top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 70% in Australia, page-172

"Not relying on market movements, just using them to explain the slight rise in inequality in recent years (as one would intuitively expect)." 

Can't say you don't make me chuckle. The pedant suddenly reverts to intuition. Noice one.


"And that should those market movements go the other way in the future, inequality would, ceteris paribus, adjust accordingly. Nothing too intellectually tricky or convoluted about that."

Fair go, invoking ceteris paribus with regard to the QE experiment (with a side order of intellectual arrogance to boot). Contemporary political economics isn't an undergraduate essay. Ceteris paribus has zero relevance here. eek!


"If asset prices decline, why will the people who own those assets have their wealth reduced relative to people who don't own those assets?"Really? That's what you are asking?

No, I was asking "Why MUST a bear market lead to a reduction in wealth inequality (wrt the 1%) ?"


"And its not a call I am making, expressly or implicitly."

You made the call that "If a multi-year bear market in asset classes ensues you will see normalisation of the (wealth inequality) numbers." Given the GFC has lead to increased inequality, I contend that you cannot declare that future market gyrations will necessarily reverse its trajectory. Largely, these are political decisions which have transferred wealth away from savers and upwards.


Lesson: Don't get over-indebted
(Gets back to my financial literacy philosophy, innit?)

Also gets back to blaming the individual for structural failures. I figured we'd get back there soon enough.


PS. For the third or fourth time:Those tax cuts you claimed are coming for high income earners... and chance of providing any details about them?

Ceteris paribus, its your financial literacy, not mine. I'll give you a kickstart. Maybe Google 'Tax cuts for high income earners'