The TMacD 2026 ECONOMIC MANIFESTO
February 25, 2026
This Manifesto is intended to appeal to voters and to ideally help create movements focused on improving economic equality. The focus is on a relevant, interesting, convincing, and appealing plan. If successful, it leads to a tide that lifts all boats. It will indirectly remind us that important midterm elections in the distance are closer than they appear. We will become aware that the political machines have fully recharged once again and are now ready to merge with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and do their best (or is it their worst). For some reason, whenever I ask AI about LGBTQ, I never get a straight answer ha ha. Am I asking the wrong questions? It's a good time to do some exploring.
Many mornings, lately, I have awakened screaming, my heart pounding, collapsed in a sweaty fetal ball position, and filled with rage, as I once again remember that Donald Trump is President.
RAGE (AI)
This is no way to live. There is no progress achieved when one is full of rage. Rage is filled with negative energy that inhibits rational thought. Something better must be done. There needs to be calm, clarity, and focus that allows for deeper thinking about what is wrong, what the most important issues are, and what positive actions are needed to move society forward. I've come to realize that our government is heading in the one direction the founding fathers tried the hardest to prevent - a monarchy. Monarchies provide benefits to a few elites while harming many. We believed a democratic republic government would shield us from becoming an authoritarian monarchy, but that is now uncertain. Now the most important societal concern is about creating a plan that changes the government in ways that heads us back towards a democracy.
The most critical issue facing voters in upcoming elections is that the increasing concentration of wealth into the hands of so few people will eventually cause a disastrous societal collapse.
Steps needed in order to make enough progress:
3 Equal Branches of Government Working Together as a Democratic Republic (as US Constitution intends) (AI)
For me, an effort like this is best expressed through a narrative that reflects the stages of my life. Let's sprinkle in a few AI generated images to make things interesting, which allows me to become familiar with some AI capabilities (AI is not going away). Hopefully, these images add a few light hearted elements that are too often lacking these days. We do not need more polarization. I feel like expressions filled with raging anger only discourage others from becoming interested the message. The message should ensure that hope, understanding, and accomplishment are possible. I believe this approach is the most effective way of capturing the most attention and reducing polarization.
This is a story of hope where, if the vast majority of people agree that the identified problems exist today, and agree the right solutions will result in success, then meaningful lifestyle improvements will follow. Having said that, I also believe that making these positive changes will not be easy. Those that are currently in power are very powerful and are motivated to keep the current status quo. Still, I argue that it is imperative that we try. If the current economic direction continues, then I argue this will lead to a disheartening chaos. So, read on to see if you agree with me. I'll keep it interesting.
There are many individuals articulating opinions about what current issues need to be addressed. However, do proposed solutions to these issues (and others) really affect the longer term problem of deteriorating lifestyles? Is that message convincing us that, over the long term, there will be an improved way of life for most people? Is focusing on these issues really in our best interest? I often view these lists as weapons of mass distraction.
Let's investigate a couple of these issues to see if they are distractions.
Aliens Are Bad (AI) 👽
One issue that receives attention is immigration. Some people believe that immigrants are taking away their jobs, and that is one reason why they are having trouble finding employment or not earning a wage that provides a decent living. Now consider a current trend of using artificially intelligent agents (AI agents) to do the work that used to be performed by humans. These AI agents are also taking jobs from humans. There are reliable predictions that there will be many millions of active AI agents in the foreseeable future. Aren't these software agents a bigger threat than immigrants? There are many millions more jobs at stake. At least immigrants pay taxes and buy food and services. AI agents have no guardrails. There are corporate incentives to employ them because they are never whistle blowers. For example, they never report fraud, at least there's no requirement to do so.
There have been cases of immigrants committing crimes and that causes concern. Now consider the generative AI chatbot Character.ai created in 2022 (Wikipedia). This app has a negative side. It is accused of promoting suicide, anorexia, and self-harm. There is a reported case where a 16-year-old boy named Adam Raine committed suicide after extensive conversations with a ChatGPT therapist (NPR). Not only did the ChatGPT AI agent discourage him from seeking help from his parents, it even offered to write his suicide note. These AI agents have claimed to be licensed psychotherapists. This is both impossible and illegal. This sounds like criminal behavior to me. However, unlike with immigrants, I do not expect there to be any criminal investigation into possible illegal or immoral behavior.
A closer look reveals that immigrants are not the reason why lifestyles are deteriorating. There are many documented cases of employers saying they are unable to find employees to fill positions because immigrants disappeared. We need immigrants. This is just a distraction. AI agents are a bigger societal problem, yet currently, they do not seem to create as big of a political distraction as those that arise from immigrants.
Working AI Agents Are Just As BAD (AI) 🤖
Similar analysis of other issues reveals that they are not the primary cause of deteriorating lifestyles. For example, consider housing. Providing proper housing is often cited as being important, and people want to be able to afford it. How should this be done? Has any city ever solved housing issues by simply building a massive number of houses? It's not as simple as building a bunch of houses and then hoping that a massive number of home buyers will just swoop in and buy them. Housing is more complicated than that. No one is going to build a lot of houses and then sell them for a loss. Similarly, lenders are not going to issue mortgages to buyers that cannot afford to buy the homes. What is needed, initially, is to pay people a living wage. Next, we need policies that encourage builders to build houses and mortgage lenders to make loans. If wages rise as productivity rises, and favorable policies are enacted, then construction of new housing will also rise. Again, housing is a distraction unless voters recognize that the real issues are wages and the extreme concentration of wealth. I claim that the issues that dominate many discussions function as distractions, lead to culture wars, and too often prevent voters from being able to focus on the most important issues.
Distracted Voters Suffer (AI)
AI thinks only men are more likely to suffer
| 🤷 |
I believe that distractions are tricking voters to avoid thinking about what is actually in their best interest. I believe that voters want to hear about solutions that will give rise to improved living conditions for the vast majority. What issues, if solved, will give the most voters an improved lifestyle? The issue I focus on the most is wealth concentration. Too few people control too much wealth, and way too many people are excluded from the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.
There is (essentially) a finite amount of wealth in the world. There is not an infinite amount of wealth in existence. Technology, mining, and innovation incrementally add wealth to society, but where does that wealth go? When someone accumulates wealth, that wealth does not belong to anyone else. Today, the prevailing belief is that way too much of the new and available wealth is concentrated into the hands of too few people. When that wealth flows into the hands of the ultra rich, it flows away from everyone else. The direction of the flow in place today is away from the vast majority of people and toward just a few people. This has been going on for decades. When the ultra rich acquire way too much of this country's wealth, there are consequences. The consequences include an increase in poverty. Meaning, more poor people cannot afford housing, cannot afford healthcare, and too often have to decide between eating and paying the rent. Similarly, fewer people are able to achieve a middle class lifestyle. This is a problem that keeps getting worse. I believe fixing this problem is essential in order to improve the living conditions of most people. This isn't a theory! It's visible in decades of wage, productivity, and wealth data. I also believe that a significant majority of voters agree with me here.
In summary, during the decades that this flow of wealth direction has been occurring:
Homelessness Is Rising (AI)
2025 homelessness data is an estimate
| 🤷 |
If I'm right about the current economic direction, then I believe I can make a persuasive case for why this will eventually give rise to chaos. We live in a consumer-driven economy that only works effectively if enough people earn enough income to afford the things they need, thereby enabling the economy to grow (remember, the stock market is not the economy). If too many people are not earning enough income to maintain some minimally necessary lifestyle, the overall economy suffers. It feels reasonable to draw the conclusion that if the persistent concentration of wealth continues to increase the wealth of just a few ultra rich people, while the wealth of everyone else decreases, eventually many people will become very poor. There is a point in time where this trend results in civilization breaking down. If the economic conditions of too many people deteriorate enough, the breakdown of civilization becomes a plausible scenario.
Civilization Breakdown Like Gaza (AI)
We are not yet in this state of deterioration, but there are telltale signs that make me feel like we are headed in this direction. If we are headed this way, then I claim something needs to be done now to change the direction of the flow of wealth. Ask yourself the following question:
If you answer yes
(or answer no
but are curious),
then read on and explore my explanation about why
the rate of wealth concentration is linked to excessive poverty.
Finally, I claim there are ways to reverse the current trends that
enable this concentration of wealth
even though I think it will be difficult.
Since I believe that the current trends will eventually result in
a breakdown of civilization, I feel I must try.
The first step is recognizing that excessive wealth
concentration is the main problem.
The second step is convincing enough people that change is possible.
The third step is influencing a large enough group of "We The People"
to participate in supporting political actions that reverse the
current policies.
Finally, this is not really about characteristics
like political affiliation, religion, or gender.
Everyone is affected.
A message for 2026 is that we must emphasize the need for making
changes that will benefit the whole country.
The economy doesn't have to keep crushing more and more people
in order to be successful.
I don't want an economy that produces a
comfortable lifestyle for just a few.
I want the economy to work for many.
This is not about anger, it's about responsibility and hope.
