What does it mean when Americans make up half of the world's richest 1%?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When I read these numbers I was stunned. I had no idea that Americans make up fully one half of the world's richest 1%.
When you look at the world's population as a whole, it only takes $34,000 a year per person - after taxes - to be part of the world's richest one percent. A family of four with after tax income of $136,000 would be among the world's richest.
60 million people make up the world's richest one percent. And, according to world bank economist Branko Milanovic, half of them - or 29 million people - lived in the United States as of 2005.
Another 4 million live in Germany. And the rest are scattered throughout Europe, Latin America and parts of Asia.
None of the world's richest 1% live in Africa, China or India - statistically speaking.
Although places like China and India are seeing economic growth, and people there are getting richer, they're starting from a very low base. This also means the emerging middle class in these countries isn't the same as the middle class in developed nations. No cars. No retirement plans. They don't own their own homes.
Milanovic says people in the world's true middle live on around $1,200 a year.
Which means even the poorest 5% of Americans are richer than two-thirds of the entire world. Something to think about.
While the Occupy Wall Street movement targets the so-called 1% with protests in New York, Los Angeles, Denver and Washington.
These numbers give one percent a whole new meaning.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when Americans make up half of the world's richest 1%?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why do people give money to candidates who have no chance of winning?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
If you go to the race track, do you bet your money on a three-legged horse? No – you bet your money on a four-legged horse that has a chance of winning the race.
So why is it when it comes to politics some people insist on betting on horses that have no chance of winning?
Several of the Republican presidential wannabes are raking in loads of campaign cash despite the fact that they have virtually no chance of being the nominee.
Rick Santorum, who came close to defeating Mitt Romney in Iowa, has raised more than $1 million since the caucuses Tuesday.
Yes, Santorum placed a very close second in Iowa, but that was largely due to his appeal among social conservatives and evangelicals. And that's not something that will translate in many of the upcoming races. He stands to lose badly in New Hampshire.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul raised an impressive $13 million in the last three months. That tops the $8 million he raised in the previous quarter. Paul has a passionate group of supporters. He, too, ran well in Iowa, but again, chances are he won't be the Republican nominee.
Newt Gingrich also raised $10 million in the last quarter, but some of that came when he was spiking in the polls. And that is now history.
Of course, none of these compare to Romney's expected haul of $20 million in the last three months.
But that's the thing, you can understand why people might plunk their money down on Romney to win.
Romney is looking more and more like the party's nominee every day. He is expected to win by a landslide in New Hampshire, and it seems unlikely at this point that there is anyone – or anything – that can stop him.
Here’s my question to you: Why do people give money to candidates who have no chance of winning?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments