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.

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        8 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·
          8 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·
          8 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.

          • ILikeBoobies
            11·
            8 months ago

            The U.N. is the convention for recognizing statehood

              • ILikeBoobies
                1·
                8 months ago

                Do you realize what year it is?

                If you want to go back to colonial time then a state was just what Europe recognizes. Which meant that Africa, America, and most of Asia were up for taking. Convention changes

                • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  8 months ago

                  Im pointing out that states are arbitrary bullshit and borders are arbitrary bullshit drawn in blood and trauma for the benefit of a gang of ultra-violent septegenarian kleptocrat incest babies who don’t know how to operate so much as a light switch in the real world, and solve every problem with violence and atrocities.

                  Even the methods of defining them are stupid, and even when I offer the opportunity to change my mind, statists just keep repeating the same infantile bullshit I heard in first grade, with no elaboration, because they have absolutely no self awareness.

                  So yes I am aware it’s the 21st century, and we as a species are too old for this shit.