Just 400 Americans Have More Wealth Than Half Of All Americans Combined - Polidicks

[Quote=Politifact]Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore so admired the daily demonstrations against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker that he traveled from New York to Madison for one on March 5, 2011. The liberal firebrand opened his speech by heaping praise on those fighting the Republican governor’s efforts to take collective bargaining powers from state and local government employees. But he put more firepower into bashing the nation’s rich. "Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined," Moore avowed to tens of thousands of protesters. "Let me say that again. And please, someone in the mainstream media, just repeat this fact once; we’re not greedy, we’ll be happy to hear it just once. "Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks -- most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined." OK, we’ve repeated Moore’s declaration (including the reference to Hosni Mubarak, the former Egyptian president). Now let’s see if what he asserts -- that 400 Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined" -- is true. Moore has made other staggering claims about the gap between the nation’s rich and poor. In Capitalism: A Love Story, his 2009 documentary, Moore said "the richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined." He was awarded a Mostly True by our colleagues at PolitiFact National for that claim. For his Madison speech, Moore posted a version of the text on his website. It included a link to back up his statement about the 400 wealthiest Americans. The link was to a blog post by Dave Johnson, a fellow at the Commonweal Institute, a California organization that says it promotes a progressive agenda. Johnson wrote that in 2007, the combined net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans, as measured by Forbes magazine, was $1.5 trillion; and the combined net worth of the poorer 50 percent of American households was $1.6 trillion. Aside from using slightly different terminology than Moore did, Johnson’s numbers present two problems: They’re four years old. And they indicate that the poorer 50 percent of American households had a higher net worth than the 400 richest Americans. That’s the opposite of what Moore said in Madison. We were referred to another item on Moore’s website that was posted two days after the Madison speech. It cites more recent figures, for 2009. So, let’s start again. In that item, Moore correctly quoted Forbes, which said in a September 2009 article that the net worth of the nation’s 400 wealthiest Americans was $1.27 trillion. Forbes generates its list annually, using interviews, financial documents and other methods to tally their figures. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, with an estimated net worth of $50 billion, topped the 2009 list for the 16th consecutive year The second part of Moore’s claim -- that the net worth of half of all Americans is less than that of the Forbes 400 -- is more complicated. Moore cited a December 2010 Federal Reserve Board report that said the net worth for all U.S. households was $53.1 trillion in September 2009. That was the same month Forbes released its top 400 list. That’s a starting point -- $53.1 trillion is the net worth for everybody. Moore also cited a March 2010 "working paper" by Edward Wolff, an economist at New York University and Bard College. Wolff was a key source in Moore’s claim that was rated Mostly True by PolitiFact National. Wolff’s paper said that as of July 2009, the three lowest quintiles of U.S. households -- in other words, the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households -- possessed 2.3 percent of the nation’s total net worth. Moore then multiplied that 2.3 percent by the nation’s total net worth of $53.1 trillion and got $1.22 trillion. In other words, he was saying the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households had $1.22 trillion in net worth, which is less than the $1.27 trillion in net worth for the Forbes’ 400 wealthiest Americans. Of course, if the net worth of 60 percent of households is less than that of Forbes’ 400 wealthiest, the net worth of 50 percent of the households -- which is what Moore claimed -- would also be less. We contacted Wolff, who said he had reviewed Moore’s calculations. "As far as I can tell, they’re fine," he said. Three economists -- Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Daniel Mitchell of the libertarian Cato Institute -- agreed. We made one more check. Since Moore’s statistics were for 2009, we sought figures for 2010. The 2010 net worth of the Forbes 400 was $1.37 trillion, Forbes reported in September 2010. That same month, the total U.S. net worth was $54.9 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve Board report cited by Moore. Wolff hasn’t updated his 2009 figures. So we used his 2.3 percent figure again, multiplied by the 2010 total net worth of $54.9 trillion, and found that the net worth of the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households was $1.26 trillion in 2010. That’s less than the 2010 net worth for the Forbes 400. How could it be that 400 people have more wealth than half of the more than 100 million U.S. households? Think of it this way. Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home; they also have debt, for a mortgage, credit cards and other bills. Some people would still have a pretty healthy bottom line. But many -- including those who lost a job and their home in the recession -- have a negative net worth. So that drags down the total net worth for the poorer half of U.S. households that Moore cited. We also want to add one cautionary note, from Mitchell of the Cato Institute, about Moore’s methodology: The Federal Reserve uses hard numbers to calculate the net worth of all households, but Forbes uses assumptions and interviews along with hard numbers in estimating the net worth of the Forbes 400. There’s no way to know how the differences between the two affect the net worth numbers, but Moore used the data that are available and there’s no indication he "cherry-picked" figures for a desired result, Mitchell said. With that caveat, our assessment indicates that as of 2009, the net worth of the nation’s 400 wealthiest individuals exceeds the net worth of half of all American households. We rate Moore’s statement True.[/quote] [url]http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/[/url] This story is a few months old, but with all the Occupy Movements going on, this was pretty staggering. Just a handful citizens, about The size of a third of my high school, control more wealth than half of America. And America is a pretty damn huge country (311 million). And yet Republicans still think the top 1% are paying too many taxes. Come on.

