24 Comments
User's avatar
smg's avatar

Maybe the elite are getting nervous. We'll see.

Expand full comment
Kristi O'Sullivan's avatar

Is this what Klaus Schwab means by the ‘Great Reset’?

Expand full comment
Abe's avatar

guess we know now who held most of that leveraged long cryptocoin stuff

Expand full comment
JohnM's avatar

The Fed bought the missing 18.7% of the wealth and is keeping it safe . . . off balance sheet.

Expand full comment
SphenHeteromorphus's avatar

It didn't just plummet, it's dropped for the whole of the last 30 years!!!!

Expand full comment
Rudy Havenstein's avatar

It's clearly wrong. Waaay wrong. Odd though that it is the only category that is wrong.

Expand full comment
Doug Monroe's avatar

The total of all percentiles (Q1 2022) now only add up to 81.3%. I have the charts from March with Q4 2021 numbers. Top 1% ~33% and everything adds up to 100%. (Top 1%, 90-99, 50-90, bottom 50th percentiles)

Expand full comment
Rudy Havenstein's avatar

Correct, I got same results. ONLY top 1% seems wrong, and by a LOT.

Expand full comment
Doug Monroe's avatar

All better. I think the Fed follows you😀 Weren’t you ragging on Kashkari just prior to your deportation from Twitter?

Expand full comment
Oji's avatar

Try the link at the bottom right of that page: "AlFRED vintage series" . It takes you to a graph with both series (in overlay). Not sure what's going on, but I'm guessing they may have redefined 'wealth' in some way, or the lower number corresponds to a particular category of wealth, etc...

https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=WFRBST01134&utm_source=series_page&utm_medium=related_content&utm_term=related_resources&utm_campaign=alfred

Expand full comment
Doug Monroe's avatar

Good link showing the difference. All the other percentile categories line up in the vintage series. The sum of the aggregate percentages no longer add up to 100%.

Expand full comment
Rudy Havenstein's avatar

Right. The correct number is around 32% or 33%.

Expand full comment
ADM's avatar

That's really odd. Have they issued any explanation?

In March they showed that around 1990 the top 1% held about 23% share of Net Worth and then in June they say that around 1990 the top 1% held only around 8% of Net Worth?

Do they have a time machine? That would be scary.

Expand full comment
Not An Idiot's avatar

Maybe a good number of the 1% sold their stonks and put all their money into ugly monkey jpegs and metaverse real estate - and Fred doesn’t yet count those as “wealth”

Expand full comment
Invisible Sun's avatar

All of government statistics are a model. The bureaucrat's job is to make the numbers fit the model. The politician's job is to make the citizenry accept the model as truth.

Consider this duplicity. The census is a model. It assumes that data inputs can be interpreted a certain way to yield an official number that equates to the population of the country distributed across thousands of geographic location. The census is one of the most important of all government numbers as it directly influences the distribution of congressional representatives and electoral votes and federal distributions.

We know there are errors in the census. This was reported on the past month. Note however that the people reporting errors in the census are part of the same government doing the census. This error reporting yields the impression the census process is sincere about being accurate but it is still all a confidence game. Note that when the Census department reported that a quality check survey did not match the 2020 Census results, the 2020 results are still accepted as the 'TRUTH".

But we know they are not TRUE. Why then are the wrong numbers being used to make government decisions? We also know that while the census numbers are not true, we don't really know the actual census numbers! It is all handwaving.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/2020-census-undercount-overcount-rates-by-state.html

Expand full comment
Rudy Havenstein's avatar

Even in a land of lies, this 1% one stands out. I'm fairly sure they'll correct it.

Expand full comment
Doug Monroe's avatar

The case of the missing percentile. I guess the Whole really is greater than the sum of its parts. The Fed says so. Confirms we are living in negatively curved space/time and the angles of triangles add up to less than 180.

Expand full comment
wwowwo_'s avatar

uh.. wtf. I guess it should come as no surprise the 8astards are so embarrassed about how much wealth they amassed they have to lie through Fred. The fall of this empire is not too far in the distant future at this rate.

Expand full comment
Rudy Havenstein's avatar

The other categories seem correct - bottom 50th, 50th to 90th, and 90th to 99th.

Expand full comment
SamAsIAm's avatar

We will contunue to be lied to by people who have insignificant consequence in their life from this fatal (for milions) course. I know them, both the rich who will use any rationalizatiin to maintain their advantages and the sincerely disturbed but detached. This is a pretense of nation and cohesive society. It's a business arraingement which has always promoted self-aggrandizement above mutual support and ignored hideous consequences to the unseen. It's always been a battle to obtain any human decency extended outaide service to that sick ideal and literally cost the lives of reformers and labor to get any enshrined. These are the inevitable final days of the very well crafted fraud. Hang on and prepare for far worse.

Expand full comment
bigfatpop's avatar

"It's smoke!, and it's flames now!! ... and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring-mast. Oh, the humanity!! . . . and all the passengers screaming around here!"

Expand full comment
Rudy Havenstein's avatar

"In May 1966, Moon and Who bassist John Entwistle recorded the instrumental "Beck's Bolero" with Page, John Paul Jones and Jeff Beck. The track came out well, and they tossed around the idea of forming a new band. Moon allegedly said the band would go over like a lead balloon. Page remembered the joke two years later when he created Zep."

Expand full comment