Stock in Mr. Musk’s rocket and satellite maker closed just above $161, up more than 19 percent from its I.P.O. price.
www.nytimes.com
And the wealth gap just got greater. Currently the top 1% of families own one-third of the total wealth of our nation...and the top 10% of families own two-thirds of the total wealth of our nation. The MAGA morons arguing for government to stay out of the issue must think that people like Trump will voluntarily stop trying to accumulate more of the wealth of the nation. Gotta wonder what percentage of the total wealth will have to be owned by what percentage of the population before something is done to curb the dynamic. My guess: The MAGA morons will say that the wealth will grow...and the problem is not a problem. Fucking idiots.
The data on concentration is roughly accurate, but the framing and implied solutions need scrutiny.
Facts on US wealth distribution
Federal Reserve Distributional Financial Accounts show that as of recent quarters (around 2024-2025), the
top 1% holds about
30-31% of total household wealth, and the
top 10% holds roughly
67-70%. The bottom 50% holds ~2.5%. This has become more concentrated since the 1980s-1990s, driven heavily by asset appreciation (stocks, real estate, business equity) that disproportionately benefits owners of capital.
This isn't new or purely "MAGA" dynamics—it's a long-term trend tied to economic shifts: tech/globalization winners-take-most markets, financialization, lower inflation in goods but asset inflation, and yes, policy (tax treatment of capital gains, etc.).
Total wealth has grown massively; even the bottom has seen absolute gains in many periods, but relative shares shifted upward.
Wealth isn't zero-sum
The critique assumes fixed "total wealth of the nation" that elites hoard, with Trump types refusing to "stop accumulating."
This is a classic error.
Wealth is created through productivity, innovation, trade, and investment—not just redistributed slices of a pie.
- Absolute mobility: Most metrics show broad gains in living standards, life expectancy (pre-COVID trends), tech access, etc., over decades. The pie grew.
- Stock ownership: Top holders benefit from market gains, but millions participate via 401(k)s, pensions, and home equity. The bottom 50% has little stock, which explains part of the gap.
- Entrepreneurship and returns: High returns to skill, scale, and risk (tech, finance) explain a lot of the top concentration. Suppressing that voluntarily or via heavy mandates often shrinks the pie (see historical experiments with heavy redistribution or price controls).
Blaming "MAGA morons" for opposing intervention ignores that both parties have contributed to cronyism (bailouts, subsidies, regulatory barriers favoring incumbents).
Trump isn't a consistent small-government guy; he's transactional on tariffs, spending, etc.
But the core classical-liberal/small-government view isn't "let billionaires hoard"—it's that voluntary exchange, property rights, and limited government interference best generate broad prosperity over time.
Evidence from growth economics: countries with better economic freedom tend to have higher mobility and rising floors despite inequality.
Mobility and dynamics
Wealth/income mobility exists but is imperfect:
- Intergenerational: US rates are lower than Nordic countries but not frozen. Education, family stability, and avoiding bad choices matter hugely. Parental income predicts ~30-50% of child outcomes on average; extremes are stickier.
- High inequality correlates with lower mobility in some studies ("Great Gatsby Curve"), but causation is tricky—human capital, culture, and policy (e.g., zoning, education quality) drive both.
- Many in the top 1% are not static; turnover occurs via new industries. "The wealthy" include entrepreneurs whose assets fluctuate.
Government "curbing the dynamic" has trade-offs:
- Redistribution (transfers, progressive taxes) reduces measured inequality and can help safety nets, but large-scale attempts often blunt incentives, slow growth, create dependency, or get captured (see efficiency costs in econ literature). Transfers reduce Gini more reliably than taxes alone.
- Historical US wealth inequality was high in the Gilded Age, fell mid-century (wars, unions, policy), then rose with globalization/tech.
- Better levers for opportunity: human capital (skills, education reform—not just spending), reducing barriers to entry (occupational licensing, housing regs), stable families, and sound macro policy. Heavy focus on punishing success often fails to raise the floor sustainably.
Calling opponents "fucking idiots" for believing wealth grows and markets allocate better than central planners is tribal, not analytical.
Inequality is real and worth tracking (envy, instability risks), but conflating it with poverty ignores absolute progress.
Solutions should target roots—bad incentives, cronyism, skill gaps—rather than assuming government coercion fixes "the dynamic" without costs.
Data shows concentration, but causation, ethics, and remedies are contested for good reason.
