It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
...the collective fortunes of the top 1,000 on the list have risen by 30% in the past year - the biggest jump in the list's 22-year history - to £333.5bn.
Last year the top 1,000 saw their fortunes decrease by about £155bn - to £258bn - and the number of billionaires fell from 75 to 43. This time, it has risen by 10 to 53.
Originally posted by endisnighe
Please tell me someone did not say uncontrolled capitalism.
What controls would you like in effect?
I mean really, the government/private banks control the FIAT money supply.
Big corporations can't control their revenue growth, but they can squeeze every expense to pad the bottom line. So, while sales fell slightly, earnings increased, and investors lived happily ever after.
The stock market always has the potential to go into a boom. Stock prices go up a little, people earn interesting returns. More loose money comes to the market, prices go up even more, attracting still more money. Rumors about a bull market begin; more money comes in. How can you beat 14% per month? Usually the market doesn't become completely unhinged from the underlying value of the shares. The last time it did, in 1929, the real economy was also overbuilt; the rich had just received tax cuts; financiers in Wall Street had become objects of public admiration (and then objects of scandal); many clever devices to leverage debt with no underlying assets had been invented; and government officials were acting primarily as cheerleaders and weren't paying much attention to what was really going on.
The Dow, the S&P 500, and the NASDAQ are primarily indices of large U.S.-based companies, not main street businesses: more Davos than Chamber of Commerce. These increasingly cosmopolitan firms have been busy globalizing and expanding their operations overseas. In 2006, according to Standard & Poor's, 238 members of the S&P 500 broke out revenues between U.S. and non-U.S. sales. These companies notched about 43.6 percent of sales outside the United States. For large companies that had already saturated the U.S. market, the home market was something of an afterthought. In the second quarter of 2007, 66 percent of Coca-Cola's beverage business came from outside North America.
Originally posted by yellowcard
Uhm, that's because the stock market is up ~30% in the past year...
Stock != realized wealth. Anyhow, I'm sure this thread will become full of people who hate the rich, and it's really the NWO and blah blah blah....but really the only reason this is true is because the stock market is up that amount...the article has an agenda
[edit on 25-4-2010 by yellowcard]
The financialization part is harder, but here’s a quickie version. The whole point of production under capitalism is not the satisfaction of needs, but the accumulation of money. In other words, it’s impossible to separate the economic world into a good productive side and a bad financial side; the two are inseparable. The monetary surpluses generated in production—the profits of capitalist businesses—accumulate over time and demand some sort of outlet: bank deposits, bonds, stocks, whatever. It’s going to be that way until we replace capitalism with something radically different. And we have a consumer debt problem not because of some sinister conspiracy of bankers, but because our managerial class has kept wages down for the last 35 years. In order to maintain some semblance of a middle-class lifestyle, people have borrowed from the rich who’ve claimed most of the gains of an expanding economy. In other words, you can’t easily separate finance from the so-called real economy.
As everyone probably knows by now, the SEC is accusing Goldman of tricking clients into buying some crappy mortgage securities, ones that were handpicked as likely to go under by another of its clients, hedge fund hotshot John Paulson. To bet against these securities, Paulson needed someone to take the other side of the trade; basically, Goldman brokered a deal so that the buyer’s almost-certain losses would be the source of Paulson’s almost-certain gains. It all worked out for Paulson, or so the SEC says. But Goldman can afford the best lawyers in the world, among them a former top Obama advisor, and the SEC is staffed by civil servants, so it’s quite likely that Goldman will get off lightly or better.