In January 2026, analysts anticipated strong growth for the S&P 500, with consensus estimates forecasting a 15.5% to 16% increase in earnings per share (EPS) for the full year.
As of mid-April 2026, the S&P 500 earnings outlook is robust, with analysts projecting roughly 14% to 19% year-over-year earnings-per-share (EPS) growth for the full calendar year 2026.
Market are of course at new ATHs. Same for the net worth for most of us here. I have six figures more today than I had on February 27th…
If you have the overwhelming majority of your net worth in equities, then this has largely been a non-event; perhaps even a buying opportunity. If your monthly cash flow is more dependent on the price of fuel, this has been, and continues to be, a significant hardship.
It seems crazy to me that, with oil still at 33% premium today versus what it was two months ago, that we are even higher today - but I have long stopped investing against the momentum. Certainly not complaining about it but it does seem to be a little divorced from reality. All that being stated, the forward P/E has indeed come down:
Show me one case where this has ever happened. It can’t happen because the people enforcing the equality will live better. Even Marx didn’t preach equality, From each what he can and to each what he needs.
Google AI:
That is correct. Karl Marx explicitly rejected the concept of “equality of outcome” or “equal rights” as a goal for a mature communist society, viewing it as a bourgeois, liberal concept.
In his 1875 work, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx explained that the famous slogan—“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”—is based on equity, not strict equality.
Key Reasons Why Marx Did Not Preach Equality
Differences in Ability and Need: Marx recognized that individuals have different talents, physical strengths, family sizes, and needs. A system that provides equal amounts to everyone regardless of their needs would actually be unfair (unequal).
Abolition of Rights and Wages: In a fully developed communist society, Marx argued that the very concept of “rights” would be irrelevant because there would be no class struggle. “Wages” would be replaced by free access to resources, rendering the concept of “equal wages” obsolete.
“From Each… To Each…”: This principle means everyone contributes what they can (based on their skills) and consumes what they need. For example, a person with a large family has higher needs than a single person, so they receive more, which is an unequal distribution to satisfy the goal of equitable living.
Lower vs. Higher Stage Communism: Marx did note that in the lower stage of communism (socialism), distribution would be based on work done (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”). This transition phase still involves some level of inequality.
Marx believed in abolishing class distinctions, not in making everyone the same. Therefore, the goal was to create a society that provides for human growth, where resources are distributed according to differing needs rather than equal shares.
A state where people live at or below the minimum survival state. A state where there is no surplus. Das Kapital deals mostly with Surplus.
Without citing point by point, your entire come-back is pretty bogus. You can define poor any way you want that makes your point. That web snatch about Marx… don’t even know why you bothered. My post had nothing to do with that but it is a reply technique that has pretty much defined the internet since Day-2
The goal isn’t parity. I get you’re using that term because it’s the opposite of disparity. I suppose the same would apply to equality, when some of us argue against wealth inequality. Equal wealth is not the desired outcome.
Whenever this topic comes up, it automatically turns into a capitalism vs. socialism debate. That feels lazy.
Shouldn’t we discourage generational wealth hoarding? It’s bad for the economy and it’s bad for society.
"Our civilisation isn’t just unequal — it’s in the terminal stage of economic cancer, where the symbolic economy has grown so large it’s devouring its host. The real tragedy isn’t that some have more than others; it’s that we celebrate the very process destroying our collective future.
What if the choice isn’t between capitalism and socialism, but between reality and abstraction? What if our entire economic paradigm — left, right, and center — is predicated on confusing wealth extraction for wealth creation?"
First of all, thank you for a very reasonable reply to my post whether or not I agree with you..
Yes, I used “parity” vs. “disparity” as a matter of literary style but that was just incidental. What derailed the tread was:
We force cows and chickens to live equal lives, under “domestication.” Mao tried it in China but China only made economic progress when the people were freed from the ideology to pursue their individual interests. While the system is far from perfect most would agree it’s better than under Mao’s domestication.
If we follow Santayana’s precept to study history then it’s difficult to get away from the two principal economic ideals of the past century or two. Neither system is flawless but Capitalism has improved living standards while Socialism has brought ruin with the USSR and Mao’s China as the principal exhibits.
Yes and no. Yes for most of society but not for farming. Farms would become too small to be productive.
They are two different aspects of the issue. At the macro level it’s Capitalism vs. Socialism while at the micro level it’s Reality vs. Abstraction. Capitalism works better economically than Socialism but both benefit from honesty and suffer from abuse. This issue can only be resolved by good governance. We are lucky when we have good governance. How to ensure it is beyond me. But one adage is good to always remember, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Wealth disparity is a continuum. It can, in principle, be very large, very small, or zero. I don’t see anyone arguing for zero wealth disparity, so I’m not sure what you’re on about. I agree with you, perfect wealth parity would be bad. I also think perfect inequality, all wealth held by one person, would be bad. I think it would be better if we had the distribution of the 1950s. How much inequality do you think is optimal?
We haven’t been lucky in that way for a very long time, mainly because the rich get astronomically richer and buy our government and its resources, and no one can compete.
There is no magic number. Many years ago a beggar knocked at our door, a two story one family home with a nice garden and back yard.
The beggar was a middle aged man who looked strong and healthy. My mother told him that our garden needed some cleaning up and after he was done she would ask him in and serve him lunch. “What me work?” he asked in disgust and left. Do I feel sorry for him? No way.
Handouts are a bad idea. What is needed is the opportunity to make a living. China, after the death of Mao, demonstrated that freedom to make a living works. Programs like the affordable healthcare destroy that freedom. It made people dependent on the state instead of being self reliant. The abolition of major medical insurance was a crime against humanity.
Affordable healthcare, housing, and food means that someone who works a full time job is be able to afford them. Not Cadillac levels but what’s needed for basic survival of themselves and their family. An economy with jobs that don’t support full time workers is a failed economy. It’s not about handouts or people not being willing to work. It’s about an economy of free independent workers. That’s a far cry from Maoist China.
In 1950s US, a single worker could support a family and live comfortably. It’s much harder today. That’s the impact of the shift in wealth inequality in the last 75 years. Here’s data from AI
Until 1970, a single minimum wage worker with a family would pay about 1/3 of their income on rent, not for a mansion, but for one bedroom for the parents and shared by the kids. Today, that’s impossible.
Then there’s the 20% of people with physical, mental, and emotional abilities on the wrong side of the 80/20 split. How and whether we support them is separate from wealth inequality. They will always be with us, Pareto is not going away. For them, it’s either handouts, from family, government, or private charities, concentration camps, or dying in the street.
I tend to find columns of numbers mind numbing. I can do it if pressed, but charts with crayola colors are so much more fun. With that in mind, I offer the following link.I especially like the first chart, with the easily selectable “year of income” buttons to show the astonishing rise in the differences since the 1960s - but even further down the other charts are telling. Here a sample of that first one:
The goose that laid the golden eggs is being slaughtered. Not to worry.
These projections are nonsense. AI capex does not translate to that much in profit for the users. A lot of coding is getting straightened out. I will give you that much.
The rest of the economy may be contracting as we speak. Even the earlier budget outlays for AI have been cut.
Any loss of confidence in the markets will pull the wealth effect completely apart. People in that wealth class are not consuming based on the sweat off their brow.
