3 ms·
The premise is so far off, I don't know where to begin. Revolutions have complex causes, so trying to predict it from a one-dimensional value like income inequa
by jeffdavis 13y ago
The premise is so far off, I don't know where to begin. Revolutions have complex causes, so trying to predict it from a one-dimensional value like income inequality doesn't make any sense.
Americans revolted over fairly minor issues. Other people stay under very serious oppression for many generations.
- Kroem3r 13y agoPardon the snark, but I think that you and that misnamed philosophus dude missed the boat on this one - perhaps you didn't read the entire piece? The punch-line is that non-participation in shared (public) resources by the wealthy is a more significant problem then disparity. An interesting premise having both plausibility and examples. Somewhere back in HN, within the last year is an interesting study of the exact question focusing (I think) on education systems. But healthcare systems also work.
- jeffdavis 13y agoPerhaps I took "storming the barricades" too literally, but the author kept repeating it. If the author did mean some kind of violent uprising, then I stand by my point. There is little historical basis to think that the sort of inequality should be expected to lead directly to a revolution. If that's not what the author meant, what did he mean by "storming the gates"? I guess it was a metaphor, but for what exactly? What purpose did it serve? I guess you can say the real point is elsewhere, and the title was just linkbait. Regardless, it would almost be a challenge to not read the entire piece. It was incredibly short -- but I double checked just because you asked, and yes, I did make it to the end.