5 ms·

To this day I find the focus on income or wealth inequality to be perplexing. I literally just don't get it. Why should I care whether or not some crazy rich pe

To this day I find the focus on income or wealth inequality to be perplexing. I literally just don't get it. Why should I care whether or not some crazy rich person can buy a yacht? It does me no harm.

rootsudo 6y ago
Because it's a way to feel and connect with the group. It's a unifying message of propaganda. Examples: Look at how people argue over fictional characters or franchises.
mola 6y ago
It's not the yacht, nor the money per se. It's the power they wield. A single person can entirely overtake democracy when he has billions. He can own press, politicians, etc.
- refurb 6y ago
  What happened with Michael Bloomberg? Worth billions, wanted to run for President, spent hundreds of millions on ads and got nowhere.
  - mola 6y ago
    That's because he tried to play fair. Look at Sheldon Adelson, I won't talk about US politics, but during the last twenty years he pretty much changed the entire press landscape of Israel subordinating it to Netanyahu. He made a huge impact on Israel politics and public opinion.
  - fock 6y ago
    well, a hundred other people of similar circumstances not liking him?!
    - refurb 6y ago
      But I keep hearing billionaires wield the power to do whatever they want. Bloomberg couldn’t even get his parties nomination. I guess billions doesn’t get you that much power.
      - viklove 6y ago
        False dichotomy. Just because Bloomberg couldn't win the nomination does not mean that billionaires do not hold unjustified political power.
- sillyphus 6y ago
  I think you are blaming capitalism for the short-comings of democracy.
- username90 6y ago
  > A single person can entirely overtake democracy when he has billions. He can own press, politicians, etc. Only if the country is corrupt, a well functioning democracy can't be bought.
  - mola 6y ago
    This is exactly how a democracy gets corrupted
grecy 6y ago
By definition for them to have more wealth, they're spreading less their their employees. If Amazon or McDonalds paid their workers more and their CEO's less, the lives of many millions of people would improve.
tsimionescu 6y ago
Of course it does you harm. These people control what you know (education, the media), what you will buy (advertising), your health. They mostly control the politicians you are voting for. They can impose their will on you in almost any facet of your life. That is morally wrong to start with, and practically a problem in many ways, especially when their main goal is to keep themselves in power at any cost.
freshhawk 6y ago
Because it does do you harm, obviously. If they were just printing money for themselves, and using inflation to lower the value of your money, you would see it and be upset. They're doing the same thing with power.

rootsudo 6y ago

Because it's a way to feel and connect with the group. It's a unifying message of propaganda. Examples: Look at how people argue over fictional characters or franchises.

mola 6y ago

It's not the yacht, nor the money per se. It's the power they wield. A single person can entirely overtake democracy when he has billions. He can own press, politicians, etc.

refurb 6y ago
What happened with Michael Bloomberg? Worth billions, wanted to run for President, spent hundreds of millions on ads and got nowhere.
- mola 6y ago
  That's because he tried to play fair. Look at Sheldon Adelson, I won't talk about US politics, but during the last twenty years he pretty much changed the entire press landscape of Israel subordinating it to Netanyahu. He made a huge impact on Israel politics and public opinion.
- fock 6y ago
  well, a hundred other people of similar circumstances not liking him?!
  - refurb 6y ago
    But I keep hearing billionaires wield the power to do whatever they want. Bloomberg couldn’t even get his parties nomination. I guess billions doesn’t get you that much power.
    - viklove 6y ago
      False dichotomy. Just because Bloomberg couldn't win the nomination does not mean that billionaires do not hold unjustified political power.
sillyphus 6y ago
I think you are blaming capitalism for the short-comings of democracy.
username90 6y ago
> A single person can entirely overtake democracy when he has billions. He can own press, politicians, etc. Only if the country is corrupt, a well functioning democracy can't be bought.
- mola 6y ago
  This is exactly how a democracy gets corrupted

grecy 6y ago

By definition for them to have more wealth, they're spreading less their their employees. If Amazon or McDonalds paid their workers more and their CEO's less, the lives of many millions of people would improve.

tsimionescu 6y ago

Of course it does you harm. These people control what you know (education, the media), what you will buy (advertising), your health. They mostly control the politicians you are voting for. They can impose their will on you in almost any facet of your life. That is morally wrong to start with, and practically a problem in many ways, especially when their main goal is to keep themselves in power at any cost.

freshhawk 6y ago

Because it does do you harm, obviously. If they were just printing money for themselves, and using inflation to lower the value of your money, you would see it and be upset. They're doing the same thing with power.