Wealth inequality stands at its highest since the turn of the 20th century - the so-called 'Gilded Age' - as the proportion of capital held by the world's 1,542 dollar billionaires swells yet higher. The report, undertaken by Swiss banking giant UBS and UK accounting company PwC, discusses the roles technology and globalization play in the status quo, and appears two weeks after the IMF recommended that the rich should pay more tax to address the enormous disparity.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:15PM (7 children)
Ah, the gadfly of Soylent News comes to challenge our simplistic beliefs!
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:22PM (6 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:44PM (5 children)
I just love how not agreeing with khallow is equivalent to "resisting learning". And he wonders why no one takes him seriously. Other than his rather warped view of economic reality.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @01:09AM (4 children)
But should you ever have anything interesting or relevant to say, please contribute.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday October 30 2017, @02:11AM (3 children)
Yeah, as some AC or the other remarked, the preponderance of TMB posts suggested it was a thread to be skipped. And your contributions have been, well, typical of you I suppose. So no point in contributing, since there will be nothing but resistance to learning.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @02:24AM (2 children)
Well, should you ever become sufficiently open to reason, we might be able to work on that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday October 30 2017, @03:19AM (1 child)
Oh, my dear and fluffy khallow!
We have been around long enough to not have to trade such platitudinous insults! And you are well aware that our disagreements, as well as those you are having with your present interlocutors, has nothing to do with reasoning, it has to do with the basic assumptions you are making, which seem to us to be wildly implausible. As with data processing, garbage in, garbage out. Wealth inequality is not bad because of the jealously of the lower classes, that is your assumption. And capitalism is not some sort of Spencerian process of natural selection, so the poors are not poor because they are stupid, drunk, and Irish, all though all this may be true. And the richies are not rich due to self-discipline, frugality, hard work and keeping it in their pants. Obviously.
You should think about why you believe such things, khallow. Do you have any actual grounds for such a 19th century approach to wealth inequality? Inquiring minds, once again, want to know.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @04:02AM