But my figure is not drawing a comparison with the bottom group (a huge fraction of which is in debt and so produces inflated figures). It is making a comparison with the total level of wealth owned (net of debts), including that owned by the rich.
That is, all the assets owned by Americans, minus all the liabilities they owe. That turns out to be a big positive number.
At the moment someone lends money to someone else, it changes none of the results here.
There is nothing misleading about it as an indication of who is earning returns on capital that can be taxed, which is where I then take it.
I understand the issue perfectly and have linked to that same article every year Oxfam releases their comparison of the top 1% to the bottom X% (e.g. https://www.facebook.com/robert.wiblin/posts/666590242695, https://www.facebook.com/robert.wiblin/posts/628116514355).
But my figure is not drawing a comparison with the bottom group (a huge fraction of which is in debt and so produces inflated figures). It is making a comparison with the total level of wealth owned (net of debts), including that owned by the rich.
That is, all the assets owned by Americans, minus all the liabilities they owe. That turns out to be a big positive number.
At the moment someone lends money to someone else, it changes none of the results here.
There is nothing misleading about it as an indication of who is earning returns on capital that can be taxed, which is where I then take it.