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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    1·
    7 months ago

    I don’t know, maybe because just because a country calls itself something doesn’t mean it actually follows that ideology?

    Believe it or not, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party were also not socialists.

    But I do enjoy how you keep ignoring the actual definitions of these words and instead are going with what countries do.

    • theotherverion@lemmynsfw.com
      1·
      7 months ago

      Yes, that’s the unfortunate thing that many countries called their regimes not so correctly, hence why certain misunderstandings could happen.

      What I meant was the regime in eastern Europe between 1948-1990s. In these countries (I live one of them), we refer to this regime when saying “socialism” despite the definition not being 100% exact, hence why I used this term. Sorry for misunderstanding. If you have a more exact name for this system, let me know.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 months ago

        It’s oligarchy disguising itself as socialism. If the people at the top are far richer than the people at the bottom it is neither socialism nor communism. Period.

        Capping income at an upper limit is also not communism or socialism. It is still capitalism.

        Now that we’ve straightened that out, maybe you can explain why anyone needs to be worth more than $100 million.

        • theotherverion@lemmynsfw.com
          1·
          7 months ago

          The main issue I have with this idea is that why should we limit people’s achievements. If they can achieve more than 100m, why should we prohibit them from doing it. This theory has the main foundation in the fact that the government is always more capable than individuals and always makes the right decisions, which is false.

          Imagine you have 200 million and you want to use 100m to build a hospital but instead your country takes it and sends it to Israel to support their useless military operation. Would you be happy about that? Similar things happen in my country - Slovakia, where governments have not been capable of building a modern hospital in the capital city. It took roughly 30 years and 100 million € only to have a big hole dug to a hill. On the other hand, private investor came and we suddenly have a modern hospital in our capital.

          Simply put, I fully understand that the money of ultra rich people can be better used but I do not believe that setting a hard cap to 100m would solve it. What for those that have 90 million? That is still enough money to cause a lot of shenanigans. Hence why I believe more in an alternative solution: sanctioning extremely stupid use cases many billionaires abuse. E.g. if the billionaire wants to use his private jet for 100km, they need to invest in tree planting. This way we would also cover those that earn 30m or 90m and not limit possible achievements.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            11·
            7 months ago

            Imagine you have 200 million and you want to use 100m to build a hospital

            This basically never happens. You must know this. People that rich pretty much only care about making more money. The exceptions can be counted on one hand.

            And income is not the same as achievements. Elon Musk is not a model of a great achiever. There are people who have done far more to help the world than Elon Musk and are nowhere near as rich as him. Alexander Fleming’s work has likely saved billions of lives. Do you think he was getting paid anywhere near that high? Do you think he was worth what Elon Musk is worth? Spoiler: Not even close.

            I have no idea why you think wealth is always earned or deserved when it almost never is.