this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
457 points (98.1% liked)

News

23296 readers
3745 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
457
'Disgusting': Global 1% Captured $42 Trillion in New Wealth Over Past Decade. (www.commondreams.org)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This ongoing wedding party cost $600 MILLION.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ambani-wedding-anant-radhika-kardashians-harry-boris-b2585523.html

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

My God, that's right in line with the old royal weddings from the divine right age. Nobody should be that rich.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

So they have plenty to help out with the national debt

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

And if it continues, we shall soon find out how palatable their flesh is.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think we need to start typing out the numbers. $42 Trillion is $42,000,000,000,000.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The thing is, these numbers are unfathomable to most people.

If you say, "government gave $30B in subsidies to car companies", most people will stare at you blankly and shrug...

But people will get really angry if they see a headline like, "man commits $5000 of welfare fraud", or "goverment spent $100 000 housing 5 refugee families" because those are real numbers to them.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That's 10 millions:

100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000

That's 10 millions minus a new Porsche:

100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000

That's what is left a year later plus the average S&P return:

100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000

Well God damn, that's more than we started with!

I would do the same thing with 100 millions but the message would be too long, so instead I'll share this website: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I stopped at $1,000 because I’m depressed enough right now, but I’ve seen the site before and absolutely love the visual.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I love the verbal visualization;

A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Now we wait for it to trickle down...

It trickles down...right?

RIGHT??

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

According to chatGPT if you earn more than 60 - 70k a year you belong to the richest 1% globally.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

They need another zero. It's shockingly low in a conversation that includes billionaires but it's not working class America low.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

According to "AI", glue is is an acceptable pizza topping. Let's not confuse the ability to form sentences with the ability to reason or produce fact-checked information.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

Yes but immigrants and trans, no one ever speaks about that problem!

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

that's gross! ...actually, they don't pay taxes, so it's mostly net

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I think much of this obscene wealth is kind of "fake." Like, if I buy a house, and I do nothing to that house, no improvements, nothing, then turn around and sell that house for double what I bought it for, was any new wealth created? I now have more money, and the person I sold the house to now has an asset that is worth double what it once was, but where did all this new wealth come from? The house didn't change at all.

I mean, let's say I bought the house for $100,000, I wait a few years and sell it for $300,000, I just made $200,000. Then the person I sold it to sells it after a few more years for $500,000, making him $200,000. Then the person he sold it to sells after a few more years for $700,000, and he makes $200,000. That's $600,000 thousand dollars generated from one asset. Isn't that a little odd? It seems like at some point someone is going to buy the house but they're not going to be able to sell it for more than they bought it for. I just don't see how assets can just keep going up in value forever.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The house isn't creating new wealth. The new wealth was created elsewhere in the system and used to pay for the house. The value of the house going up isn't the same thing. Now if you use the increased value of the house to back a second mortgage, that's when you're creating wealth. But you're doing it through the fractional reserve banking system, whose entire job is to create wealth by loaning out copies of money.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit.

The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.

They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.

Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."

"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

The last part of your first paragraph is what I truly don't understand. If I pull a trash bike from the garbage pile and sell it to an idiot as a vintage bike and he pays me 50000 dollaroos for that, I just scammed that dude. The bike still belongs in the trash.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I don't see this changing until the housing supply exceeds the demand. At the rate we build, that's not happening any time soon.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

I mean there's where inflation is coming in

[–] [email protected] 54 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Which is why it's so insane when media/politicians talk about "the economy".

The rich are squeezing everything they can out of the 99.9%, and are the only ones that can afford to save.

All that money is moving tho. Which is how we measure "the economy". Which wasn't a big deal 50 years ago when wealth inequality wasn't as bad.

But the metrics are essentially useless these days. Either the people bragging about the economy have no idea what's happening, or they're just flat out lying.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago

The rich are squeezing everything they can out of the 99.9%, and are the only ones that can afford to save.

That's not entirely accurate. The rich use a system to their benefit that was created by politicians and bankers to make bankers richer, and that gives politicians access to unlimited money. Surplus spending and inflation can squeeze everything out of the 99.9% just fine.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

Yeah, every time you see “the economy” mentioned in a news article, especialy business news, just replace it with “the 1%’s money” and it will make sense.