The 1 percent as persecuted Jews. Yes, he went there.

Here is an interesting tongue-in-cheek look at ridiculous analogies between modern attacks on the so-called “1 percent” on Wall Street and attacks on Jews in Nazi Germany. Tom Perkins made the most recent analogy, comparing the strategy to some kind of new Kristallnacht only to later apologize. I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for people who say outlandish things in public, and then when they get some heat for their honest opinions, recant. If you are going to be a hyperbolic, bat shit crazy conspiracy theorist, I say go all the way and apologize for nothing.

In any case, The Atlantic’s Matt O’Brien rightly called this comparison “historically illiterate and grossly short on perspective,” and he also offered some reasons why the super rich are feeling paranoid these days with their power diminished. More thoughtful Americans, I hope, now see that “fat cats” in Washington and Wall Street do not have America’s best interest at heart, in fact, I would wager that is true very little of the time. Rich people are rich for a reason; they have expendable income, they know how to game the system and they depend on having success to maintain their lavish lifestyles.

Read the full story here: Why Do the Super-Rich Keep Comparing Obama to Hitler? – Matthew O’Brien – The Atlantic.

The 0.01 percent, ctd.

I hinted at this in my last post, and The New York Times’ Paul Krugman made note of it in his recent column, that the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the 99 percenters are actually shooting too low in their criticisms of the rich. The income of the top 0.1 percent of the working population rose 400 percent between 1979-2005, according to an earlier report from the Congressional Budget Office (adjusted for inflation), while the same statistic increased only 21 percent for those in the middle income bracket, and I suggested in the previous post that the top 0.01 percentage also make up a significant percentage of the income share. The recent report from the CBO didn’t look at income brackets higher than the top 1 percent.

Krugman elucidates the basic gravamen of the disgruntled poor and middle class against the super rich and why the latter  contribute little, other than capital gains taxes, to the public coffers or to the economic well-being of the nation:

Given this history, why do Republicans advocate further tax cuts for the very rich even as they warn about deficits and demand drastic cuts in social insurance programs?

Well, aside from shouts of “class warfare!” whenever such questions are raised, the usual answer is that the super-elite are “job creators” — that is, that they make a special contribution to the economy. So what you need to know is that this is bad economics. In fact, it would be bad economics even if America had the idealized, perfect market economy of conservative fantasies.

After all, in an idealized market economy each worker would be paid exactly what he or she contributes to the economy by choosing to work, no more and no less. And this would be equally true for workers making $30,000 a year and executives making $30 million a year. There would be no reason to consider the contributions of the $30 million folks as deserving of special treatment.

But, you say, the rich pay taxes! Indeed, they do. And they could — and should, from the point of view of the 99.9 percent — be paying substantially more in taxes, not offered even more tax breaks, despite the alleged budget crisis, because of the wonderful things they supposedly do.

Still, don’t some of the very rich get that way by producing innovations that are worth far more to the world than the income they receive? Sure, but if you look at who really makes up the 0.1 percent, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that, by and large, the members of the super-elite are overpaid, not underpaid, for what they do.

For who are the 0.1 percent? Very few of them are Steve Jobs-type innovators; most of them are corporate bigwigs and financial wheeler-dealers. One recent analysis found that 43 percent of the super-elite are executives at nonfinancial companies, 18 percent are in finance and another 12 percent are lawyers or in real estate. And these are not, to put it mildly, professions in which there is a clear relationship between someone’s income and his economic contribution.

The 0.01 percent

The following video highlights the wealth distribution in the U.S. The top 0.01 of the income bracket is bringing in 5 percent of the total share of income in the nation at an average rate of $27.3 million, while the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers accounts for 5.3 of the income at a little more than $3.2 million on average. Of course, I don’t believe this graphic accounts for corporations. As you can see, once you get to the notorious Top 1 percent crowd that has been much criticized by folks identifying with the [[Occupy movement]], the disparity drastically jumps. The actual 1 percent of income makers number about 1.5 million, while the next gradation leaps to 7.5 million units at an average pay of $211,000 per year and still far more than that of most Americans. As per the latest estimate, the U.S. has a population of 312,659,914 people. Add those percentages up, and you will find that the top 1 percent hold 20.9 of the wealth.

So much for that

POLL: Tea Party, Occupy Movements Fail to Capture Americans’ Hearts:

WASHINGTON (RNS) In a war between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movement to capture the hearts of Americans, who wins? According to a new poll, it’s a draw.

Less than a third of Americans say either movement represents their values, according to a poll released Wednesday (Nov. 16) by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with Religion News Service.

One thing, however, is clear: neither movement can make a strong claim to speak for Americans. Near identical majorities say neither movement represents their values — 57 percent for the Tea Party, and 56 percent for Occupy Wall Street.

What’s more, one in five Americans say each of the movements has a negative impact on society, and about four in 10 Americans see both as largely irrelevant.

“They’re mirror images of each other, but the symmetry at the national level hides a very different distribution,” said Robert Jones, the research firm’s CEO. “Support for the Tea Party is more intensely concentrated among Republicans, but support for the OWS movement is less intense among Democrats and more evenly spread among other groups.”

OWS and the 99 percent

Wow. When you finally decide to get back to your own site after a 1 1/2 week layoff and can barely remember making the most recent post, you know something is rotten in Denmark.

I’ve been on vacation to New England and specifically, the North Shore above Boston. I actually got back in town late Saturday, rested Sunday, and work has been a whirlwind early this week. I’ll try to pick up the pace as I get back in the swing of things.

Coincidentally, I was actually passing by New York City along one of the perimeter routes when I first heard the announcement on the radio of the Occupy Wall Street demonstration that would take place later that day. I was tempted to take a detour, but I had a long day of driving ahead. Anyway, the following is a response from a Facebook user to a letter written by a recent college graduate who claims that she had worked her way through college, did it all without assuming any debt and that she would not blame Wall Street for any of her bad decisions (This implies that the OWS demonstrators were blaming Wall Street for their personal failings).

Facebook user Kim Fraczek composed a retort to this, which appears at right. For more information on what the 99 percent business is about, visit: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/.

Courtesy Kim Fraczek