Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore so admired the daily demonstrations against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker that he traveled from New York to Madison for one on March 5, 2011.
The liberal firebrand opened his speech by heaping praise on those fighting the Republican governor’s efforts to take collective bargaining powers from state and local government employees.
But he put more firepower into bashing the nation’s rich.
"Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined," Moore avowed to tens of thousands of protesters.
"Let me say that again. And please, someone in the mainstream media, just repeat this fact once; we’re not greedy, we’ll be happy to hear it just once.
"Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks -- most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined."
PolitiFact then checks Moore's numbers, which he made available on his website to back his claim:
Since Moore’s statistics were for 2009, we sought figures for 2010.
The 2010 net worth of the Forbes 400 was $1.37 trillion, Forbes reported in September 2010. That same month, the total U.S. net worth was $54.9 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve Board report cited by Moore.
Wolff hasn’t updated his 2009 figures. So we used his 2.3 percent figure again, multiplied by the 2010 total net worth of $54.9 trillion, and found that the net worth of the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households was $1.26 trillion in 2010.
That’s less than the 2010 net worth for the Forbes 400.
How could it be that 400 people have more wealth than half of the more than 100 million U.S. households?
Think of it this way. Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home; they also have debt, for a mortgage, credit cards and other bills. Some people would still have a pretty healthy bottom line. But many -- including those who lost a job and their home in the recession -- have a negative net worth. So that drags down the total net worth for the poorer half of U.S. households that Moore cited.
We also want to add one cautionary note, from Mitchell of the Cato Institute, about Moore’s methodology: The Federal Reserve uses hard numbers to calculate the net worth of all households, but Forbes uses assumptions and interviews along with hard numbers in estimating the net worth of the Forbes 400.
There’s no way to know how the differences between the two affect the net worth numbers, but Moore used the data that are available and there’s no indication he "cherry-picked" figures for a desired result, Mitchell said.
With that caveat, our assessment indicates that as of 2009, the net worth of the nation’s 400 wealthiest individuals exceeds the net worth of half of all American households.
We rate Moore’s statement True.
Astonishing. And it's not even close: the wealthiest 400 Americans have a higher combined net worth than some 155,000,000 Americans combined, and the super-rich win this battle by some $90 billion. The combined net worth of the super-rich has actually increased since "Socialist, redistributionist" Obama took office.
Let me put it to you another way. From 2009 to 2010, the country's total net worth went from $53.1 billion to $54.9 trillion. The entire United States added $1.8 trillion in net worth gains. $100 billion of that $1.8 trillion growth went just to the richest 400 people in the country. 400 out of 308,000,000 got an extra $100 billion last year. $250,000,000 a piece, on average.
What was your share of the remaining $1.7 trillion?
Let me put in another way. The country's net worth grew by $1.8 trillion from 2009 to 2010. That $1.8 trillion growth is more than the entire combined net worth of 50% of the country, and by some $600 billion. If a rising tide lifts all boats, and the country's net worth grew by nearly $2 trillion, why aren't the least of us prospering? That's enough to double the net worth of half the country. America is doing great!
Until you realize that an overwhelming majority of that net worth growth went only to the richest Americans. Meanwhile, the rest of us are told we have to tighten our belts because America is insolvent. Where are these jobs that the rich are supposed to create with their investments? Where's the shared sacrifice? Where's the rising tide that lifts all boats?
Seems to me the "class war" the Village keeps talking about has been won a long time ago, and we lost so badly we don't even know that it's hopelessly over. If .00013% of the country is getting 5.5% of the entire net worth growth of the country and the vast majority of us are losing money, exactly how is this a good thing?
No comments:
Post a Comment