Reply #28: The concentration of wealth matters.

[Hannah Bell]

1% of the US population is 3 million people. That is less than the population of the Seattle metro area. Now think of Seattle's population pushing the other 99% out of 40% of the US & forcing them to live in 60% of the land mass. They'd take over Wa, Ore, Id, Cali, Nevada - say everything to the Texas border & up.

They have interlocking relationships through marriage, business, & "society." Their children go to the same schools, they visit the same vacation spots, they live in the same neighborhoods. They have, as a group, similar interests - in comparison with most of the other 297 million.
And they control 40% of wealth - wealth that isn't just their primary residence, but productive assets - businesses, factories, media, etc.

The other 297 million, OTOH, have no such intricate coordination, & much less control over productive assets. So if Joe Riche decides to pull his factory out of Podunk ND, he's just destroyed everyone's property values. Even if the whole town unites to fight him - which they won't, because he can buy some of his opposition off - including the town council.

And if Joe Riche & 20 of his closest friends decide to invest in real estate, they, & the capital they can leverage, can easily drive up prices & force lesser creatures out of the market they desire. They can also use media to create a desirable image for the spot they've bought, bringing buyers (the 80th percentile, say) into the market they've created & setting off a boom all down the line.

It's not just total dollars, it's the ability to use those dollars in a coordinated way.

Especially in stocks & similar devices. Ordinary people's pension funds are big weights in the stock market, but who manages those funds?

Employees of the top 1%.