-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread Trickle-down economics
- Thread starter McHrozni
- Start date
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Paywalled, so I can only go by what the headline says.
According to Google the S&P 500 increased by 533% from 2000 to now. The CPI increased by 94%, so the inflation-adjusted stock market value 'only' went up by 275%. That's still a big gap compared to wages, but not as much as stated. When we look at the graph we see that the S&P 500 didn't really shoot up until after Covid hit in 2020.
We know what caused the surge in 2020-2021, and we see a 'correction' going into 2022. But what caused the steep climb after that?
US Stock Market Bubble Concentration. AI-related Stocks.
But don't worry, it isn't a bubble. Any day now we will start seeing AI do actually useful stuff that justifies its market cap.
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 12,622
one of the thing that's often forgotten in the context of the stock market and how it benefits the average person is that even if you are invested, that money is often all but inaccessible because you don't have enough of it to really be leveraged in any ways that impact your day to day life. so things like lagging wages and inflation aren't really being offset by gains in the stock market when for many people that's just their retirement account, and gains in the real estate market just mean higher property tax
I have a few complaints and questions. Can you really call Railroad bubble when it lasted nearly a century, There was a good 50 years of railroads between about 40 and 60%. What are the Nifty Fifity and TMT?
Actually that graphic sucks. The timelines breaks and and the first half taking about a 10th of the real estate is very misleading.
Don't get me wrong, this is definitely a bubble, but just like the railroads, there will be some air left at the end of it.
Last edited:
Dan Miller on bsky, Sep 10, 2026
Corporate profits just hit a record 13.2% of GDP.
Wages simultaneously fell to a record-low 41.1%.
This is the political economy of modern capitalism: record profits, a shrinking share for workers, and corporations spending billions on political donations and lobbying to maintain the status quo.
This is an excellent series!
Watch it for the graphics!
These are not the kind of videos where listening to them is enough.
And soon to be released:
Inequality in America: Billionaires (Sep 30, 2026 – ??:?? min.)
Watch it for the graphics!
These are not the kind of videos where listening to them is enough.
Watched 26.663.735 times!
And soon to be released:
Inequality in America: Billionaires (Sep 30, 2026 – ??:?? min.)
"Companion PDF", if only more would produce those!
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
I also came across an interesting video. It makes the point that a lot has to do with how we define wealth. For example, Elon Musk's wealth is held primarily in assets like stocks. Of course, if he were to sell them off, their value would quickly drop to a fraction of their current worth and he wouldn't get much for them.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,605
Correction: it has nothing to do with how We define wealth, and everything to do with how the Stock Market, Investors and creditors define it.
Musk is a Trillionaire because he's been treated as such, regardless of whether he could liquefy a fraction of that if he tried.
The effect is the same: draw capital away from other investments, concentrate market valuations into fewer assets.
Musk can afford everything that is for sale, making him the richest person who ever lived, as there is more stuff to buy than ever before.
Meanwhile, the poorest are as poor as ever.
Don't try to play the definitions game when the facts are obvious: inequality has never been as bad as today - obviously.
Reason being that there is a lower limit on how poor you can be, but no upper limit on how rich.
Seriously, Musk could liquefy more of his assets than any King or Emperor of Old ever could.
To argue otherwise is silly and motivated.
Musk is a Trillionaire because he's been treated as such, regardless of whether he could liquefy a fraction of that if he tried.
The effect is the same: draw capital away from other investments, concentrate market valuations into fewer assets.
Musk can afford everything that is for sale, making him the richest person who ever lived, as there is more stuff to buy than ever before.
Meanwhile, the poorest are as poor as ever.
Don't try to play the definitions game when the facts are obvious: inequality has never been as bad as today - obviously.
Reason being that there is a lower limit on how poor you can be, but no upper limit on how rich.
Seriously, Musk could liquefy more of his assets than any King or Emperor of Old ever could.
To argue otherwise is silly and motivated.
I think that what is important here is that he can liquefy a substantial amount of his assets and still have enough left to be the richest man in the world, no matter how it is defined. It is important that he uses his riches to make the world a worse place. He supports extreme right wing politics everywhere, he supports parties that support the aggressive dictator Putin, he undermines environmental policies everywhere despite having part of his riches depending EVs, and so on.
It is fine that there are people who have these opinions, and try to enforce these policies, but it is not fine that such rich people have so much more influence than anybody else.