Did you think you were alone in that 1%?
The subject of this article is controversial, and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don’t take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
Ironically and using an attempt to mislead most of this information was based upon was a concept in an economics study by Joseph Stiglitz about 1% of America’s wealthiest people. Then the article, of course, developed its own meme that ended up becoming a blog on Tumblr and went viral.
For this article deals with something that I have had a challenging time understanding. Realistically, I believe that my own misunderstanding of the journalistic terms of one being in the 1 percent or one being in the 99 percent happened to get greatly confused with political affiliation, (Democrat or Republican), mechanism of government (socialists, communism, or capitalism), and finally, yet most accurate, the wording that created confusion around the syntax such as money, wealth, downtrodden, only the rich can afford, “occupy” when dealing with a “movement,” and other words of confusion around what the article was about.
There was a study that measured American wealth. Joseph Stiglitz wrote a book about it, Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy. Experts discussed it and made charts. In support of a previous statement. Anyone can find primary sources that mention 99% and 1%, but they must be directly tied to this recent movement, ergo they must be from this year, and not before. If primary and secondary sources from before that are used, they must be found in secondary sources discussing this slogan and the movement.
The article in Vanity Fair is interesting, but it’s only a reference, that’s not where the findings were published originally. It’s kind of silly to claim in an encyclopedia article like Wiki that an economist claims something in Vanity Fair. The magazine article is simply where it was presented to the public, where people would read it.
Socialist party – party connotations – monetary considerations – and wealth particularly during an election cycle to perhaps weed out the lesser fortunate from those who have cash on hand.
However, what really bothers me are the party affiliations whilst somehow allowing this to flow vis-a-vie to racial implications in the matter of Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama and a few others, already being projected to run after the 2020 general election.