But if we taxed those 400 people then how would they be able to feed their families in these harsh economic times?!

Nowhere should have that much wealth imbalance

And I bet those 400 people are unsatisfied and want more wealth.

Now where's that modern day Robin Hood when we need him?

[QUOTE=Van-man;32988857]Now where's that modern day Robin Hood when we need him?[/QUOTE] He had a bit of a breakdown due to the oil shocks in the 70s, and now steals from the poor and gives to the rich. Thank [I]you[/I] neoliberalism.

400 have more than approximately 185399760. Those 400 are 0.000216% of the 185399760. They are 0.000129% of the entire population. How is that for scary?

those 400 Captains of Industry who control more than the bottom 50% only got there through their hard, diligent work. If the bottom 50% wants to punish these randian supermen through excessive taxes for some sort of payout they are miss the point of Capitalism, if they don't like it, they can move somewhere else.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32988928][B]those 400 Captains of Industry who control more than the bottom 50% only got there through their hard, diligent work.[/B] If the bottom 50% wants to punish these randian supermen through excessive taxes for some sort of payout they are miss the point of Capitalism, if they don't like it, they can move somewhere else.[/QUOTE] *cough*bailouts*cough* And no, if they don't like it, they can protest. And that's exactly what's finally happening.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;32988978]I can understand protesting the bailouts, but there's no point in protesting their wealth and success- which is what many seem to be doing.[/QUOTE] What the fuck? When their wealth and success is gained through manipulating the democratic process in order to achieve corporate interests, or exploiting third world workers, yeah, I'd say there's a pretty big point.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;32988978]I can understand protesting the bailouts, but there's no point in protesting their wealth and success- which is what many seem to be doing.[/QUOTE] it isn't the wealth and success they're protesting against. It's how they've acquired it. With unneeded bailouts while firing employees, and screwing the lower class over with other means.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32988928]those 400 Captains of Industry who control more than the bottom 50% only got there through their hard, diligent work. If the bottom 50% wants to punish these randian supermen through excessive taxes for some sort of payout they are miss the point of Capitalism, if they don't like it, they can move somewhere else.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure they only went so far (that is, not that far at all) on their OWN powers, their OWN hard work. There was a point in their career when most, if not all, of the actual WORK passed on to their ever-growing pool of employees, leaving the heads with all the free time they could ever need. The only actual work they do is show up at conferences and presentations to lecture the crowds on just how groundbreaking this or that new product is.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;32988978]I can understand protesting the bailouts, but there's no point in protesting their wealth and success- which is what many seem to be doing.[/QUOTE]Because they don't deserve it and they just maintain it through the exploitation and abuse of the rest of the population while simultaneously turning the government into a massive Corporatocracy.