I am a privileged old white male geezer who has never gone hungry a day in his life. Someone who has never experienced homelessness, always had a comfortable bed to sleep in, and always had friends and family to be there for me when I needed help. I am college educated, was gainfully employed until retirement, never experienced poverty, benefited from having access to quality healthcare, and clearly benefited from all the privileges that came with my birth. In hindsight, I am also someone who did not pay enough attention to changes happening in this country that caused so many people to lose access to the American Dream (unlike me). I believe there has been a method to this madness. The result of this madness is a rapid increase of wealth concentration that benefits just a few people, while simultaneously increasing poverty levels for many, many others. Below is my explanation of how I had an AH HA moment that helped me understand why the economic pendulum started swinging in a different direction. The policies that were enacted because of this swing caused more and more people to start losing access to the American Dream while allowing a small minority to start accumulating tremendous amounts of wealth. This is a story about me and my journey to understand why there was a pendulum swing that favored significant wealth concentration, why unfavorable consequences occurred because of this concentration, and what can be done to change the direction of that pendulum swing back to where it makes the most sense.
AH HA! (AI)
why'd this take me so long?
| 🤷 |
I was born in the 1950s after WWII at Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis. I grew up in a neighborhood where other working-class and middle-class families lived and worked.
Post WWII Housing (AI)
The parents of families in my neighborhood held a variety of jobs and mostly lived in houses. It was normal for families in my neighborhood to be well enough off to own a house, feed their families, send their kids to school, and be able to go to doctors and dentists as needed. They were well enough off because typical jobs paid a livable wage that grew year over year and mostly exceeded the rate of inflation. Families could take a vacation every year, if they wanted to, and as their children grew up, they were often better off than their parents. Life was pretty good when I was growing up. My childhood happened during a time when families, typically, didn't have excessive wealth but benefited from real wage growth.
Not My Childhood Neighborhood (AI)
This was a time, often referred to as the "Great Prosperity" era (simply put: the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s), when many were living the American Dream, and the poverty level was low. There was a sense of maintaining a vibrant community and a desire to build and improve on the needs of society. Everyone benefited. The extreme concentration of wealth happening today did not exist at this time. The Great Prosperity era of my childhood lasted for (essentially) three decades, was a period where wages and productivity grew in tandem, and is the last era in my lifetime where average working-class and middle-class households saw sustained wage growth that mostly exceeded the rate of inflation. I guess this means we were lucky to have enjoyed a period of time when there was far more wealth equality than there is today. This was also a time when both the quality and affordability of health care, college education, and housing improved. For the record, I believe it is still possible for society to make the needed changes that will once again allow the typical family to achieve the American Dream. I'm not saying that everything was perfect during the Great Prosperity era. Despite existing flaws and cultural exclusions, it was a period when growth was broadly shared. The goal is to recognize that benefits arise from learning what worked in the past. There is no claim that blindly recreating the path is beneficial.
Up To Us Which Way Pendulum Swings (AI)
However, as we all know, over the years more obstacles have been put in the way of reaching that American Dream goal, and they must be overcome. These obstacles primarily affect the working class and the middle class. The working class is threatened with increasing levels of poverty. The number of middle class households is shrinking, and that lifestyle is becoming harder to reach. Why is it that families living after the Great Prosperity era became burdened with stagnant wages while the costs associated with housing, college education, and healthcare keep rising? Similarly, why is the number of households achieving the American Dream decreasing while worker productivity keeps increasing? Workers are producing more but earning less. This results in more wealth moving into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Is it possible, going forward, to somehow help more households achieve the American Dream? It's been done before, and I lived through a good part of it during a period after WWII. It's not impossible, and it can happen again if the right steps are taken. But I don't want to get ahead of myself here. First, why did the Great Prosperity era end?
Boléro is a classical orchestral work by French composer Maurice Ravel. This composition consists of a loop that repeats over and over again. Additional orchestral instruments are added at every new iteration of this musical loop, thereby generating a continuous crescendo. It was his last classical composition. His mental state gradually deteriorated after that until his death in 1937.
Boléro Music Sheet (AI)
During the Great Prosperity era there was also a loop, but it was an economic loop. Each iteration of the loop generated a broader range of lifestyle enhancements. These societal enhancements occurred because communities worked together to improve daily life. Communities were continuously striving to enact policies that helped pay livable wages that exceed inflation, improved the education of the young, facilitated affordable home ownership, improved healthcare, and improved neighborhoods for families. These enhancements worked together to help ensure that the chances of achieving the American Dream improved with each iteration. Along with these continuous improvements during this era of prosperity, there were significant gains in both worker productivity and consumption. These benefits were shared with working-class and middle-class families. Living standards improved, and this economic loop was generating its own Boléro like economic crescendo. My generation mostly experienced a better life than the one our parents lived. A concentration of wealth existed in society, but to a much lesser degree. There is no goal to achieve complete equality, but there was a goal to reduce inequality.
Spiral Top Shows Many Benefited by End of Great
Prosperity Loop
Each Great Prosperity Loop Iteration Shows Continuous Life Improvements (AI)
The end of the Great Prosperity era Boléro loop contrasts starkly with newer trends. Now each iteration of the loop produces both a higher concentration of wealth and younger generations that no longer experience better life opportunities than their parents had. What triggered this change?
