4 ms·
yes, because the context of each of those events is worse than the previous one. each one happened because the greediest among us had been recently allowed to
by naikrovek 5y ago
yes, because the context of each of those events is worse than the previous one. each one happened because the greediest among us had been recently allowed to be even better and more efficient at collecting money.
today's richest simply can not be satisfied by money. no amount is ever enough, and today's richest are far better at acquisition of wealth than any previous generation.
the growth of wealth inequality is the worst it's ever been and shows no signs of slowing down until there is literally no more money to extract.
- refurb 5y agoI’m sorry? The tech crash of 2001 was worse than World War 2? Do I understand you correctly?
- naikrovek 5y agoclassic internet trolling: critiquing semantics while being completely oblivious to the pragmatics. you've missed my entire statement and sentiment because of an error. well done. World War 2 wasn't as bad as The Great Depression, of course, because WW2 resulted in a very strong economy for a long period in the US, and until the Dollar ceased being backed by gold, wages for blue and white collar workers raised at the same rate. In fact, I would argue that WW2 doesn't even belong on that list if you're in the US. There were shortages and rationing, but everyone knew it was for a good cause and that it was the right thing to do, including the very few extremely wealthy people of the day. Today's extremely wealthy view you and I as complete fodder, to be used and tossed aside as necessary, if it brings them any closer at all to an increase in the value of their stock portfolio.