Avatar Income

Background

According to the 2016 World Economic Forum, “the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which includes developments in previously disjointed fields requiring college degrees such as artificial intelligence and machine-learning, robotics, nanotechnology, 3-D printing, and genetics and biotechnology, will cause widespread disruption not only to business models but also to labor markets over the next five years.”

Clearly these technologies are designed to increase short term profits by eliminating jobs. Therefore, absent a specific mechanism to counter their cumulative effect, workers worldwide are facing a painful transition of unprecedented magnitude as arduous, repetitive and even dangerous occupations are absorbed by the ongoing rise of the machines. Our government’s fixation on boosting military expenditures, which already exceed the next seven nations combined, its aversion to redistribute wealth, its undisguised eagerness to dismantle the last vestiges of FDR’s New Deal, and its staunch refusal to concede that climate change will force humanity, one way or another, to stop using fossil fuels, will toss future generations into a spiral of despair and hopelessness, a breeding ground for revolt.

The economy is the glue that binds modern societies into cohesive states. Accordingly, a majority of the people must have a reasonable share of income and wealth. Unfortunately a decline in disposable income, which is where we’re headed with the new technologies, will reduce the buying power of consumers, and they account for seventy percent of the U.S. economy. Therefore it behooves the government to organize, but not necessarily fund, a more egalitarian system designed to give most people the means to consume. That would be good for the government, which would collect more tax revenue and reduce safety net expenses, good for the working class, which would have the means to make ends meet, and good for the elite since the masses would have more disposable income to purchase their goods and services.

Enter Distributed Electricity

In 1880, at the height of the Victorian Era, Thomas Edison figured out how to create a pure vacuum in his bulbs, and in so doing, created the first marketable design. However, his revolutionary concoction required a permanent round-the-clock supply of electricity. In response, state-regulated, shareholder-owned power plants and distribution grid monopolies were created. Eventually the demand for electricity became so large that fossil fuels, particularly coal, had to be used. As with other for-profit enterprises, the new utilities had to compete in the capital markets. They did (and still do) that by offering competitive rates of return to shareholders based on the price of electricity. The system worked well because it had no real competition, until now.

It would be ludicrous and preposterous to suggest clinging to obsolete technologies such as steam locomotives, the telegraph, horse-drawn carriages and yes, centrally-generated electricity systems. And it’s not just a question of obsolescence. For the first time in history homo sapiens will have to adapt to the irresistible consequences of anthropogenic climate change, drought, sea level rise, depletion of aquifers, insufficient surface freshwater, potential famines, and the growing threat of terminal thermonuclear war.

Universal Basic (Avatar) Income

Click to enlarge

Universal Income is a necessity, however the government ought to organize and regulate, but not pay for it. In a nutshell, solar energy, hydrogen and gravity combined can potentially end using nuclear fission and fossil fuels to generate electricity. Public utilities could be relieved of their mandate to generate electricity. Instead, for a fee, they would operate, maintain and expand as needed the distribution grid. All new and existing residential, commercial and industrial buildings would be required to generate a surplus of electricity from solar power during daylight hours and be equipped with batteries for nighttime operation. Profits from the sale of electricity, hydrogen and freshwater would be distributed to property owners rather than utility shareholders. The profits would be used to help prospective and existing homeowners amortize their mortgages, end the housing crisis, create non-temporary well-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced or exported, and improve the economy at large. The system is explained in detail here.

Millions of Jobs To Disappear by 2020

The World Economic Forum (2016) warned that “the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which includes developments in previously disjointed fields such as artificial intelligence and machine-learning, robotics, nanotechnology, 3-D printing, and genetics and biotechnology, will cause widespread disruption not only to business models but also to labor markets over the next five years, with enormous change predicted in the skill sets needed to thrive in the new landscape”.

 

Maps of the World’s Water Crisis

[google-translator]

July 15, 2017

World DesertsAquifer Changes in Storage vs StressTrends in Global Groundwater Storage 2003-2013Depletion of US AquifersMany aquifers are being rapidly depleted throughout the world, and this does not factor in climate change. Case in point, the southern portion of the Ogallala Aquifer, a prime agricultural region in the U.S., is estimated to have no more that 20 years left. Simultaneously, according to the United Nations, the world’s population is expected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100. All of these additional mouths will need to be fed, yet food production will necessarily decline for lack of water with which to irrigate the fields.

