Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.

The Second Gilded Age Is Here

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the goose-and-the-golden-egg dept.

Robotron writes:

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Second Gilded Age Is Here | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 156 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:22PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:22PM (#589128) Journal
    Indeed. I'm sure if you resist hard enough, you can avoid learning something today. I'll note in your earlier post, you expressed far more concern over the motives of billionaires than over the consequences. I don't see the point to caring that someone is trying to pay me as little as possible, when those "crumbs" are more than ample for my own desires and I can always go looking for better.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:44PM (5 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:44PM (#589251) Journal

    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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 30 2017, @01:09AM (#589276) Journal
      You're late to the party. Busy posting with one of your alts?

      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)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Monday October 30 2017, @02:11AM (#589301) Journal

        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)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 30 2017, @02:24AM (#589307) Journal

          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.

          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)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Monday October 30 2017, @03:19AM (#589332) Journal

            Oh, my dear and fluffy khallow!

            should you ever become sufficiently open to reason,

            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.