I saw a statistic the other day. The top 0.1% of the US has the same total wealth as the bottom 90%. The last time the division of wealth was that drastic was during the great depression.

 

Chart Of The Day: Wealth Of the Top .1% Now Equals Bottom 9% – InvestmentWatch (The link headline should say 90%)

 

Is this something we should be concerned about? If it is a problem, how do we fix it?

I saw a statistic the other day. The top 0.1% of the US has the same total wealth as the bottom 90%. The last time the division of wealth was that drastic was during the great depression.

 

Chart Of The Day: Wealth Of the Top .1% Now Equals Bottom 9% – InvestmentWatch (The link headline should say 90%)

 

Is this something we should be concerned about? If it is a problem, how do we fix it?

Well, we are off to a great start. Democrats, who set the agenda for the past 8 years that resulted in the highest number of working aged Americans ever joining the ranks of those who are unemployed and not looking for a job have been voted out of office in droves. The government cannot fix "income inequality," but it can and does impede people from moving up the economic ladder through bad public policy.

 

A healthy economy is one that gives people a sense of job security and provides aspiring entrepreneurs with the confidence and opportunities to start new businesses. The primary safety net in a healthy economy is a new job, not social welfare programs.

 

A good start would be to roll back federal regulations to where they were at the end of the Reagan administration and to eliminate wasteful government agencies like Education, Energy, and Commerce.

I agree that regulations on business, mainly small business, need to be lightened. I also think laws that free up credit would help. There are too many big banks and not enough small banks. Credit is the engine that drives small business. If you can't get credit to make that business idea a reality, no growth. The bulk of the focus needs to be on small business.

I agree that regulations on business, mainly small business, need to be lightened. I also think laws that free up credit would help. There are too many big banks and not enough small banks. Credit is the engine that drives small business. If you can't get credit to make that business idea a reality, no growth. The bulk of the focus needs to be on small business.

 

This a thousand times.

I agree that regulations on business, mainly small business, need to be lightened. I also think laws that free up credit would help. There are too many big banks and not enough small banks. Credit is the engine that drives small business. If you can't get credit to make that business idea a reality, no growth. The bulk of the focus needs to be on small business.

 

Dodd-Franks biggest unintended consequence was the disapperance of small or community banks.

Dodd-Franks biggest unintended consequence was the disapperance of small or community banks.

 

Sooooooo many smaller banks have HAD to sell not because they were unprofitable but because they could keep up with the suffocating regulations such as Dodd Frank. They simply cannot keep up with the regulations, let alone abide by them. I work in banking and some of the things that you need to do to keep up with the regulations are infuriating because of the complete waste of time they are. It also gets fun (sarcasm) when the safety and soundness bank examiners tell you one thing and the Community Reinvestment Act examiners tell you the exact opposite...ugh

The assumption of this being a specific 'problem' seems somewhat rooted in the assumpiton of zero-sum. i.e. if someone is getting more someone is getting less.

 

This is not the case. Static comparative wealth status is not very useful. And comparative wealth creation opportunity is usually different as it deals with individuals.

 

What maybe more useful to look at is barriers to wealth creation and attainment and if there are barriers that may be erected by the 10% that hurt the 90%.

Dodd-Franks biggest unintended consequence was the disapperance of small or community banks.

 

With the inter-relationship of the Federal government and the (private, partially foriegn owned) Federal Reserve central private bank it could be that 'unintended' was not.