Below are a couple of interesting people that are worth examining. These two people are characteristic of those who decided that the policies in place during the Great Prosperity era were bad policies.
Milton Friedman in 1986
Milton Friedman (Wikipedia) was a Nobel Award winning economist who challenged Keynesian economic theory. Keynesianism was a standard economic model during the Great Prosperity era and favored considering the needs of society when creating policies. Friedman, on the other hand, made quotes like the following.
"There is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
In other words, Friedman preached that businesses should focus on the needs of shareholders and executive officers that run the businesses. Why bother promoting liveable wages for anyone else? It's as if compensation for all other employees should be minimized as much as possible because that is in the interest of the shareholders.
"I am in favor of cutting taxes and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."
If taxes are slashed such that the primary beneficiaries are the very richest people, Friedman seems to say, "that's still great."
Friedman served as an advisor to President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margret Thatcher.
Ayn Rand in 1943
Ayn Rand (aka Alice O'Connor (born Alisa Zinovyevna)) (Wikipedia) was a writer and philosopher who advocated for many of the same ideas as Milton Friedman. Her writings are still read by many people. Atlas Shrugged was her most successful book (also turned into a film).
Atlas Shrugged (AI)
A quote from another one of her books The Fountainhead:
"Freedom: to ask nothing, to expect nothing, to depend on nothing."
My summary of Ayn Rand is that she views community as an enemy
that prevents individuals from becoming the people they want to be.
This makes me wonder how Ayn views humanity in general.
Should humanity ask nothing, expect nothing, and depend on nothing?
A 1978 New York Times article called her the Reagan administration's
novelist laureate
.
Ask Nothing, Expect Nothing, Depend on Nothing (AI)
AI thinks mostly brunette women ask/expect/depend on nothing
| 🤷 |
The era that began after the Great Prosperity is called the Great Divergence (still in existence). The reason I start this discussion of the Great Divergence era with these two individuals is because they have a following that promotes policies that prioritize wealth over community. Wealth is the most important economic metric - period! Wealth is how we keep score. At least that's how I see them and the like-minded people who follow in their footsteps. This extreme focus on wealth during this Great Divergence era has had a negative impact on the lives of way too many everyday people.
Just to be clear, I don't feel that people who believe in these policies are bad or evil. They have a view and can change their minds. The same is true for all of us. It's important to keep that in mind. I just believe that the polices they currently promote introduce too many negative outcomes. In this manifesto I am explaining my viewpoint. I am also willing to carefully listen to those that believe differently. I believe that my responses to the negative outcomes I discuss are broadly accepted as being worthy of serious consideration. They are presented in ways that demonstrate how making the right changes can enhance the lives of a clear majority of voters. I want to help implement positive changes for the most people. The best way to accomplish this is by seriously listening to people, by sharing why these proposed changes makes sense, and by expressing a willingness to compromise.
Just for a change of pace, it's time to take the following visual test:
| Three Blue Lines | One Black Line |
|---|---|
| |
|
Most likely you picked the middle blue line because the correct answer is obvious. In 1975, psychologist Solomon Asch (Wikipedia) asked a group of seven people to participate in multiple trials involving similar tests that also had obvious correct answers. For the first two trials, everyone correctly identified the obvious correct answer. For the third trial, the first six people confidently, but clearly and incorrectly, chose the leftmost blue line as the line that has the same height as the black line. It turns out that this was not a vision test. It was a conformity test. The first six people were actors instructed to say that the leftmost blue line matched. The seventh person answered last and was the only one that was actually being tested. This test was conducted over and over again, with college level students, demonstrating that 75% of those actually being tested gave the wrong answer and therefore, conformed with the group (at least once). Therefore 3 out of 4 people chose the comfort of conformity instead of an obvious reality. The test subjects did not want to uncomfortably stand out by being different. They admitted this when asked about it after the conclusion of the test. Not wanting to stand out illustrates how peer pressure influences behavior - often in negative ways. For example, this can help explain why voters too often cast votes that are not in their best interest.
This test also shows that 25% of the test subjects chose to to stand out instead of conforming. Those that stand out show a willingness to remain independent in spite of social pressure to conform. They demonstrate a commitment to their version of the truth especially if they are confident in the correct answer. Can we use this information to help us understand why some people take a particular position while others take a different position? Also, what is needed to change someone's position?
