wanted to become the world's first trillionaire, but have been uncertain ... Goldman predicts the world's first trillionaire will mine asteroids ... has suggested an asteroid-grabbing spacecraft could cost $2.6 billion.
Asteroid mining will produce the world's first trillionaire,...
Apr 23, 2018 ... That's the prediction of Goldman Sachs, who sees space mining as the next ... Earth, but the world's first trillionaire is going to make their fortune in space. ... way for asteroid mining in the anticipation of it becoming a viable business. ... has suggested an asteroid-grabbing spacecraft could cost $2.6 billion.”.
Space mining asteroids to produce world's first TRILLIONAIRE ...
Apr 22, 2018 ... SPACE mining priceless asteroids is set to produce the world's first trillionaire, ... That could be a thing of the past, once space becomes our backyard.” ... Jeff Bezos's $106 billion net worth makes him the world's richest man ...
Space mining will produce world's first trillionaire - TechSource...
Apr 22, 2018 ... Space mining will produce world's first trillionaire ... dollars each and Caltech has suggested an asteroid-grabbing spacecraft could cost $2.6 billion. ... banking behemoth anticipates mining to become a trillion-dollar industry.
Who is likely to become the world's first trillionaire? - Quora
Which means he is 902 billion dollars short of being a trillionaire. He is 53 ... that is capable of doing asteroid mining is most likely to be World's first Trillionaire.
The World's First Trillionaire Will Be The One Who Harnesses ...
Apr 23, 2018 ... Space mining is the next trillion-dollar industry, and it will give rise to the world's first trillionaire, said Goldman Sachs. The renowned investment ...
What Industries Will Produce The First Trillionaires? | Future...
Nov 24, 2014 ... John D. Rockefeller was the world's first billionaire. ... Thinking Through the Path to becoming a Trillionaire ... Asteroid Mining – When the European Space Agency's Rosetta spacecraft and Philae lander made it to the surface ...