3 ms·

"Some" means half of the nation. Just look up the wealth distribution charts on FRED: half of the nation's wealth belongs to 1%, and half of the nation owns jus

by akomtu 2y ago

"Some" means half of the nation. Just look up the wealth distribution charts on FRED: half of the nation's wealth belongs to 1%, and half of the nation owns just 1% of the wealth. What's worse is that the top 1% aren't the ones who have built the nation, but those who've inherited the wealth. Of course the wealth of the top 1% accumulates when the tax system takes 50% of the income of the common folk and only 20% of "long term capital gains" of the rich (unless they borrow and pay a tax deductive interest on the loan). The bottom 50% stand no chance. But yeah, SP500 is doing great. Edit. When there's a 100 workers looking for jobs, the gov can limit the work week to 3 days and the work day to 6 hours, and call it full time employment. The rich, who want to exploit these workers, will have to bend and hire all the 100 to do the amount of work they need. Alternatively, the gov can step aside and let the rich hire just 50 workers, work them to the bone and keep the rest 50 unemployed, desperate for any work on any terms.

silverquiet 2y ago
I've mentioned it here before, but I remember from a lecture I attended by Robert Sapolsky that the most consistent predictor of stress in a primate society (as measured by cortisol levels) was inequality. And interestingly, it elevated stress at all levels, so even those on top suffered. "Biden" (the Democrats I suppose) have certainly failed to reverse the advancement of the oligarchs over the last half century or so, and I suppose it's worth criticizing them for that, but to be fair, they have been opposed at every turn by a party that is single-mindedly obsessed with giving more to those who already have the most. It looks pretty likely that Trump and the Republicans will do well in the coming election, and it will at least be interesting to watch to see if the sentiment re-aligns with the economic data in the next term, but I suspect long-term it will simply increase the loops that drive inequality ever higher; another high-income tax cut isn't going to help anything.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by akomtu 2y ago

silverquiet 2y ago

I've mentioned it here before, but I remember from a lecture I attended by Robert Sapolsky that the most consistent predictor of stress in a primate society (as measured by cortisol levels) was inequality. And interestingly, it elevated stress at all levels, so even those on top suffered. "Biden" (the Democrats I suppose) have certainly failed to reverse the advancement of the oligarchs over the last half century or so, and I suppose it's worth criticizing them for that, but to be fair, they have been opposed at every turn by a party that is single-mindedly obsessed with giving more to those who already have the most. It looks pretty likely that Trump and the Republicans will do well in the coming election, and it will at least be interesting to watch to see if the sentiment re-aligns with the economic data in the next term, but I suspect long-term it will simply increase the loops that drive inequality ever higher; another high-income tax cut isn't going to help anything.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]