It’s a depressing read.
> A class of enablers has arisen to help Moneylanders perform parts two and three of what Bullough describes as their eternal cycle: “steal-hide-spend”. London overflows with lawyers, bankers, accountants, estate agents, public relations advisers, luxury-goods sellers, restaurateurs and art dealers who make their living servicing criminals. They see themselves as neutral, highly skilled professionals who (mostly, anyway) work within the law.
If you're a Jew who knows his or her history, you probably know the answer to this question already. Jews frequently get scapegoated by populists (and others) when people are targeting "stateless money changers" regardless of the fact that most of the key players mentioned here are English, Russian, and Chinese.
Do it, or Chinese will do it for us.
I disagree, they have vastly more capital than the 99% of earners below them. Unless you're comparing those 1%ers to someone like Zuckerberg specifically, there's really no way to square this statement.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the earnings threshold to be in the top 1% of earners in 2017 was $718K.[0] That's a pretty incredible amount of annual capital for an individual. Sure, it's not enough to start a hedge fund, but even after taxes, you're able to seriously invest in things like real estate, which fewer Americans are able to do.
0: https://www.epi.org/blog/top-1-0-percent-reaches-highest-wag...
> There’s so much ease to global movement of capital they just move it around so they pay - no taxes - have no accounts with their name on it - launder all their money legally (if need be) - buy up property and invest without any interest in any country in particular.
>top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes
Radiolab (I think?) had an episode on this.
Even the rich are jealous of their "1%".
To make the top 1% in terms of income, yes, it's $32k/year but to make the top 1% in terms of wealth you would need $770k in net worth, well beyond most Americans, even with assets such as an iPhone and a Starbucks coffee.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...
Not at all - from the comment I was replying to “Vast majority of top 1% don't even have much capital to speak of.”
But my wider point being that it is just used to mean “anyone slightly wealthier than me”.
https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/[0]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-...
These people (top 1% by capital) are as far from archetypal "sharks of capitalism" as it gets.
Indeed. Someone who bought their house in the 70s or 80s and has now paid off their mortgage and also been contributing to a pension fund for a 40-year working life could easily retire with a “net worth” of $770k. It would be a stretch to count them as “rich”.