It is the responsibility of those in power everywhere to address this impending catastrophe; not doing so, by extension, borders on willful negligence to protect their people from preventable genocide. This begs the question, how many governments, large or small, have it in their agenda to address this issue, solely or collectively? How many are considering, even if only as a pipe dream, the possibility of diverting funds from the merchants of death to the peasants and farmers that feed us all?

Deeds, Not Ineffective Rhetoric

July 14, 2017

The comings and goings of the Trumps and Clintons are but skillful distractions from the grave issues afflicting our country and the world: climate change, the global water crisis, the flat-out refusal of the world’s nuclear powers to eliminate humanity’s sword of Damocles, the lack of commitment to a concrete timetable to stop using nuclear fission and fossil fuels to generate electricity, the demise of Aristotelian democracy –and above all- the abysmal inequality of wealth and income.

None of them are ever on the agenda of any administration –regardless of party affiliation. Instead, they purport to tackle consequences, not causes. Take for instance, health care. One reason why it’s necessary to tax the rich to subsidize the poor is because the latter can’t afford the stratospheric premiums and deductibles, a function of inequality. The same applies, of course, to all other services for the poor, a phenomenon formerly the exclusive domain of minorities.

Another example is the housing crisis. The government’s exposure –through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA and VA, among others- to the $10 trillion real estate market is roughly $9 trillion. That means the government’s interest in it is congruent to the banks, investors and homeowners. They all want and need ever-higher prices.

That’s absurd. In California for instance, there are no cities of comparable size between Greater Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Furthermore, surprisingly, Eureka (estimated 2017 population: 26,727) is the largest town between San Francisco and Portland, Oregon. Prices are high not because there’s no vacant land to build on but because the supply of housing is kept artificially low to keep prices high. In other words, the economic system itself is cannibalizing our children and grandchildren. Despite nonexistent job security and low wages, they’re expected to simultaneously take out enormous non-dischargeable student loans and pay outrageous housing prices or rents. No wonder household formation is as low as it is and muffled, compressed dissatisfaction permeates the country. For the first time in our history over 50% of women live alone, and with only 5% of the world’s population, the United States consumes 80% of the world’s opioids.

Then there’s the South China Sea. An enormous percentage of the world’s trade passes through it, no argument there. What kind of trade? Surely it’s not that we’re protecting our exports –we hardly make anything anymore. It’s our dual-use, strategic imports that matter. We are now dependent on factories that American industrialists moved from the U.S. to Asia, a self-inflicted wound. Now we are in the position of having to contain and subdue China, a country 10,000 miles away with four times our population, incomparably lower college costs, and a GPA growing at 6% per year. To say the least, a daunting task.

There’s a silver lining. The G-19 countries that purportedly support the Paris Agreement have a golden opportunity to persuade the U.S. to hop back on board; not with ineffective rhetoric but with deeds. All they have to do is commit to a specific timetable to use hydrogen from the ocean instead of fission and fossil fuels to make water and electricity. As described in Plan A, that should do the trick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anthropomorphic Climate Change Warning in 1912

[google-translator]

June 9, 2017

Yes indeed. This 1912 (the age of coal-fired Dreadnought class battleships, railroads and factories, few horseless carriages and no airplanes) Popular Mechanics article accurately described anthropomorphic climate change and warned us of its consequences. No one listened, no one cared, and here we are, rushing to the precipice of extinction.

Will today’s elite be willing to pay the price of walking away from nuclear fission and fossil fuels or will they choose to doom humanity -including their progeny- to extinction?

Reneging the Paris Climate Agreement

[google-translator]

June 4, 2017

On June 1, 2017, as expected, President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement based on his conclusion that it would “undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty … and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.” He hopes to negotiate a new agreement “on terms that are fair to the United States.” Almost immediately, in a separate joint statement, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the agreement was a “vital instrument for our planet that cannot be renegotiated.”

