842
The revolution was about missed meals and lack of food. The US isn’t there yet.
I’m not sure I would characterize it that way. It was a bourgeois revolution, lead by the bourgeoisie, who were not starving. Same with the American Revolution. These were revolutions led by & funded by people who owned the means of production.
This is faaaar too low. The French Revolution was really triggered by famine and people not having enough food.
Wasn't it socialist China that brought those numbers up?
Yep, and if you remove the PRC disparity gets higher.
The top 10% have 70.7% of wealth in the US currently (from the federal reserve website)
They let us eat cake.
From what I've been seeing throughout the years, I'd say give it time. Change usually takes a bit to get started and things usually hit a low point before a breaking point.
The next four years of Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum running things could trigger something especially if they try to go through with that P-'25 BS. As it is, the indiscriminate mass deportation in it that they are planning (including natural-born) could easily be a bit of a powder-keg for starting a massive protest.
I mean...there was an attempt. The chronically online seem to think a revolution in the USA would be socialist, but these are Americans we're talking about. Its either be back to 1800s style libertarian ethics or fascism, corporatism, something like that, decimating government power not increasing it.
Maybe. There was occupy wall street and an assassinated CEO this last week though
Occupy wall street wasn't socialist, it was irritated, and Luigi seem like an RFK fan
Information control. Most people believe socialism is just taxes.
It's less misinformation and more willing disbelief. People accept narratives that go along with what they believe supports that which benefits them. I highly recommend reading Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing". People aren't stupid, they seek approval for their actions and support, which explains the anger expressed at factual debunking of their worldview.
can't say I'm a huge fan of Nick Cruze or the rest of RBN, but a graph's a graph I guess
Wait till most people are starving.
partially because total wealth is much higher?
This is overall distribution by percentage, so aggregate total represented wouldn’t have an impact. If it were to have an impact, I think we’d have hoped it would mean the slope was more even.
This is overall distribution by percentage, so aggregate total
what I mean is that if total land area is 1 acre, and 80% of people own 1% of the land, they're starving
if total land area is 5000 acres, and 80% of people (same population size) own 1% of the land, then everyone is well fed on the same inequality
The "wealth distribution" theory of unrest is so thoroughly debunked its insane to see people who still think in these terms. Smh.
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
842 points (98.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7300 readers
623 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS