False: Most Americans Do not Own Stock

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
First off, these are pundits. They are not basing these statements off of anything but their own opinion. I notice they never back it up with any data and nobody questions them about it. If someone did, it would take a matter of seconds to prove they are dead wrong.

It seems you may be a pundit as well, and not basing your "dead wrong" statement off of anything but your own opinion. Even your linked source rates the "most Americans don't own stocks" claim as "half true", yet you claim it's "dead wrong".

They rate it half true to save face from exposing a liberal lie....

To be precise, a narrow majority of Americans does own stocks, according to credible recent studies. But Khanna has a point that Americans of modest incomes are significantly less invested in the stock market than wealthier Americans are. Other large groups, including minorities and those without a college education, also lag in stock ownership, meaning that the stock rally is largely passing them by.

We rate the statement Half True.

The issue is that the top 10% own about 84% of the overall value of stocks, but 54% of all American's own stock either directly or indirectly, so slightly more than half own stock.

So more than half the population has a stake in the market (i.e, some guy with say a $10k in his 401k) but the lion share of the value is owned by the top 10% at 84% of the market value.

originally posted by: Edumakated
They rate it half true to save face from exposing a liberal lie....

Give the partisan punditry a rest. From the source provided we're talking about a finding of 51.9% in 2016 by the Fed, and 54% in 2017 by Gallup polling. Gallup polling usually has a margin of error around 4-7%, and the Fed's 3 year study would also have a margin of error (likely larger than 1.9%) as well, so the definitive "dead wrong" claim just isn't supported by the facts.

To posit that the claim is "dead wrong" when it's within the margins of error in recent studies is disingenuous.

originally posted by: underwerks
Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that the stock market isn’t an indication of Americas economic health. It’s only an indication of the stock market.

That's a (more or less) true statement but you have to admit that investing in the stock market can make you money. It's like anything else, you have to want to do something to succeed at it.

originally posted by: watchandwait410
What good are pensions and 401k's if you die before retirement.

- a person that will prolly die young

Are you young? I remember when I was 20, I thought I'd never live to be 30. Now I'm wondering if I have enough to live for 25 years after retirement. Start saving... put your money into something that grows and forget about it. When you need it, it will be there for you or your family.

Investment in the market seems to be almost split. The support for the two parties is also almost equally split. Is there some correlation. I can't prove that theory but it would make sense. One party is talking about the market and one is talking about re-distribution of wealth.

I have another theory. A lot of wealthy people like famous actors, musicians, late night hosts may say in public they dislike Trump but are indeed voting for him. Bernie and Warren for example, their plans would heavily tax these people. Why would they agree to have their tax rate heavily increased. They also like to bash the guy or even concoct some phony racist attack to promote their show, movie or album.

Agree that most Americans are bigtime gamblers.

That much is unfortunately true

originally posted by: letni
Agree that most Americans are bigtime gamblers.

That much is unfortunately true

And what are you doing to secure your sunset years? Independently wealthy maybe? Or living off taxpayers?

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Edumakated
They rate it half true to save face from exposing a liberal lie....

Give the partisan punditry a rest. From the source provided we're talking about a finding of 51.9% in 2016 by the Fed, and 54% in 2017 by Gallup polling. Gallup polling usually has a margin of error around 4-7%, and the Fed's 3 year study would also have a margin of error (likely larger than 1.9%) as well, so the definitive "dead wrong" claim just isn't supported by the facts.

To posit that the claim is "dead wrong" when it's within the margins of error in recent studies is disingenuous.

The claim was that most americans dont own stock. The politician making the claim tried to make it seem as if less than 10% of people own stocks when in fact it is north of 50%. So yes, it is dead wrong and trying to claim it is half true is disingenuous.

We can split hairs over if 50% is most but it clearly is not 10% and most reasonable people would call the original claim BS in light of the facts.

Wait until the dollar becomes completely worthless through hyperinflation of our debt based monetary system. The stock markets are a giant casino. For the most part stocks don't gain value. The dollar loses value making stocks worth more dollars. Same with real estate or any other market. The only money you own is money you physically possess, the rest belongs to government & banks. If there are bank runs or if the electric grid and/or internet goes down, money in 401ks, as well as, cryptocurrencies becomes non-existent. You basically don't own anything until you cash out before something like this happens. Gold & silver maintain value over time unlike U.S. dollars. The U.S. dollar has lost @ 95% of its value since 1971, when we went completely off the Gold standard. Our debt based monetary system will collapse without the creation of new debt. For every $100 deposited, the Federal Reserve Bank creates $90 out of thin air. The more dollars there are, the less they're worth. Our debt is growing exponentially larger as time goes on in the same form as a Ponzi scheme. As of right now the Fed is creating at least betwen 50 to 100 billion dollars per week to keep banks afloat. The debt will continue to grow exponentially larger until the dollar is completely worthless & govemnemt can't afford to pay its employees or pay for services. Our government can't afford to pay the interest on the debt, let alone the principle. This is why we'll continue to see lower interest rates & eventually negative interest rates.

Leftist cities are the canary in the coal mine for what we'll see during the rest of this financial crisis Unaffordable housing/food/fuel/taxes, rampant homelessness, rampant drug use, feces/used needles in the streets, the return of medieval & biblical diseases like Black plague & leprosy, fires, grid failures, including city water problems & electricity/internet outages.

It doesn't matter which side one's on politically, once costs rise to unaffordable levels, people will revolt against government. We can see this happening in France, with the Yellow Vest protests, which have been going on for over a year now, due to green fuel taxes. Similar protests are happening all over the world right now, from Hong Kong, to the Netherlands, to central America.

it is weird how they dont own a car, house, land or even a lemon tree for some vitamin c,

but only stuff that's not even tangible but supposedly worth a lot. no tanks

I have a senior relative in-law who owns stock.

It became his after his mother passed away, then his older brother who everything was willed too because he's.. shall we say, special. It's in PG&E; his mom worked for them for twenty years and had a retirement package in stocks.

Before the fires, it was a small fortune. After the fires when they were around $25 per, it was supposed to be about $12,000 worth. They're at $7 now so.. maybe $3,000?

Ironically, he's been trying to cash them in all year but after a couple of month of mail and phone correspondence with sending the death certificate, will etc, they can't find anything in their system about it because of its age and redirected him to unclaimed property CA, which redirected him to unclaimed property in his state.

End result: PG&E kept the value of the stocks instead of losing more value by giving them to him. But, that's a conspiracy theory. I'd assume their offices that deal with stocks are interesting these days to say the least.

a reply to: FlyingSquirrel

Sounds like an outline case. I had a WWII uncle. Guy was of meager means. Lived in a modest home, maybe 1800 sqft in a bad neighborhood. People didn't know though he loved playing the stock market. He was investing for decades.

After he passed we found out he was worth close the 5 million. I didn't see any of it lol, but he family did. He had a couple of daughters who also did know. Their father was a multi-millionaire living like he was barely making it. Hilarious at his wake because they were not expecting to inherit much.

originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel

End result: PG&E kept the value of the stocks instead of losing more value by giving them to him. But, that's a conspiracy theory. I'd assume their offices that deal with stocks are interesting these days to say the least.

End result is extremely poor management and record keeping of the single stock, not to mention poor investment strategy by putting all eggs in a single basket. Not PG&E's fault.