[QUOTE=just-a-boy;32989000]I'm pretty sure they only went so far (that is, not that far at all) on their OWN powers, their OWN hard work. There was a point in their career when most, if not all, of the actual WORK passed on to their ever-growing pool of employees, leaving the heads with all the free time they could ever need. The only actual work they do is show up at conferences and presentations to lecture the crowds on just how groundbreaking this or that new product is.[/QUOTE] Exactly. At a certain point, capital tends to generate more and more capital, and become increasingly concentrated.

[QUOTE=Eluveitie;32988809]And I bet those 400 people are unsatisfied and want more wealth.[/QUOTE] Well, most of them do think they should be taxed less.

The article also technically mentions that the sheer and absolute majority of the worth is in upper half though. And than by a massive amount of circa 50 trillion, compared to the 1.3? of the upper four hundred. This might indicate a completely second disparity imho.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;32989048]Well, most of them do think they should be taxed less.[/QUOTE] And some of them actually have a heart/brain and want to be taxed a fuckload more.

Soon enough we will be poor to the point we won't be able to move out of the country

[QUOTE=Eluveitie;32988809]And I bet those 400 people are unsatisfied and want more wealth.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZHCVyllnck[/media]

[QUOTE=lolo;32989095]Soon enough we will be poor to the point we won't be able to move out of the country[/QUOTE] You can always apply for aslyum to australia!

[QUOTE=Contag;32989113]You can always apply for aslyum to australia![/QUOTE] Or commit suicide if that fails.

[img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/corpwatch.org/img/pic/isolationcage.jpg[/img] Look, we'll even give you your own cage!

[QUOTE=Contag;32989123][img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/corpwatch.org/img/pic/isolationcage.jpg[/img] Look, we'll even give you your own cage![/QUOTE] Does it come with a bucket to shit in?

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32989127]Does it come with a bucket to shit in?[/QUOTE] You can see the box in the corner! [editline]27th October 2011[/editline] Then again, you can buy cigarettes.

[QUOTE=Miskav;32989068]And some of them actually have a heart/brain and want to be taxed a fuckload more.[/QUOTE]True, I think I remember reading that Warran Buffet thought he wasn't paying enough taxes. He pretty much stands alone though.

[QUOTE=Contag;32989135]You can see the box in the corner! [editline]27th October 2011[/editline] Then again, you can buy cigarettes.[/QUOTE] I thought it was an Ottoman. You, sir, have got yourself a deal.

America greatest country. :downs: It's such a fucking retarded wealth distribution.

I'm curious to see who's apart of this 400, is there a list anywhere someone could post?

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;32989158]America greatest country. :downs: It's such a fucking retarded wealth distribution.[/QUOTE] Work for your fucking money then. Seriously. These people simply had a great idea, set their profit margins reasonably, and then watched people purchase stuff from them. That is the basis of all business. What do the complainers do? Sit on an internet forum complaining about having no money, no job, whilst rich people have it all, expecting someone to just come along and give it to them, whilst not actively working to improve their lives or try to make money.

Well, Bill Gates is planning on giving most of his money away, so if they all were like that, there wouldn't really be that much of a problem in this. Still insane as fuck, though. [editline]27th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SCopE5000;32989409]Work for your fucking money then. Seriously. These people simply had a great idea, set their profit margins reasonably, and then watched people purchase stuff from them. That is the basis of all business. What do the complainers do? Sit on an internet forum complaining about having no money, no job, whilst rich people have it all, expecting someone to just come along and give it to them, whilst not actively working to improve their lives or try to make money.[/QUOTE] Ahh, come on 50% of the American population doesn't do this. Bill Gates didn't have a better idea than many others, he just did the business the right way apparently. It's not undeserved, but nobody needs that much money.