The President made his decision in the wake of his previous criticism at the G7 meeting of Germany’s failure to spend 2% of its GNP in military expenditures and its chronic trade surplus with the United States. Subsequently, in a campaign speech, Chancellor Merkel pointedly said that the European Union can no longer “fully count on others.”

To be sure, he is not wrong about everything. Germany, an export-dependent economy, does indeed have a surplus with the United States, and it does spend less than 2% of its GNP on NATO and the military. But the U.S. has trade deficits (2016, in billions) with China – $347, Canada – $11, Mexico – $63, Japan – $69, and South Korea – $28. Other countries have large deficits too, and they’re not withdrawing.

Largest Trade Deficits

The fact is that manufactured goods made in America by American workers –not robots- are in the aggregate a tiny portion of an economy dominated by services. The U.S. imports more than it exports in every international trade goods category tracked by the Census Bureau.

Employment Statistics May 2017

 

Mr. Trump’s policy of deporting undocumented workers –whose non-white U.S. born children would almost certainly vote for the Democrats-, has already resulted in acute labor shortages in some occupations that U.S.-born citizens simply will not fill at any price. At this rate soon there won’t be anyone to harvest our crops, and they’ll rot in the field. If that happens -assuming other countries have the spare capacity to provide us with what we need, which is by no means certain- we’ll be forced to import our food too, and the trade deficit will expand.

Mr. Trump’s actions and policies are the complete opposite of what the U.S. needs to do, as he puts it, to “make America great again.” If he retrenches behind duties and tariffs to protect American-based industries, he will simply ignite a trade war with key NATO ally Germany (and the European Union) and our two largest creditors, Japan and China. That would be counterproductive to say the least.

Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is not going to reverse the current account deficit or create well paying jobs, on the contrary. The antipathy and ill will for the U.S. that Mr. Trump’s current policies have already generated among ordinary people worldwide, measured by the declining number of tourists, could well expand to other goods and services –a spontaneous boycott. Instead, he should realize that under present conditions our best bet to reverse the trade deficit is to become the world’s largest producer of the one element that can wean humankind from its addiction to nuclear energy and fossil fuels –hydrogen. The potential demand for it, foreign and domestic, could realistically create an entire new economy based on its numerous uses. If he does see the light, history might well remember him as indeed the greatest President of all time.

 

Hydrogen Exports as a Specific Special Drawing Rights (SDR) Criterion

January 29, 2019

Western Reserve Currencies and the Quest for Dominance
Historically, shifts in reserve currencies have brought pivotal changes in the global balance of power. Beginning with the 15th Century, which marked Western Europe’s global ascendancy, the currencies of the empires of Portugal (1450-1530), Spain (1530-1640), the Netherlands (1640-1720), France (1720-1815), Britain (1815-1920), the USA (1920-) and China, still in gestation, have served as primary media of exchange in global trade.

Every shift was preceded by devastating wars and economic cataclysms -even famine. As it pertains to the U.S., whose saga continues to affect and afflict virtually everyone on the planet one way or another, its transformation from the world’s preeminent surplus and creditor country at the end of World War II into the largest debtor in history and its dangerous non-ideological rivalries with Russia and China in the age of proliferation of nuclear weapons does not bode well for humanity. And yes, proliferation is exactly right. Since 1945, when these nightmarish weapons were first used, India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan, which at the time weren’t even independent nations, have all acquired them. If history is a precursor of things to come, two things can be inferred. The first is that although a modern war between major powers has not yet exploded there’s no guarantee it won’t. The other is that, with little or no warning, non-state extremists may acquire and use miniaturized nuclear weapons.

Hydrogen as the basis for Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)
The value of the IMF’s (International Monetary Fund) SDR basket is based on fiat currencies of former imperial powers: the euro (mainly Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands and Italy), Great Britain’s pound sterling, the United States dollar, Japan’s yen, and China’s renminbi, the newcomer. The IMF’s formula for determining currency weights in the basket assigns equal shares to the currency issuer’s exports and a composite financial indicator. The latter comprises, in equal shares, official reserves denominated in the member’s (or monetary union’s) currency that are held by other monetary authorities that are not issuers of the relevant currency, foreign exchange turnover in the currency, and the sum of outstanding international bank liabilities and international debt securities denominated in the currency. However, but for a few exceptions, notably heavily subsidized Israel, these criteria are also heavily stacked against ordinary people in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and central and southern Asia. They presently lack the means to earn enough SDRs to lift themselves out of poverty and compete on equal terms with their former colonial masters.

