Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the "wealth effect."

Key Points

  • The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter.
  • All of the gains came from stock holdings thanks to an end-of-year rally.
  • Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the “wealth effect.”

The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter, as an end-of-year stock rally lifted their portfolios, according to new data from the Federal Reserve.

The total net worth of the top 1%, defined by the Fed as those with wealth over $11 million, increased by $2 trillion in the fourth quarter. All of the gains came from their stock holdings. The value of corporate equities and mutual fund shares held by the top 1% surged to $19.7 trillion from $17.65 trillion the previous quarter.

While their real estate values went up slightly, the value of their privately held businesses declined, essentially canceling out all other gains outside of stocks.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    3·
    7 months ago

    Be the change you want to see in the world

    But it won’t accomplish much, we have terrorism (or freedom fighters depending on your side) as is and the ruling class isn’t swayed

    • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      23·
      7 months ago

      “Terrorism” is a nonsense word. State terror forces who exist to brutalize and terrorize populations into stillness so much like the fucking grave are never terrorists. If I post myself consentually making out with another adult I find hot, I’d be one in like fifteen time zones.

      Its nonsense, and if we want to go to the ‘real’ definition of terrorism; using violence to scare people into your agenda; that’s literally all a state is.

      Not raking an intentional editorial position on any kind of violence here; just that innocence is no protection, and truth is no defense.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        3·
        7 months ago

        Terrorism is the use of force to achieve a political objective by a group of people not internationally recognized as a state

              • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                11·
                7 months ago

                I already answered that the first time you said it

                Because when the states came up with the rules they decided to give them exclusions

                For states the general equivalent is war crime and the resolution is that the common person that belongs to the group isn’t punished as much as the leaders or people who commit those actions

                • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  7 months ago

                  So the states came up with the special category of state and the rules about being states. That’s some crazy bootstrapping. Pure tautology. Does that mean you and I can be states?

                  Also, lol, someone being punished for war crimes. Such an adorably twee concept.

                  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                    1·
                    7 months ago

                    If the UN recognizes us then yes

                    People are punished for war crimes but your state has to recognize the ICC and allow a trial

              • BreakDecks@lemmy.mlEnglish
                1·
                7 months ago

                Because it was a private organization, not a government organization. Its violent actions could be considered state-funded terrorism, but not state violence itself.

                • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  7 months ago

                  But what about the times it was literally an organ of the state? That has happened, especially while the Volstead act is in effect. Or when they all take off their badges and put on their white hoods, because basically every cop is in the KKK?

                  You’re stumbling through lots of tautology and appeals to authority (the UN was formed post ww2, did we not have states before then? What about all the cops doing terrorism before the UN existed?) But not actually defining anything.

                • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                  11·
                  7 months ago

                  By whom? I can’t tell the fucking difference, its most if the same guys. Explain to me how its not the same thing.

                  Hell, in various time periods, its been official. The state itself has recognized them, used them for law enforcement, or offered members sweetheart deals during recruitment.