A weak middle class is not good for our future. And a poor bottom 20% is a shame in a country with total wealth of $54 Trillion! But who is looking at the national interest?
Thanks for this very clear and lucid graphics video.
Posted by: Tasnim Raza | Mar 6, 2013 8:54:44 AM
I stopped watching after the forst few seconds when the voice over said something about "how wealth was distributed".
Wealth is not "distributed". It is created. Words matter.
Posted by: Sundar | Mar 6, 2013 9:24:21 AM
Sundar,
As long as we are picking at words consider this. "Distributed" refers the location of the money. The idea that 1% of Americans created 40% of the wealth in this country like some collection of wizards, is ridiculous. If they didn't create it all, it had to come from somewhere. Words matter.
Posted by: Alex | Mar 6, 2013 11:57:59 AM
This is a really great video - eye opening, jolting, stupefying.
It's important to distinguish between wealth and income. They do not mean the same thing.
Wealth, sometimes called "net worth" is the total of all assets minus all debts and liabilities.
Income, on the other hand, is a revenue stream of other source of NEW or additional POTENTIAL wealth -- after the necessities of life are subtracted.
Last week I heard the shocking (but believable) statistic that about a fourth of the population has ZERO wealth (assets minus debts). That would include newly graduated professionals, for example, who might expect to earn six-figure INCOMES but are also saddled with student loans, credit card debt, auto and mortgage payments, etc. (Life insurance might be counted as an asset, but only if the beneficiary is dead, so that drops him or her from the pool of statistics, no?)
Income tax is levied on twelve months of earnings minus whatever deductions are excluded (tax-advantaged retirement plans, for example,which are aimed at future wealth accumulation). But income tax leaves WEALTH unmolested.
Property taxes are another matter. Those (usually local) taxes are, like ad velorem taxes on autos or other assets, a tax on possible wealth.
Discussing the DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH then is very different from discussing income disparities. The shocking statistic is that the lions share of potential NEW wealth is being channeled to the very top of the population that is already wealthy by any measure.
"The idea that 1% of Americans created 40% of the wealth in this country like some collection of wizards, is ridiculous."
I don't really know about the numbers you quote, but even assuming they are right: Why is it ridiculous?
Would it be ridiculous if it were 30% instead? 20%?
Just curious about why you feel this to be self evidently ridiculous...
Posted by: Sundar | Mar 7, 2013 6:40:11 AM
Wealth is not "distributed". It is created. Words matter.
Sundar, I don't understand how this can be a point about words or language. If you want to say 'redistribution is wrong' that's a view I understand but disagree with, but fine that's what discussion is for. How do you get to the idea that someone talking about distribution from a different moral perspective from you is being inattentive to word meanings or using language carelessly? Surely whether or when or how or how much wealth is distributed or redistributed is a fact about the society you live in...
Posted by: prasad | Mar 7, 2013 6:52:50 AM
The "is" in 'wealth is created' sounds to my ears rather like that in 'marriage is between a man and a woman.' In both cases there's a curious drawing of power from word choice to imply that some particular matter of interest is an analytic fact and not a social one (still less one that's up for negotiation) Notice how much less decisive the same statements rephrased using 'should be' sound. "Is" seems to have this weird incantatory power...
Posted by: prasad | Mar 7, 2013 7:06:13 AM
I hate to be pedantic, but wealth is not the same as value. Wealth is a reflection of value, but it may survive even when the value has disappeared. All services fall into this category, from ice sculpture and cake decorating to surgery and engineering design. When the creator of wealth clocks out and goes home, that value has been converted to revenue although the service vanished. In any case the creator of wealth/value must repeat whatever he does to generate more or risk going hungry, whether he is a surgeon or a cake decorator.
Not all wealth takes the form of money. Real estate, fine art and other durable investments are non-monetary ways to preserve wealth. But no matter how it is preserved it is evaluated in terms of money.
In other words, value generates "wealth" which then may be returned to the creator, in whole or in part (fees, wages, commissions, kickbacks, retained earnings, etc.) but wealth -- whether spent, stolen, lost, pissed away, transferred or purchased -- is the subject of this video.
As for the "distribution" part, my earlier point, which I clearly failed to make plain, was that income IS subject to distribution (or assignment, if you prefer) and that source of wealth has been disproportionately distributed, as the video clearly illustrates, to the very top of the already wealthy end of the population.
Sundar —speaking of which, that's a convenient bit a semantic jiggering.
Something can be both created and distributed, and usually is. The argument tips on who and what was involved in the creation (was responsible for it) and who has the power to distrubute it in their favor regardless.
Your tone indicates you've already decided on the resolution of that argument or that there really is no argument as far as you're concerned concerned.
Posted by: Jim | Mar 7, 2013 1:19:18 PM
For a more in-depth look at this research and topic, I highly recommend this fantastic Christopher Lydon interview with economist Dan Ariely:
Pretty bit of graph making, but a good example of reductive numerophilia masquerading as thought.
The conclusion is what? We should hate the rich 32 times more than we do now? Reality is worse than we think? Oversimplification can lead to change? Everything that's really interesting about economics is purged. E. g., 3 percent of the US population is in prison. Is anything said here we really don't know? Is real wealth distinguished from paper wealth? And so on. There is a correlation between virality and emptiness.
"I couldn't tear myself
away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on
this superb site."—Steven
Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.
"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard
Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.
"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.
Comments
A weak middle class is not good for our future. And a poor bottom 20% is a shame in a country with total wealth of $54 Trillion! But who is looking at the national interest?
Thanks for this very clear and lucid graphics video.
Posted by: Tasnim Raza | Mar 6, 2013 8:54:44 AM
I stopped watching after the forst few seconds when the voice over said something about "how wealth was distributed".