Aside from scandalous moral and social issues stemming from the abysmal (and growing) inequality of wealth, extreme poverty, and high morbidity and mortality rates, practically all governments and mainstream media worldwide have chosen to exclude from discourse the obvious drawbacks and dangers these issues pose to everyone, including the elites. One such drawback is that the poor simply do not have enough buying power to contribute to the global economy to help prevent (or at the very least mitigate) recessions or depressions; another is that absolute despair and hopelessness breed hate and extremism, and it has a way of manifesting itself in lethal unexpected ways.

A Crucial Omission and its Solution
The IMF’s current SDR formula has two fatal flaws. Firstly, it does not price the system’s impact on the environment. Secondly, it does not contritely admit that this omission is the turbine propelling anthropomorphic climate change –which is killing the planet. Accordingly, the obvious way to make amends is to gradually, resolutely and swiftly replace the SDR basket of privileged currencies –all of them- with a formula (whose specific details would be negotiated) based on (a) the total production of hydrogen by electrolysis of sea water (or, in the case of landlocked nations other forms of green energy), (b) the ratio of green energy produced to their population, and (c) their gross national product.

This shift would:
• Create an economic incentive to produce and use hydrogen to replace fossil fuels to generate electricity and move vehicles.
• Stop the runaway production of carbon monoxide.
• Stop the mad competition to achieve and perpetuate a nation’s currency as reserve currency of the world, a path more likely than not to eventually escalate into a terminal thermonuclear war.
• Introduce the possibility to actually manufacture, collect and distribute pure water anywhere (simply by burning the hydrogen in power plants) to fight growing water shortages, drought, rapidly depleting aquifers, and desertification around the world.
• Create a non-fiat, common currency with a fixed, non-depreciable value based on the above mentioned formula to introduce egalitarian buying power for all nations, and stop current and future asset inflation (particularly real estate) that continually and relentlessly cannibalizes our own progeny.

Solar-powered Photocatalytic Water Splitter

May 7, 2017

China’s University of Science and Technology reports that using solar energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water is a sustainable technology. A research group led by Professor Xiong Yujie has developed a class of noble-metal-free Z-scheme photocatalysts which exhibit an enhanced performance in photocatalytic hydrogen production based on a facile cation-exchange approach.

Global Oil Reserves

April 22, 2017

Oil reserves by country, their value at $50 per barrel, and loss each would incur if 80% is left in the ground to cope with climate change. Since most of the financial wealth in the world is owned by a minuscule percent of the population (10% in the U.S.) they, not the mass of the people, would lose the most. This begs the question, what would have to happen for them to agree to suffer such losses?

RankCountry   BBL (2016) Value (U.S.$50/Bl)80% in Ground (Loss)
1Venezuela300,000,000,000$15,000,000,000,00012,000,000,000,000
2Saudi Arabia269,000,000,000$13,450,000,000,00010,760,000,000,000
3Canada171,000,000,000$8,550,000,000,0006,840,000,000,000
4Iran157,800,000,000$7,890,000,000,0006,312,000,000,000
5Iraq143,000,000,000$7,150,000,000,0005,720,000,000,000
6Kuwait104,000,000,000$5,200,000,000,0004,160,000,000,000
7United Arab Emirates98,000,000,000$4,900,000,000,0003,920,000,000,000
8Russia80,000,000,000$4,000,000,000,0003,200,000,000,000
9Libya48,360,000,000$2,418,000,000,0001,934,400,000,000
10Nigeria37,000,000,000$1,850,000,000,0001,480,000,000,000
11United States36,520,000,000$1,826,000,000,0001,460,800,000,000
12Kazakhstan30,000,000,000$1,500,000,000,0001,200,000,000,000
13Qatar25,000,000,000$1,250,000,000,0001,000,000,000,000
14China25,000,000,000$1,250,000,000,0001,000,000,000,000
15Brazil16,000,000,000$800,000,000,000640,000,000,000
16Algeria12,000,000,000$600,000,000,000480,000,000,000
17Mexico9,700,000,000$485,000,000,000388,000,000,000
18Ecuador8,832,000,000$441,600,000,000353,280,000,000
19Angola8,400,000,000$420,000,000,000336,000,000,000
20Azerbaijan7,000,000,000$350,000,000,000280,000,000,000
21India5,675,000,000$283,750,000,000227,000,000,000
22Oman5,300,000,000$265,000,000,000212,000,000,000
23Norway5,100,000,000$255,000,000,000204,000,000,000
24Sudan5,000,000,000$250,000,000,000200,000,000,000
25Vietnam4,400,000,000$220,000,000,000176,000,000,000
26Egypt4,400,000,000$220,000,000,000176,000,000,000
27South Sudan3,750,000,000$187,500,000,000150,000,000,000
28Indonesia3,693,000,000$184,650,000,000147,720,000,000
29Malaysia3,600,000,000$180,000,000,000144,000,000,000
30Yemen3,000,000,000$150,000,000,000120,000,000,000
31United Kingdom2,800,000,000$140,000,000,000112,000,000,000
32Uganda2,500,000,000$125,000,000,000100,000,000,000
33Syria2,500,000,000$125,000,000,000100,000,000,000
34Argentina2,400,000,000$120,000,000,00096,000,000,000
35Colombia2,300,000,000$115,000,000,00092,000,000,000
36Gabon2,000,000,000$100,000,000,00080,000,000,000
37Congo1,600,000,000$80,000,000,00064,000,000,000
38Chad1,500,000,000$75,000,000,00060,000,000,000
39Australia1,200,000,000$60,000,000,00048,000,000,000
40Brunei1,100,000,000$55,000,000,00044,000,000,000
41Equatorial Guinea1,100,000,000$55,000,000,00044,000,000,000
42Peru700,000,000$35,000,000,00028,000,000,000
43Trinidad and Tobago700,000,000$35,000,000,00028,000,000,000
44Ghana660,000,000$33,000,000,00026,400,000,000
45Denmark611,000,000$30,550,000,00024,440,000,000
46Turkmenistan600,000,000$30,000,000,00024,000,000,000
47Romania600,000,000$30,000,000,00024,000,000,000
48Uzbekistan600,000,000$30,000,000,00024,000,000,000
49Italy544,500,000$27,225,000,00021,780,000,000
50Japan541,600,000$27,080,000,00021,664,000,000
51Tunisia400,000,000$20,000,000,00016,000,000,000
52Thailand400,000,000$20,000,000,00016,000,000,000
53Pakistan400,000,000$20,000,000,00016,000,000,000
54Ukraine400,000,000$20,000,000,00016,000,000,000
55Turkey300,000,000$15,000,000,00012,000,000,000
56Bolivia209,800,000$10,490,000,0008,392,000,000
57Cameroon200,000,000$10,000,000,0008,000,000,000
58Papua New Guinea200,000,000$10,000,000,0008,000,000,000
59Belarus200,000,000$10,000,000,0008,000,000,000
60Albania200,000,000$10,000,000,0008,000,000,000
61Congo180,000,000$9,000,000,0007,200,000,000
62Niger150,000,000$7,500,000,0006,000,000,000
63Spain150,000,000$7,500,000,0006,000,000,000
64Chile150,000,000$7,500,000,0006,000,000,000
65Netherlands144,700,000$7,235,000,0005,788,000,000
66Cuba124,000,000$6,200,000,0004,960,000,000
67Cote d’Ivoire100,000,000$5,000,000,0004,000,000,000
68Poland100,000,000$5,000,000,0004,000,000,000
69Germany100,000,000$5,000,000,0004,000,000,000
70Serbia100,000,000$5,000,000,0004,000,000,000
71Philippines100,000,000$5,000,000,0004,000,000,000
72Bahrain100,000,000$5,000,000,0004,000,000,000
73Suriname88,970,000$4,448,500,0003,558,800,000
74France84,080,000$4,204,000,0003,363,200,000
75Guatemala83,070,000$4,153,500,0003,322,800,000
76Croatia71,000,000$3,550,000,0002,840,000,000
77New Zealand67,200,000$3,360,000,0002,688,000,000
78Burma50,000,000$2,500,000,0002,000,000,000
79Austria47,500,000$2,375,000,0001,900,000,000
80Kyrgyzstan40,000,000$2,000,000,0001,600,000,000
81Georgia35,000,000$1,750,000,0001,400,000,000
82Bangladesh28,000,000$1,400,000,0001,120,000,000
83Hungary27,190,000$1,359,500,0001,087,600,000
84Mauritania20,000,000$1,000,000,000800,000,000
85South Africa15,000,000$750,000,000600,000,000
86Czechia15,000,000$750,000,000600,000,000
87Bulgaria15,000,000$750,000,000600,000,000
88Israel13,950,000$697,500,000558,000,000
89Lithuania12,000,000$600,000,000480,000,000
90Tajikistan12,000,000$600,000,000480,000,000
91Taiwan10,060,000$503,000,000402,400,000
92Greece10,000,000$500,000,000400,000,000
93Slovakia9,000,000$450,000,000360,000,000
94Benin8,000,000$400,000,000320,000,000
95Belize6,700,000$335,000,000268,000,000
96Barbados2,530,000$126,500,000101,200,000
97Jordan1,000,000$50,000,00040,000,000
98Morocco680,000$34,000,00027,200,000
99Ethiopia430,000$21,500,00017,200,000
Total1,662,268,960,000$83,113,426,500,00066,490,741,200,000

