4 ms·

> I can understand (if not condone) the birthday party thing, where you spend millions to get someone famous at your party, as by doing so you are saying "I hav

> I can understand (if not condone) the birthday party thing, where you spend millions to get someone famous at your party, as by doing so you are saying "I have so many millions, I can do this ridiculous thing, or buy a famous painting, and still be richer than you". But it seems weird that it's a booming and widespread business model. The rich are growing richer and the wealth gap is deepening, is happens all the time until the lower classes can no longer stand the abuse and revolt, after which usually a subset of the upper classes gets power and makes minor concessions to calm the mob. Usually this is followed by increased propaganda and controls to prevent another revolt from happening which leads to the people losing more power. Most of the media and sources of information are already in the hands of the elite and allied with their interests, so revolts are less likely and usually easily suppressed. The cycle continues. A police state and an Elysium-style separation of the elite from the plebs seems closer every day. People find it easier to ignore the struggle and suffering of people far away or people they don't see, even the impoverished and homeless in their own cities, because the media mostly ignores them, but most don't realize that they will soon also be in this class of ignored, powerless beggars and the elite class will be better protected and more isolated, allowing them to ignore the problems of the lower classes even more.

silverbax88 11y ago
Are you really referring to a tenant of Marxism to explain why some people have enough money to blow on trivial things in a night club and correlate it to some sort of future revolution? This isn't something new - 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' from the 1980s was based on this exact kind of excess.
- BenDaglish 11y ago
  > Are you really referring to a tenant of Marxism Marxism's taking in lodgers now?
- bubtubgub 11y ago
  No, nothing of what I said has anything specifically to do with Marxism. Nor am I claiming to say anything new or original.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Societies can handle x amount of difference between the wealthy and the poor. We're nowhere near any point of revolt, regardless of what hyped up manboys on reddit and HN think. Low unemployment, high gdp per capita, high household income, high human development index rating, etc. If anyone's revolting its the Greeks and the Spanish, not Americans. And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity. HN/Reddit unicorns like Brazil, Russia, Finland, etc are also all underperforming: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-11/meet-2016-s-worst-economic-performers-flirting-with-disaster http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-11/meet-2016-... Gee, maybe low regulatory environments, easy access to investment cash, entrepreneur culture, freedom of speech, honest elections, a real judiciary, capital protections, etc matter to an economy? Naww, keep ignoring the facts.
- bubtubgub 11y ago
  > Low unemployment, high gdp per capita, high household income, high human development index rating, etc. Not true, real unemployment (ie including homeless people, people that are unable to work, etc.) is quite high and rising. Many people are just completely excluded from the 'official' unemployment statistics. Mean GDP per capita is fairly high BUT median, which is a much more important metric of wealth inequality, is quite low and decreasing relative to mean. Not sure why you listed household income and GDP per capita as different things even though they are basically the same for this purpose... and high human development index says nothing about revolt, in fact higher educated and well-read people that are economically disenfranchised tend to be more outspoken and interested in the wealth gap. > And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity. 80% of the American public is essentially completely politically disenfranchised, for most people in the US the net income adjusted for inflation and increasing costs is decreasing. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... > And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity. Greece and Spain are far from 'feel good socialism' compared to countries that are much closer such as Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, where quality of life and happiness is regularly rated as higher than the US. > Gee, maybe low regulatory environments, easy access to investment cash, entrepreneur culture, freedom of speech, honest elections, a real judiciary, capital protections, etc matter to an economy? Naww, keep ignoring the facts. Literally none of those things conflicts with socialism, socialism actually helps many of those things. But I guess you heard the good ol 'socialism bad hurr durr' on fox news or whatever and suddenly feel that is a basis to justify your misguided beliefs. > Gee, maybe low regulatory environments Yeah, that worked out magnificently in 2008.

silverbax88 11y ago

Are you really referring to a tenant of Marxism to explain why some people have enough money to blow on trivial things in a night club and correlate it to some sort of future revolution? This isn't something new - 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' from the 1980s was based on this exact kind of excess.

BenDaglish 11y ago
> Are you really referring to a tenant of Marxism Marxism's taking in lodgers now?
bubtubgub 11y ago
No, nothing of what I said has anything specifically to do with Marxism. Nor am I claiming to say anything new or original.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

Societies can handle x amount of difference between the wealthy and the poor. We're nowhere near any point of revolt, regardless of what hyped up manboys on reddit and HN think. Low unemployment, high gdp per capita, high household income, high human development index rating, etc. If anyone's revolting its the Greeks and the Spanish, not Americans. And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity. HN/Reddit unicorns like Brazil, Russia, Finland, etc are also all underperforming: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-11/meet-2016-s-worst-economic-performers-flirting-with-disaster http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-11/meet-2016-... Gee, maybe low regulatory environments, easy access to investment cash, entrepreneur culture, freedom of speech, honest elections, a real judiciary, capital protections, etc matter to an economy? Naww, keep ignoring the facts.

bubtubgub 11y ago
> Low unemployment, high gdp per capita, high household income, high human development index rating, etc. Not true, real unemployment (ie including homeless people, people that are unable to work, etc.) is quite high and rising. Many people are just completely excluded from the 'official' unemployment statistics. Mean GDP per capita is fairly high BUT median, which is a much more important metric of wealth inequality, is quite low and decreasing relative to mean. Not sure why you listed household income and GDP per capita as different things even though they are basically the same for this purpose... and high human development index says nothing about revolt, in fact higher educated and well-read people that are economically disenfranchised tend to be more outspoken and interested in the wealth gap. > And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity. 80% of the American public is essentially completely politically disenfranchised, for most people in the US the net income adjusted for inflation and increasing costs is decreasing. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... > And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity. Greece and Spain are far from 'feel good socialism' compared to countries that are much closer such as Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, where quality of life and happiness is regularly rated as higher than the US. > Gee, maybe low regulatory environments, easy access to investment cash, entrepreneur culture, freedom of speech, honest elections, a real judiciary, capital protections, etc matter to an economy? Naww, keep ignoring the facts. Literally none of those things conflicts with socialism, socialism actually helps many of those things. But I guess you heard the good ol 'socialism bad hurr durr' on fox news or whatever and suddenly feel that is a basis to justify your misguided beliefs. > Gee, maybe low regulatory environments Yeah, that worked out magnificently in 2008.