Wealth is not "distributed". It is created. Words matter.
Posted by: Sundar | Mar 6, 2013 9:24:21 AM
Sundar,
As long as we are picking at words consider this. "Distributed" refers the location of the money. The idea that 1% of Americans created 40% of the wealth in this country like some collection of wizards, is ridiculous. If they didn't create it all, it had to come from somewhere. Words matter.
Posted by: Alex | Mar 6, 2013 11:57:59 AM
This is a really great video - eye opening, jolting, stupefying.
Posted by: Deniz | Mar 6, 2013 4:15:40 PM
It's important to distinguish between wealth and income. They do not mean the same thing.
Wealth, sometimes called "net worth" is the total of all assets minus all debts and liabilities.
Income, on the other hand, is a revenue stream of other source of NEW or additional POTENTIAL wealth -- after the necessities of life are subtracted.
Last week I heard the shocking (but believable) statistic that about a fourth of the population has ZERO wealth (assets minus debts). That would include newly graduated professionals, for example, who might expect to earn six-figure INCOMES but are also saddled with student loans, credit card debt, auto and mortgage payments, etc. (Life insurance might be counted as an asset, but only if the beneficiary is dead, so that drops him or her from the pool of statistics, no?)
Income tax is levied on twelve months of earnings minus whatever deductions are excluded (tax-advantaged retirement plans, for example,which are aimed at future wealth accumulation). But income tax leaves WEALTH unmolested.
Property taxes are another matter. Those (usually local) taxes are, like ad velorem taxes on autos or other assets, a tax on possible wealth.
Discussing the DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH then is very different from discussing income disparities. The shocking statistic is that the lions share of potential NEW wealth is being channeled to the very top of the population that is already wealthy by any measure.
Posted by: John Ballard | Mar 6, 2013 10:54:05 PM
"The idea that 1% of Americans created 40% of the wealth in this country like some collection of wizards, is ridiculous."
I don't really know about the numbers you quote, but even assuming they are right: Why is it ridiculous?
Would it be ridiculous if it were 30% instead? 20%?
Just curious about why you feel this to be self evidently ridiculous...
Posted by: Sundar | Mar 7, 2013 6:40:11 AM
Wealth is not "distributed". It is created. Words matter.
Sundar, I don't understand how this can be a point about words or language. If you want to say 'redistribution is wrong' that's a view I understand but disagree with, but fine that's what discussion is for. How do you get to the idea that someone talking about distribution from a different moral perspective from you is being inattentive to word meanings or using language carelessly? Surely whether or when or how or how much wealth is distributed or redistributed is a fact about the society you live in...
Posted by: prasad | Mar 7, 2013 6:52:50 AM
The "is" in 'wealth is created' sounds to my ears rather like that in 'marriage is between a man and a woman.' In both cases there's a curious drawing of power from word choice to imply that some particular matter of interest is an analytic fact and not a social one (still less one that's up for negotiation) Notice how much less decisive the same statements rephrased using 'should be' sound. "Is" seems to have this weird incantatory power...
Posted by: prasad | Mar 7, 2013 7:06:13 AM
I hate to be pedantic, but wealth is not the same as value. Wealth is a reflection of value, but it may survive even when the value has disappeared. All services fall into this category, from ice sculpture and cake decorating to surgery and engineering design. When the creator of wealth clocks out and goes home, that value has been converted to revenue although the service vanished. In any case the creator of wealth/value must repeat whatever he does to generate more or risk going hungry, whether he is a surgeon or a cake decorator.
Not all wealth takes the form of money. Real estate, fine art and other durable investments are non-monetary ways to preserve wealth. But no matter how it is preserved it is evaluated in terms of money.
In other words, value generates "wealth" which then may be returned to the creator, in whole or in part (fees, wages, commissions, kickbacks, retained earnings, etc.) but wealth -- whether spent, stolen, lost, pissed away, transferred or purchased -- is the subject of this video.
As for the "distribution" part, my earlier point, which I clearly failed to make plain, was that income IS subject to distribution (or assignment, if you prefer) and that source of wealth has been disproportionately distributed, as the video clearly illustrates, to the very top of the already wealthy end of the population.
Posted by: John Ballard | Mar 7, 2013 12:50:38 PM
Here is an interesting link showing the history of how long it took for this video to become viral.
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2013/03/one-of-its-anti-growth-crowd-got-about.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+espeak+%28EconoSpeak%29
Posted by: John Ballard | Mar 7, 2013 12:59:11 PM
Sundar —speaking of which, that's a convenient bit a semantic jiggering.
Something can be both created and distributed, and usually is. The argument tips on who and what was involved in the creation (was responsible for it) and who has the power to distrubute it in their favor regardless.
Your tone indicates you've already decided on the resolution of that argument or that there really is no argument as far as you're concerned concerned.
Posted by: Jim | Mar 7, 2013 1:19:18 PM
For a more in-depth look at this research and topic, I highly recommend this fantastic Christopher Lydon interview with economist Dan Ariely:
http://www.radioopensource.org/dan-ariely-on-the-irrationality-of-american-inequality/
Posted by: Kris K. | Mar 8, 2013 5:02:07 PM
Pretty bit of graph making, but a good example of reductive numerophilia masquerading as thought.
The conclusion is what? We should hate the rich 32 times more than we do now? Reality is worse than we think? Oversimplification can lead to change? Everything that's really interesting about economics is purged. E. g., 3 percent of the US population is in prison. Is anything said here we really don't know? Is real wealth distinguished from paper wealth? And so on. There is a correlation between virality and emptiness.
Posted by: Mark Shulgasser | Mar 8, 2013 11:06:37 PM
Post a comment