Source: CIA World Factbook

Posted in Oil

Distribution of Wealth in the U.S.

April 22, 2017

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in relatively few hands. As of 2013, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 36.7% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 52.2%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.8%. Table 2 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2017).

Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2013

 

 Total Net Worth
Top 1 percentNext 19 percentBottom 80 percent
198333.8%47.5%18.7%
198937.4%46.2%16.5%
199237.2%46.6%16.2%
199538.5%45.4%16.1%
199838.1%45.3%16.6%
200133.4%51.0%15.6%
200434.3%50.3%15.3%
200734.6%50.5%15.0%
201035.1%53.5%11.4%
201336.7%52.2%11.1%
 Financial (Non-Home) Wealth
Top 1 percentNext 19 percentBottom 80 percent
198342.9%48.4%8.7%
198946.9%46.5%6.6%
199245.6%46.7%7.7%
199547.2%45.9%7.0%
199847.3%43.6%9.1%
200139.7%51.5%8.7%
200442.2%50.3%7.5%
200742.7%50.3%7.0%
201041.3%53.5%5.2%
201342.8%51.9%5.3%

Total assets are defined as the sum of: (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing; (2) other real estate owned by the household; (3) cash and demand deposits; (4) time and savings deposits, certificates of deposit, and money market accounts; (5) government bonds, corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and other financial securities; (6) the cash surrender value of life insurance plans; (7) the cash surrender value of pension plans, including IRAs, Keogh, and 401(k) plans; (8) corporate stock and mutual funds; (9) net equity in unincorporated businesses; and (10) equity in trust funds. Total liabilities are the sum of: (1) mortgage debt; (2) consumer debt, including auto loans; and (3) other debt. From Wolff (2017).

Figure 1: Net worth and financial wealth distribution in the U.S. in 2010

From Wolff (2017).

In terms of types of financial wealth, in 2013 the top one percent of households had 49.8% of all privately held stock, 54.7% of financial securities, and 62.8% of business equity. The top ten percent had 84% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America; see Table 2 for the details. The only category which is not skewed severely toward the upper class is debt.

Table 2: Wealth distribution by type of asset, 2013

 Investment Assets
Top 1 percentNext 9 percentBottom 90 percent
Business equity62.8%31.0%6.2%
Financial securities54.7%39.6%5.7%
Stocks and mutual funds49.8%41.2%9.1%
Trusts49.5%34.0%16.5%
Non-home real estate33.7%44.1%22.2%
TOTAL investment assets51.5%37.0%11.5%

 

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15