The jet set crowd in Davos is feeling very sorry for itself that no one seems to like them.

[kpete]

The jet set crowd in Davos is feeling very sorry for itself that no one seems to like them. Other billionaires are worried that Nazi storm troopers are coming for the rich any day now.

It seems almost superfluous to point out the obvious, but there are some very good reasons that animosity toward the top tenth of one percent of incomes is so high. They're simple enough that they can easily be expressed without comment in chart form:



or this one:


or this:


or this:



If the Davos crowd wants to keep the current order that has made them so wealthy, they need to work on making it fairer for everyone. That means not just making it easier for a few lucky poor people to become rich, but also vastly improving the lives of all those in the poor and middle class who don't hit the lucky jackpot. Otherwise, sooner or later the current order will be replaced--peacefully or otherwise--with something better that actually provides results.


http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/i8GWMePeQTbO1wndh6RJ2w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTY3OA--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/FIN_US_AHTTP_THEATLANTIC/The_World%27s_85_Richest_People-d5592235cc533bcadad95cf828e0ca26
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/a-cluephone-for-davos-by-davidoatkins.html

[dembotoz]

1. not too worried about them i think they will get over it

[Faux pas]

2. Yeah they will

and continue to survive on their obscene wealth. Sympathy for only themselves boo hoo.

[Lifelong Protester]

3. Boo to the hoo

*rumble rumble*

[corkhead]

4. Edmund Burke:

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”

[vlakitti]

8. Terrific graphic!

This sounds increasngly like a good idea to me.

[BrotherIvan]

5. They will NEVER try to make it fairer.

Hence, the problem.

That is why we need PUBLIC SERVANTS without vested interest making the decisions. Not the rich who only have their interests at heart.

That is why we need to stop the influence peddling of the rich. We laud them, treat them as royalty, listen to what they say on policy and fail to punish them when they break the law. As if making money = super smart instead of all the other things it actually is: greed, criminality, and sociopathy.

These people would let people starve, lose their homes, and steal their pensions to enlarge their already incalculable bank accounts. They obviously care very little for anyone but themselves. We need to stop treating them as masters and begging for crumbs. We must see that our lords and leaders are not some kind of gold-infused gods with the right of kings bestowed upon them by Providence as they would have us believe. They are, in fact, mortals, every one, and they're all afraid of us.

[JNelson6563]

16. Hear, hear! Well said!

[Aldo Leopold]

17. +1

[diane in sf]

23. exactly, they are pathological hoarders, thank you

[KamaAina]

6. Better send up the

[lark]

7. They have rigged the game.

They aren't worried at all, they caused this on purpose and they control it. They control the people that make the laws so they are certain workers or regular wages taxpayers won't be given an even break. They set the laws to make sure certain people have a very difficult time voting, while making it easy on the ones they want to vote. They can continue to pay no taxes, get actually paid by the government for their destructive behavior, be forgiven any trespasses, even if they are totally criminal. Obvious examaples of this are BP, Freedom Works, offshoring, all oil and gas companies, banks.

I'm pretty sure that a case was taken by the Supreme Court contesting any individual campaign contriubtion limits. If the mega-corporatist there pass this, we'll be even worse off. I see no reason for optimism at this point, sad to say. I love Elizabeth Warren, but can you see the TPTB allowing her to become president? Best case is she'd be VP and could influence HIllary from the left. However, I totally doubt Hillary's $$ backers would allow this.

[Octafish]

29. Absolutely.

Democracy? A minor bump of peasantry on the golden road to riches.

Today, Banksters, the Mafia and Washington work together, as a team.

[lark]

30. Sad but true

[90-percent]

9. Speaking of Oligarch's behavior

I am surprised that Obama has not been assassinated by the Military Industrial Congressional Complex for not invading Syria and relying on punk ass wimpy and much cheaper diplomacy instead.

Kinda like the CT that Kennedy was killed by the CIA because he was planning to pull out of Viet Nam and was firing creeps like Allen Dulles.

-90% Jimmy

[JoeyT]

10. So it's true they're focusing on income inequality.

It just happens their idea of "focusing" on income inequality involves trying to make the fucking peasants stop their whining already.

Because nothing makes for happier peasants than reminding them cake is not only delicious, but nutritious as well!

[El_Johns]

24. Yeah, send out the PR teams!

[Phlem]

11. hmm.

Maybe their on to something.

The Frog march any day now 1%'s muahahahah

-p

[JaneyVee]

12. They can't even "sacrifice" a single tax loophole so we can feed

Those who've sacrificed for our country.

[FarCenter]

13. It is best to be both feared and loved;

however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved.

[kairos12]

14. Maybe they hear the squeaking wheels of the tumbrel carts. It's about time.

[hobbit709]

27. Yep. A short ride to the good doctor's invention.

[Buns_of_Fire]

15. The only thing they're worried about

is whether the walls to their gated compounds are tall enough and thick enough.

P.S. They're not.

The time for piper-paying is coming soon
Remember, then, who called the tune...

[Ian_rd]

18. At some point, a nation on our path will reach a crossroads

On one path - the path apparently preferred by the Right - the wealth gap will get even worse. The tiny elite will barricade themselves behind walls and barbed wire, and the entire apparatus of law enforcement and the military will largely exist to protect the rich from everyone else. And they'll start buying bottled water because they decided that's better than paying for environmental regulations. This therefore increases the possibility of a violent leftist revolution or military coup (or both at the same time).

The pendulum always swings back. But if it doesn't swing until then, it'll swing pretty damned hard to something even the leftmost liberals in America wouldn't want.

Or ... the pendulum could swing back sooner. The talk of this wealth gap has been prevalent of late, and that's a good sign. And the Right's lies on how to fix it are sounding more and more ridiculous. Another tax cut for the rich? Sorry, don't buy that anymore. Gut environmental regulations? No thanks, it turns out that I like drinking water. Free Wall Street from rules and regulations? Haha OMFG you're joking, right?

I'm hoping for the best in these coming years.

[Aldo Leopold]

19. That second graph really boils me.

Like a LOT of others, I've been working my ass off doing more and more with little or no thanks, much less a fucking raise.

[BelgianMadCow]

20. K & R for your graphs alone

excellent thread!

[frwrfpos]

21. when it is asked who the 1% are

Look no further than the attendees of davos.. economic terrorists are what these assholes are

[woo me with science]

22. K&R

[Enthusiast]

25. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.....nt

[DinahMoeHum]

26. Playing make-believe at being enlightened. . .

. . .gold-plated, diamond-studded social incest out there.

[davidpdx]

28. Too bad we couldn't line up and throw pies at them

No wait, that would be a perfectly good waste of food.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

31. Help a brutha out here, please.... Let's focus on the first two years of that top chart

We can see the very close correlation to the beginning of the Reagan presidency. But the chart starts in 1979, two years before Reagan. Also, there's a dip in the 1%'s income in that two year period.

Am I correct in assuming that dip in income for the 1% was a result of an increase in taxes preceding that period? Then, around the middle of Reagan's first year, !%er income begins to soar. Comments?

Also, what's that wiggle in the 1%er income on the 50% line between 1986 and 1993?

I'm also assuming the dip around 2000-2003 was a result mostly of the aftermath of 9/11, though that seems curious to me. I simply don't recall if "Go shopping!" had a positive effect on the economy.