This is a curious one. 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10%, so stock going down would lead to less inequality. Yet the top 10% also gets to take out their anger at us.
Edit: and only 50% of American house holds have any retirement savings.
Agreed, but this was how they measured Trump being “better on the economy”. With this final proof, there’s no reason for the rich to continue to back him…
Stocks going up mostly benefits the wealthy. We shouldn’t measure success that way.
On the other hand stocks going down have a habit of affecting the rest of us even more.
This is a curious one. 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10%, so stock going down would lead to less inequality. Yet the top 10% also gets to take out their anger at us.
Edit: and only 50% of American house holds have any retirement savings.
deleted by creator
Is there any literature on this asymmetry? I thought elasticity was the same in either direction.
Agreed, but this was how they measured Trump being “better on the economy”. With this final proof, there’s no reason for the rich to continue to back him…