I believe that both Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand would have picked the obviously correct middle blue line. They would be willing to stand out and choose an economic model option (e.g., monetarism) that was not a choice that was within the current societal comfort zone (Keynesian economics) because they held a strong belief in their version of the truth. And this is where an AH HA moment occurs for me. They also managed to convince many other people, including President Reagan (Reaganomics), that their choice was the obviously better option going forward. Their choice was to totally focus on generating profits and wealth for the shareholders (not to the company or employees). It wouldn't matter if that eventually lead to a deterioration of overall community living conditions. For them, this was the obvious choice because they believed, that in this case, the black target line was best represented by freedom, and freedom is only truly achieved if enough profit and wealth is created. They changed the test by changing what the black target line represents. This generated fans that were willing to follow in their footsteps, and eventually created a new comfort zone and a new way of conforming. At least, that's the way I see it. If I'm right, it's possible to once again create fans and yet another new comfort zone, where freedom requires including some social balance in policies used to govern. These policies will always consider the overall well being of humanity. It turns out that feeling comfortable is appealing, and conforming is easier when life is comfortable. However, the message is important.
During the Great Prosperity era, freedom was achieved by recognizing that a society's basic economic foundations grow in tandem with prosperity. Otherwise, society itself would slowly deteriorate until it no longer provided a lifestyle that supports the vast majority of the working-class and middle-class population. Now, what does freedom actually mean? Ayn Rand defined it as ask nothing, depend on nothing, expect nothing. Sounds to me like this message is that the government can start removing, for example, basic services from the list of things it provides and everyone will experience more freedom, even if the richest are the only ones gaining additional freedom in the form of additional wealth.
I'm more of a fan of the way freedom was expressed during the Great Prosperity era than the direction promoted by individuals like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. This is an important point. In order to change direction, such that communities head back toward enacting policies that lead toward societal structures popular during the Great Prosperity era, we need to change the meaning of freedom again. Are you really free if you can't earn a living wage, can't afford healthcare, can't buy a house, and can't get the education you need? That is, communities should be able to ask for something, depend on something, and expect something from the government. Too often people that are struggling are incorrectly accused of being lazy or making bad decisions in their lives. A closer look reveals that too often they have been subjected to government policies that are not fair. The dice are loaded; the deck is stacked; the playing field is not level; and the game is rigged. All that is being asked is to provide fair rules, independent referees, and equal opportunities - now that's freedom.
The Great Divergence era is the period of time that occurs after the Great Prosperity era. This several-decades-long era is characterized by an increase in worker productivity but without a similar increase in wages. We are still living in the Great Divergence era today. That is, worker productivity and wage increases are no longer growing in tandem, but the concentration of wealth continues on an upward trajectory.
Spiral Top Shows Very Few have Benefited From Great
Divergence
Each Great Divergence Loop Iteration shows Fewer and Fewer Lives Improving (AI)
At the beginning of this era wealth was more evenly distributed. However, wealth started flowing upward fairly quickly. As time passed by, it kept concentrating until very few people controlled the vast majority of the wealth. Why did wages stop growing? Milton Friedman and Any Rand recommended it. Ronald Reagan was willing to help. Since wealth has continued concentrating during every presidential administration since the Regan administration, this is not just a political-party issue. Presidents affiliated with both parties oversaw deregulation. For example, in 1999 President Bill Clinton signed a bill that effectively repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated Wall Street from Main Street banks. In 2007 - 2008, less than 10 years later, the Great Recession financial crisis occurred.
The Great Divergence era began after I finished college. This era was characterized by an increase in worker productivity but little average wage growth. Consumption had become more difficult because things had become become more expensive and wage growth has slowed. Things cost less to make because wages had stagnated while worker productivity had increased. Profits therefore, had also gone up. And oh yeah, corporate executive wages had definitely risen. Investor wealth increased as profits rose and stock markets rose higher.
Finally, look at who is paying taxes during the Great Divergence era and compare that to the Great Prosperity era. The data shows corporations paid less in taxes while individuals paid more. Therefore, wealth continuously concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
| YEAR | 1950 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals | 40.7% | 47.4% |
| Corporations | 35.4% | 10.6% |
| Social Insurance & retirement | 7.6% | 32.8% |
| Excise (sometimes called sin tax) | 13.9% | 3% |
| Other | 2.4% | 6.2% |
Now we have created a system where the amount of wealth working-class and middle-class families accumulate is decreasing, while simultaneously allowing the wealthy to accumulate more. One result of this (among other things I'll get into later) is that over the last 35 years, the wealthiest 1% of Americans have significantly increased their share of the country's net worth. This is shown in the data table below (Federal Reserve Economic Data).
