Never? Rockefeller literally bailed the entire US government out of debt.
I’ll not put too fine a point on it and assume you meant “in the modern US,” as it’s trivial to point out how many times we’ve had a greater wealth disparity historically and globally.
But even then, we used to literally have company towns that amounted to debtors prisons and any attempts to organize were met with firebombings.
It’s not good now for sure, but it’s far from the worst it’s ever been.
It’s not the worst it’s been, no. And yes, the post was about the USA so that is what I am referring to. Living conditions have been worse but specifically the difference in monetary wealth is greater now, unless I have been misled.
the difference in monetary wealth is greater now, unless I have been mislead.
That is true, but in the end, it’s largely irrelevant. The incidence of poverty matters infinitely more than how large the gap is between the wealthiest and everyone else.
If hypothetically, not one person in the US was pulling down a penny less than $75k/year, that’d mean no one’s broke, right? And yet the size of the wealth gap would basically be identical, because the difference between $0 and $75,000 is nothing compared to the difference between $0 or $75,000, and hundreds of billions.
Over the past 100 years, the number of (inflation-adjusted, of course) billionaires per capita in the US increased by a whopping 7x. And yet, poverty was MUCH worse in 1925 than it is in 2025. Also, iirc, there is a positive correlation between average standard of living, and billionaires per capita, in a given country.
Eradicating poverty is the thing to aim for, but directly. And, despite the very common misconception, reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people (especially considering that the majority of that wealth is newly-created valuation, not actual money) will not move the needle toward that goal, at all. Too many people think wealth is a zero-sum thing, and assume the gap being wider than ever must mean that those not at the top have less than ever—that’s simply not true.
I feel like I’m listening to Margaret Thatcher explain trickle down economics…
More billionaires means better standard of living for everyone! Stop hating the rich! Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off! [citation required]
I feel like I’m listening to Margaret Thatcher explain trickle down economics…
That’s because you’re deliberately misreading/twisting it, as exemplified immediately below.
More billionaires means better standard of living for everyone!
Straw man, I didn’t assert any causal relationship. I actually did the literal opposite; I refuted someone else’s assertion of a causal relationship by pointing out a lack of positive correlation between the incidence of billionaires per capita, and that of poverty in the populace.
If I pointed out that the rise of Internet porn does not correlate with a rise in committed rapes, that’s an effective counterargument to someone claiming that porn consumption increases the incidence of rape, but it’s not equivalent to me asserting that porn reduces rape.
But I have a feeling you’re intelligent enough to understand this; it’s just that your bias has clouded your judgment, and you’re willfully turning that part of your brain off, because you’ve decided I’m the Bad Guy, and being the Good Guy is more important to you than being accurate/honest.
Stop hating the rich!
You can hate them if you want, I just pointed out that it’s not useful to, and that doing so won’t do a thing to lift anyone out of poverty, which should be the actual goal. Loving the poor is a better use of your time than hating the rich.
Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off! [citation required]
Citation required for me having said that, you mean, since, you know, I didn’t. Liar.
Look at how fast FDR turned shit around. We can solve every problem in that meme in under a decade if everyone just united against the wealthy again.
I think one of the biggest differences between then and now is that the population doesn’t live in the same “version of reality.” Back with FDR people were all essentially on the same page and could unite as they shared a common understanding of their issues. With all the myriad forms of media and technology working to keep us essentially living in different worlds the capacity to unite has been utterly decimated, by design of course.
Sometimes shit is bad, sometimes it’s good. But it can always get better and it can always get worse. A huge problem here is people aren’t looking on a long enough timeline while oligarchs can afford to.
There’s literally a thing where resource scarcity hinders our ability is plan ahead and that being exploited isn’t new.
It’s written like there is only one way to live. If he hates it then brainstorm, what are some ways out of that life. Maybe the company pays super well but if you’re that miserable then maybe it’s time to find something else, find a new city a new place. It’s going to be hard but if you’re that hard up then it’s probably time to start looking
4chan has a defeatest attitude…
The current situation ain’t normal, but this isn’t the first time a few have hoarded wealth and used it to pay for boots on everyone else’s necks.
