Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the "wealth effect."

Key Points

  • The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter.
  • All of the gains came from stock holdings thanks to an end-of-year rally.
  • Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the “wealth effect.”

The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter, as an end-of-year stock rally lifted their portfolios, according to new data from the Federal Reserve.

The total net worth of the top 1%, defined by the Fed as those with wealth over $11 million, increased by $2 trillion in the fourth quarter. All of the gains came from their stock holdings. The value of corporate equities and mutual fund shares held by the top 1% surged to $19.7 trillion from $17.65 trillion the previous quarter.

While their real estate values went up slightly, the value of their privately held businesses declined, essentially canceling out all other gains outside of stocks.

  • @force
    3•8 months ago

    I have literally never said in this entire conversation that Wellbutrin isn’t being abused (even though it is very clearly a non-stimulant and mostly non-addictive drug). I stated multiple times that people with SUDs can abuse it. I just pointed out how absurd it is that you think the ability to abuse MDMA and Wellbutrin at all relates to your claim that Adderall is meth.

    An apology that would actually mean something is apologizing for your implication that Adderall is meth. This was never about your views on the effects of medications on society. Prescribed stimulant ADHD drugs, despite having some similarities to meth, are completely different to meth, are not even close to as addictive nor do they have nearly as severe side effects as meth. This, plus the fact that prescription ADHD meds are extremely impure, and even compared to pure amphetamines the effects are significantly neutered.

    The drugs that the people you speak of are taking are not comparable to meth, and saying “meth” when you mean “Adderall” or “Ritalin” is literally just an insult to psychiatrists and people who use those medications. People use calling it “meth” as a way to push to mostly ban it like meth.

    I know this as someone who has used ADHD medications and has immediate family who have had extremely bad meth abuse problems in the past (I live in Georgia, meth is extremely common here and probably the most abused drug other than opiates) and have used ADHD meds before they developed SUDs (ADHD runs in the family). The effects aren’t even close to similar, other than things most stimulants have in common like increased heart rate and kind of similar-ish effects on certain chemicals like dopamine and norepinephrine.

    Adderall mostly decreases dopamine reabsorption rates, while meth PUMPS you full of dopamine and also decreases dopamine reabsorption rates, for example. When taking clinical dosages of Adderall as a neurotypical, you’ll at most feel more confident in your decisions and like you just drank a bunch of caffeine. Take the same amount of street meth and it’s not the same story.

    You can complain about Adderall abuse, but substituting the word “meth” in its place is extremely misleading at best and downright disinformation at worst.

    • @[email protected]
      -2•8 months ago

      And did you just equate Wellbutrin, again a non-stimulant antidepressant with no connection to cocaine, to cocaine? Holy shit there’s no way.

      And you only refer to the possibility of abuse after I show reports of it. Your multiple times is in a single response. But apparently speaking afterwards and gently agreeing without agreeing is the same as being correct the whole time.

      You are coming into this assuming you are correct about the entire argument and swinging the goalposts to match whatever part of the argument you have the most interest in at any given moment in your response. Yes I have been incorrect about parts but you fail to see anything other than you vs me with the only outcome being your total victory.

      People love to abuse drugs and potentially harmful ones being simplified into nicer things when they have direct relations to their harder siblings say like a drug that is literally an amphetamine that can spiral into addiction of other amphetamines is not ridiculous despite your insisting incorrectly that Adderall (a prescribed ADHD medication) is absolutely addictive, and has similar affects to meth when taken in comparable doses. People I know swap between them.

      I get that you have an emotional attachment to these types of drugs because you take them. I could tell at the very beginning of you arguing with me because it’s a pretty common thing to assume incorrect things about stuff you have good feelings towards and you want to feel good about this. But it doesn’t make it true.

      Is my substitution of Adderall as “Meth” overboard. Sure, of course it is. I use to illicit an emotional response to try and raise awareness of negative qualities so as to shame society into using other drugs with less direct pathways to abuse. I don’t care that people get angry about this topic because I expect and want them to because it’s open use I wish for people to question taking especially if “neurotypical” so as to dissuade recreational use.

      It’s a drug literally designed to make you feel good and more alert. It’s directly made with amphetamines which are historically not great and it’s closest drug you can take available on the market is meth. I continue to disagree with its marketing as safe.