| Share of Household Wealth | 1990(%) | 2000(%) | 2010(%) | 2020(%) | 2023(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top 0.1% | 9% | 10% | 11% | 13% | 14% |
| 99-99.9% | 14 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 17 |
| 90-99% | 37 | 36 | 40 | 38 | 36 |
| 50-90% | 36 | 34 | 31 | 29 | 31 |
| Bottom 50% | 4 | 3 | <1 | 2 | 3 |
These figures are accurate as of Q4 for each year aside from 2023 where Q3 data was used based on the most recently available data (Federal Reserve Economic Data). So, I get it that tables and charts are not the most interesting things to read, but here are a few interesting highlights:
Let's look to see what effect people like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand had on corporate CEOs.
| Year | CEO/Worker Ratio | Cumulative CEO Compensation Growth | Cumulative Worker Pay Growth | Key Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1965 | 20-1 | N/A | N/A | Great Prosperity |
| 1978 | 31-1 | Baseline | Baseline | End Great Prosperity |
| 2000 | 383-1 | 1279% (1978-2000) | N/A | Dot-Com Bubble |
| 2013 | 296-1 | N/A | N/A | End Financial Crisis |
| 2021 | 408-1 | N/A | 18% (1978-2021) | Highest Recorded Ratio |
| 2024 | 281-1 | 1094% (1978-2024) | 26% (1978-2024) | Current Estimated Ratio |
Well, what a surprise! The compensation corporate CEOs received is, on average, about 300 times greater than the compensation received by a typical employee of that corporation. Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand definitely helped improve the lives of corporate executives. At least they have freedom. See: epi.org/publication/ceo-pay
Wealth Flows Up Up Up (AI)
Wealth is accumulated by owning assets like businesses, housing, property, stocks, bonds, gold, and other equities. The following can be viewed as an example of one of the Great Divergence Boléro loop iterations that contributes to the ongoing concentration of wealth:
This loop iteration is one example of how I view a way that wealth, with government assistance, is taken from working-class and middle-class families and given to the rich. Iterations similar to the one above have been happening ever since the Great Divergence era began because the very richest control elections and government policies via campaign contributions. This ensures a continuous flow of additional wealth into the hands of the ultra rich, which is funded by voters that are mostly not wealthy, and by an increasing amount of government debt. Markets work best when they are competitive, not when they are controlled.
There are other ways the ultra rich acquire wealth, such as loaning money. This includes money acquired through mortgage and rent payments, which also causes housing prices to rise. There is a similar flow involving the ever-increasing costs associated with employer-based healthcare and medical insurance companies. Healthcare insurance costs keep rising; copays keep rising; and doctor and hospital networks keep shrinking what's medically covered. This results in healthcare costs that are continuously rising. The rising costs of daycare and higher education can also be traced back to similar policies. Government tax cuts, stimulus payouts, and bailouts primarily benefit the very richest. The wealth flows from the majority of workers, and from increasing government debt, but flows into the hands of the small number of the very richest people. Working and middle-class families need to work together to enact new policies that change the flow so that more wealth flows into their hands. Otherwise, eventually, they will no longer be able to afford housing, healthcare, daycare, and healthy foods. They will be poor, unhealthy, without home ownership, and living a most difficult lifestyle. Such conditions cause more people to die at younger ages. These deaths are not considered to be the result of criminal acts, not considered to be the result of genocide, and not considered to be the result of illegal acts. This is just the inevitable conclusion if the economy continues on its current trajectory.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States and famously said, "government is the problem." Did President Reagan contribute to the real problem? Is he more of the problem than the previous governments he is blaming? President Reagan listened to Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. In 1981, President Reagan, along with Congress, enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, thereby reducing government revenues by $19 trillion (in today's terms). They were partially undone, but by the end of his administration, the equivalent of a $10 trillion reduction in revenues remained. This reduction was paid for by increasing the U.S. debt. The main beneficiaries were the richest Americans. (Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio) This ultimately resulted in more of the wealth of the country being concentrated into the hands of fewer people. The richest were getting richer, and the poorest were getting poorer.
Further tax cuts under President George W. Bush cost roughly 2 percent of GDP. The promise from many policy makers, including Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan, was that these tax cuts were projected to deliver surpluses and a falling debt. In reality, because the tax cuts were financed by borrowing, they added $5.6 trillion to the debt. The largest benefits from these tax cuts flowed to high-income taxpayers. By the end of President George W. Bush's term in office, the data shows that the wealthiest benefited the most.
Policymakers promised these tax cuts would "pay for themselves" by delivering increased economic growth and, therefore, higher tax revenues. Instead they increased deficits significantly, did not improve economic growth, and did not pay for themselves. Instead, they contributed to the further concentration of wealth into the hands of the very wealthy.
The economic expansion that lasted from 2001 to 2007 (before the Great Recession) was weak (according to Federal Reserve Economic Data and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). Real GDP growth averaged 2.7% per year. Employment grew at an average annual rate of only 0.9%. Corporate profits experienced average annual growth of 10.8% in the same time period - significantly higher than the average for post-war periods. This economic expansion created a housing boom and a significant increase in housing prices driven by low interest rates and risky lending practices such as subprime mortgages. The subprime mortgage crisis triggered a deep recession that began in 2007 and ended in 2009. This ended the economic expansion.
| Household Income | Income Increase |
|---|---|
| Top 1% | 6.7% |
| Middle 20% | 2.8% |
| Lowest 20% | 1.0% |
These tax cuts, along with deregulation and bad policies, led to the financial crises and the Great Recession. This financial crises forced many people to either sell their houses or to accept foreclosure and lose their houses, thereby lowering the cost of housing. The unemployment rate increased, which provided an opportunity for wealthy people to purchase housing, which was now at a cheaper price. As the economy slowly recovered, the value of housing increased.
These are some ways that wealth flows from the poor to the rich.
In 2017 Congress passed a $1.9 trillion tax cut called the Tax Cut In Jobs Act. Currently, in 2025, a $4.6 trillion (CBO estimate) extension of Tax Cut In Jobs Act will make this a permanent tax cut. ( Tax Cuts Benefit Highest-Income Households The Most)
President Donald Trump's signature tax bill, enacted when Republicans gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress in 2017, cost roughly $1.7 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2023. Taken together, the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts, cost $10 trillion since their creation. These costs are responsible for 57 percent of the increase in the debt ratio (national debt as a percentage of GDP) since these tax cuts began. The pandemic that occurred during this time also caused a financial slowdown. The government decided to increase the debt in order to distribute stimulus payments to help taxpayers in financial need. A slowdown like this, along with the stimulus, created opportunities for the ultra rich to:
Once again, as the rich became richer, workers became poorer. These results are reflected in the outcomes of cumulative policy choices.
U.S.A. National Debt Over Time As % Of GDP (AI)
When there is a large accumulation of wealth by certain individuals, opportunities are available to them that are not available to everyone else. Private Equity, SPACs, and large investors have enough wealth to buy a meaningful amount of interesting assets. Twelve million Americans work for companies owned by private equity firms (8% of labor force).
Some examples of businesses that are often targets of private equity are:
Private Equity Buying Many Vet Clinics (AI)
Let's examine the consolidation of veterinary clinics as an example. Unlike industries dominated by a handful of large corporations, veterinary clinics are historically made up of many small, independent practices. This presents an opportunity for private equity to buy them, consolidate multiple clinics under a single management structure, and effectively eliminate having several independent owners. Consolidation leads to better negotiating power with suppliers. For example, it provides the opportunity to order in bulk for better discounts. It allows for streamlined administrative operations and better marketing options. Cutting costs creates more profits. These profits often come at the expense of employee salaries and the quality of care pets receive. Such a veterinarian clinic often becomes a debt-payment machine. Its profits are used to repay any money borrowed by the private equity firms to buy it in the first place. Also, profits are considered to be capital gains and taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. It's not uncommon for this to lead to bankruptcy.
Private Equity behavior follows the advice of people like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. The main purpose should be generating more profits. There is no need to be concerned with any benefits that neighborhood pet owners might enjoy from receiving better care. What is best for the neighborhood is not part of the plan. Instead, the clinic now strives to provide minimal pet care and low wages. That is, the only focus is now on delivering maximum profits. If possible, the Private Equity company sells the property, keeps the proceeds, and has the veterinary practice rent the property back. Since private equity, SPACs, and large financial institutions have so much wealth, they can continue to focus on owning more and more of these practices. Eventually, after enough iterations of the Great Divergence era Boléro loop, it's conceivable that they own the vast majority of these practices. If a veterinary clinic fails, the private equity firm gets to keep all of the profits generated so far, as there is no requirement to pay anything back, and all employees lose their jobs. This is a great technique to use if the goal is to concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of the ultra rich. Read the book Bad Company: Private Equity and the Death of the American Dream by Megan Greenwell for a deeper dive into common techniques used by private equity companies.
There is an economic game that exists and it goes like this: discover things you want in life and figure out how to get them. The winners of this game accumulate the most things and figure out how to make others pay for them. Thus a saying exists, "whoever has the most toys when they die, wins." The losers are the ones that either accumulate very few things or go so far into debt they can never recover. Like most games, there are few winners and many losers. If players believe that they have a chance at being one of the winners, then many will be motivated to continue playing. In reality almost everybody loses, but for some reason, way too many players think they might win. The losing players often fail to select the obviously correct middle blue line. It's as if Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand followers have convinced them that this is how you find freedom. This is where you will find comfort in conformity but eventually lose the game and be broke. With games it's possible to start over, reset the board, and everybody begins again equally.
One Winner And Many Losers (AI)
Life is different from a board game. You can end a board game and start completely over. The problem today is that the current economic situation is like joining a game of Monopoly™ that is already in progress, but all of the properties have already been purchased. It doesn't matter how much money you have when you enter. Eventually you will lose all our money because property ownership is necessary in order to make more money. However, if you have been distracted and convinced that you might eventually win, even though there is no property left to buy, you might continue playing.
A situation like this requires you to discover some way of changing the rules. These changes should allow for accumulation of property or other assets that can generate wealth. There must rules that are in your best interest. Otherwise, you will eventually go completely broke.
We are headed toward a real-life version of joining a Monopoly game in which all the assets are already owned. For example, there are three companies that control a significant percentage of American Publicly traded wealth: Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street. Combined, they manage $20 trillion in assets. This is larger than the GDP of China. They are the largest shareholder managers in:
Just to emphasize, employees do not work for the shareholders - not really. Employees work for a company. Shareholders are effectively managed by these three companies. These three companies have significant influence in the most important components of our everyday lives: housing, healthcare, food, education, etc. They also exert significant political influence. We need to change the rules in order to be able change the flow of wealth so that more working-class and middle-class people are acquiring wealth.
| Firm | Assets Under Management (2025) | Founded | S& 500 ETF |
|---|---|---|---|
| BlackRock | $12T | 1988 | IVV |
| Vanguard | $11T | 1975 | VOO |
| State Street | $5.4T | 1792 | SPY |
These asset managing companies control about $28T. Their influence is huge. It's not fair to just blame individual billionaires for causing the concentration of wealth in America (actually, it is really the world if you look deep enough). It's also that too many corporations are monopolistic. Concentration of wealth is not an accident, but it's not a conspiracy either. This is an issue that is independent of political affiliation, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc. Everyone is affected, and everyone can feel like they could have done more. No single administration caused this current concentration of wealth environment, and no single party can fix it. This is why there need to be changes that allow many more people, of all walks of life, to acquire a better lifestyle. The changes affect everyone and are needed in order to maintain a government consisting of three equal branches that value supporting healthy communities. A cool, calm, and collective approach is an important strategy. More aggressive, angry, and stubborn approaches have been tried for decades without success. It's normal to feel emotional responses, but it's not necessarily in the best interest to adopt emotionally pressurized strategies when trying to achieve a consensus. We insist reform is needed, believe it is a serious problem, and believe a broad agreement that focuses on solutions is possible. Voters already believe that wealth concentration exists. It's important that voters also believe that changing the rules is an issue that should be at the top of their list. Although good immigration policies are needed, it's not the case that implementing immigration polices will reduce wealth concentration. Effective economic social policies are needed instead.
The Ultra Rich Are Crushing Everyone Else (AI)
There is a need to reverse the direction that money currently flows in the U.S. This will not be easy as the ultra rich already have significant power and more than enough money to buy influence. The most important first step is to make voters believe that the concentration of wealth is the biggest problem we all face. Polling shows that the vast majority of voters believe that wealth concentration is a major problem and that wealth concentration is having a negative impact on their lives. I believe voters can be convinced that wealth concentration is the most important issue facing humanity. The best way to improve our lives is to vote for candidates that have the same belief. We must support political candidates that are willing to stand up to the ultra rich and promote policies that support improving the standard of living that the majority of people deserve. Electing the right politicians is an important first step, but defining the right policies is also very important. We need policies that recognize the need to improve the communities we live in. Defining these policies requires finding a collection of the right people that have the experience and abilities to deal with topics like tax structures, tax policies, government fees, monopolies, public funding, and fair wages. As these policies are specified, they will require input. This collection of "the right people" is needed to review, administer oversight, and commit to defend the intent of these policies against detractors. The opposition will vigorously fight any effort to change how wealth currently flows. They will hire lawyers and even deploy AI agents to vigorously search for vulnerabilities in newly proposed policies. These efforts must be resisted!
AI Agents Digging Deep (AI)
It's not just tax collection. It's also studying how tax revenue is spent. Below is an idea intended to give an example of how policies could provide aid to those in need.
| POLICY | PROJECTED COST |
|---|---|
| Federal Paid Family and Medical Leave | $200B |
| Free Child Care and Preschool | $500B |
| Free School Lunch and Breakfast | $500B |
| Fully Refundable/expanded Child Tax Credit | $1.6T |
Another policy idea involves a constitutional amendment. Since the 2010 Citizens United ruling, the wealth of the richest billionaires had surged by $2.2 trillion, see: Forbes Data. The majority of people disapprove of Citizens United: 73% of Democrats, 53% of Republicans, and 61% of Independents.
To help enact beneficial policy changes, consider the following actions:
No claim is made that the above actions are the best choices, just that they should be considered. It's clear that creating policy changes requires a team of knowledgeable participants.