Who are the 1%?
Who are the 1%? According to sources MotherJones and the Washington Post, the top one percent has something like an average income of around $1 million per year and has an average net worth of $8 million+. That average must include some lower net worths to balance out those who have billions.
According to USA Today, there are 57 congresspeople in this percentile. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/congress-wealthy-1/51216626/1) 7 out of the top 10 are Democrats, although the top 2 are Republicans. As anxious as I'd be to say that these people are the ones capable of controlling much of global politics, I think that is mostly just hype. The ones who contribute to these politicians obtaining a few million dollars might have that kind of power, but a few million dollars just isn't enough to peddle influence on a global scale.
The ones who truly are capable of controlling anything at that level would have to have many times the average income and net worth of the typical one percenter. Not just tens of millions, or hundreds of millions... We're talking in the billions.
Roughly one hundred-thousandth of a percent of Americans have a net worth of $1 billion or more. The .00001%ers. These people actually have the assets to affect politics on a multi-national scale. This doesn't mean that they are actively attempting to affect global politics, although with that kind of economic potential, one could imagine anything they do in any country could have effects in that country.
Some of these are the people who fund the big think-tanks. They are the ones who's ideas are pure gold to the unscrupulous movers and shakers in politics. Their influence is probably why nations go to war, or coup attempts are mounted.
There is no doubt that the biggest power-brokers in global politics are smart enough to mask their actual worth. The most powerful among these are those who influence monetary policy on a global scale and can move money far more silently and easily than the majority of the 1%. Their net worth is likely in the trillions.
The vast majority of the 1% are people with incomes below $1 million per year. These are NOT the people controlling much of anything except their own small companies. If the cost of a good that a company sells is high to produce, it can cost millions a month to run a small, local retailer with a small profit margin. As Federal Reserve policies inflate the amount of currency in circulation, it will require more money for these small American companies to survive. Targeting these people only damages the already faltering economy.
If you truly want to protest those who are negatively influencing the world you live in, you are missing the mark by hitting on the broad group of 1%ers. You should be targeting the .00001%ers like those who were the major contributors to the campaign of Barak Obama.
Does it really matter who the 1%ers are? I know I'm not one, nor is my choice for President, Ron Paul. We don't meet the criteria. But the question shouldn't be, "Who are the 1%", it should be, "Who is pulling the strings of your elected government and which politicians are letting their strings get pulled?"
According to USA Today, there are 57 congresspeople in this percentile. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/congress-wealthy-1/51216626/1) 7 out of the top 10 are Democrats, although the top 2 are Republicans. As anxious as I'd be to say that these people are the ones capable of controlling much of global politics, I think that is mostly just hype. The ones who contribute to these politicians obtaining a few million dollars might have that kind of power, but a few million dollars just isn't enough to peddle influence on a global scale.
The ones who truly are capable of controlling anything at that level would have to have many times the average income and net worth of the typical one percenter. Not just tens of millions, or hundreds of millions... We're talking in the billions.
Roughly one hundred-thousandth of a percent of Americans have a net worth of $1 billion or more. The .00001%ers. These people actually have the assets to affect politics on a multi-national scale. This doesn't mean that they are actively attempting to affect global politics, although with that kind of economic potential, one could imagine anything they do in any country could have effects in that country.
Some of these are the people who fund the big think-tanks. They are the ones who's ideas are pure gold to the unscrupulous movers and shakers in politics. Their influence is probably why nations go to war, or coup attempts are mounted.
There is no doubt that the biggest power-brokers in global politics are smart enough to mask their actual worth. The most powerful among these are those who influence monetary policy on a global scale and can move money far more silently and easily than the majority of the 1%. Their net worth is likely in the trillions.
The vast majority of the 1% are people with incomes below $1 million per year. These are NOT the people controlling much of anything except their own small companies. If the cost of a good that a company sells is high to produce, it can cost millions a month to run a small, local retailer with a small profit margin. As Federal Reserve policies inflate the amount of currency in circulation, it will require more money for these small American companies to survive. Targeting these people only damages the already faltering economy.
If you truly want to protest those who are negatively influencing the world you live in, you are missing the mark by hitting on the broad group of 1%ers. You should be targeting the .00001%ers like those who were the major contributors to the campaign of Barak Obama.
Does it really matter who the 1%ers are? I know I'm not one, nor is my choice for President, Ron Paul. We don't meet the criteria. But the question shouldn't be, "Who are the 1%", it should be, "Who is pulling the strings of your elected government and which politicians are letting their strings get pulled?"
Labels: politics
posted by Tonewah at 6:56 AM
<< Home