Look at how fast FDR turned shit around. We can solve every problem in that meme in under a decade if everyone just united against the wealthy again.
If they didn’t they’d spend more time elsewhere.
While I agree with you it is worth noting the wealth disparity has never been this grand.
Never? Rockefeller literally bailed the entire US government out of debt.
I’ll not put too fine a point on it and assume you meant “in the modern US,” as it’s trivial to point out how many times we’ve had a greater wealth disparity historically and globally.
But even then, we used to literally have company towns that amounted to debtors prisons and any attempts to organize were met with firebombings.
It’s not good now for sure, but it’s far from the worst it’s ever been.
It’s not the worst it’s been, no. And yes, the post was about the USA so that is what I am referring to. Living conditions have been worse but specifically the difference in monetary wealth is greater now, unless I have been misled.
That is true, but in the end, it’s largely irrelevant. The incidence of poverty matters infinitely more than how large the gap is between the wealthiest and everyone else.
If hypothetically, not one person in the US was pulling down a penny less than $75k/year, that’d mean no one’s broke, right? And yet the size of the wealth gap would basically be identical, because the difference between $0 and $75,000 is nothing compared to the difference between $0 or $75,000, and hundreds of billions.
Over the past 100 years, the number of (inflation-adjusted, of course) billionaires per capita in the US increased by a whopping 7x. And yet, poverty was MUCH worse in 1925 than it is in 2025. Also, iirc, there is a positive correlation between average standard of living, and billionaires per capita, in a given country.
Eradicating poverty is the thing to aim for, but directly. And, despite the very common misconception, reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people (especially considering that the majority of that wealth is newly-created valuation, not actual money) will not move the needle toward that goal, at all. Too many people think wealth is a zero-sum thing, and assume the gap being wider than ever must mean that those not at the top have less than ever—that’s simply not true.
I feel like I’m listening to Margaret Thatcher explain trickle down economics…
More billionaires means better standard of living for everyone! Stop hating the rich! Redistributing their wealth will make us worse off! [citation required]
That’s because you’re deliberately misreading/twisting it, as exemplified immediately below.
Straw man, I didn’t assert any causal relationship. I actually did the literal opposite; I refuted someone else’s assertion of a causal relationship by pointing out a lack of positive correlation between the incidence of billionaires per capita, and that of poverty in the populace.
If I pointed out that the rise of Internet porn does not correlate with a rise in committed rapes, that’s an effective counterargument to someone claiming that porn consumption increases the incidence of rape, but it’s not equivalent to me asserting that porn reduces rape.
But I have a feeling you’re intelligent enough to understand this; it’s just that your bias has clouded your judgment, and you’re willfully turning that part of your brain off, because you’ve decided I’m the Bad Guy, and being the Good Guy is more important to you than being accurate/honest.
You can hate them if you want, I just pointed out that it’s not useful to, and that doing so won’t do a thing to lift anyone out of poverty, which should be the actual goal. Loving the poor is a better use of your time than hating the rich.
Citation required for me having said that, you mean, since, you know, I didn’t. Liar.
Maybe you mean Morgan?
Dawg literally forgot about the roman empire lol
The context was USA.
I think one of the biggest differences between then and now is that the population doesn’t live in the same “version of reality.” Back with FDR people were all essentially on the same page and could unite as they shared a common understanding of their issues. With all the myriad forms of media and technology working to keep us essentially living in different worlds the capacity to unite has been utterly decimated, by design of course.
:(
Nope, none of that is unique or new…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Sometimes shit is bad, sometimes it’s good. But it can always get better and it can always get worse. A huge problem here is people aren’t looking on a long enough timeline while oligarchs can afford to.
There’s literally a thing where resource scarcity hinders our ability is plan ahead and that being exploited isn’t new.
It’s written like there is only one way to live. If he hates it then brainstorm, what are some ways out of that life. Maybe the company pays super well but if you’re that miserable then maybe it’s time to find something else, find a new city a new place. It’s going to be hard but if you’re that hard up then it’s probably time to start looking