EDITORIAL, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Who Cares About the “Wealth Gap” if Everyone is Richer?
By Joe Jarvis - June 20, 2017

How many successful people can there be? It seems like, after every article you read these days, the author bio talks about a book they have written, an invention they created, a prestigious award or some other indicator of great success. Yet I’ve never really heard of most of them.

I used to get pings of jealousy when I would see descriptions like that of successful people; it almost felt like there were a limited number of “success” spots on planet earth, and if they were taking one up, it made it that much less likely for me to get one.

But it’s not true. There is no limit to the number of successful people that can exist, especially since everyone has a slightly different idea of success.

And in the same vein, there is no limit to how many wealthy people there can be. Wealth is not a zero-sum game, there is not some amount of wealth out there that once it is grabbed, is gone. Anyone can create wealth. Growing a garden is a great place to start creating the necessities to live and giving yourself a little food shortage insurance plan.

When people say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, that is a huge misrepresentation of what is really happening, even if the rich have far more compared to the poor.

For example, let’s use the amount of healthy food that can be purchased as an indicator of wealth. If a “poor” person could once only afford 10 pounds of healthy food per week, and a “rich” person could afford 100 pounds, the rich person is ten times richer than the poor person. But now suppose a poor person can afford 100 pounds of healthy food per week, and a rich person can afford 2,000 pounds.

True, the wealth gap has doubled from 1-10 to 1-20, yet the poor person is living as richly as only the wealthy could in years past.

This is the true nature of the wealth gap. Almost everyone is better off these days. The gap doesn’t matter as much as the minimum standard of living.

The classic example which always comes to mind for me is of President Calvin Coolidge who lived in the White House fewer than 100 years ago. One of the most powerful people on Earth watched helplessly as his son died of an infected blister from playing tennis.

In that sense, everyone living in America today has a higher standard of living than the President and his family had 90 years ago. Advancements in medicine, technology, information, and production have risen the standard of living for everyone.

This chart shows the exponential nature in which people are being lifted out of poverty.

Poverty has not yet been entirely eradicated, but at this pace, as long as those in power don’t thrust the world back into the dark ages, it is only a matter of time until Earth is basically free from poverty.

And at that point, when all needs are being met, what does it matter if the richest person has 10, 50, or a thousand times more wealth than the poorest?

Options and a Backup Plan = Freedom

There was a time when the options for a person to create enough wealth to live were very few.

Do you want to live in a one room dusty, dirty, festering farmhouse and work the fields for 14 hours a day to scrape by in grinding poverty? Or do you want to live in a crowded apartment, and work in a dingy, smoky, stuffy factory for 14 hours a day and scrape by in regular poverty?

Not a great choice to have to make. Today that conundrum is disappearing from almost all lives on Earth. If the trend of eradicating poverty continues, it shouldn’t be long until everyone on earth has a better option to create wealth.

But unfortunately, governments and their crony deals with corporations are standing in the way of the quickest progress. They keep destroying the wealth in wars and misallocation of resources that would otherwise be spread through the ranks of the people.

A great place to start would be to actually allow people to keep the products of their own labor, instead of taxing it away, or writing laws and regulations which make it all but impossible to survive without bowing down to the corporate overlords.

This, of course, means respecting the honestly acquired wealth of the richest as well as the poorest. You can’t support the poor being freed to get ahead while simultaneously calling on the rich to be robbed to even things out.

Governments and corporations have indeed set up the world to make it hard to get ahead, and true justice would involve them paying damages to those they have wronged. But don’t believe that government power can be used to solve the problem that they created.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in EDITORIAL, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Sol

    Who is this Joe Jarvis moron and why is his inane drivel being published on this site?

    • Kernel01

      He’s a distinguished author with thought provoking articles.

      • Sol

        He’s a dimwit.

        • acumen

          Indeed…..to wit, ‘True, the wealth gap has doubled from 1-10 to 1-20, yet the poor person is living as richly as only the wealthy could in years past.’ Really? On what planet? Within anyone’s immediate grasp, there are thousands of citizens living without the basics—pretty much the same life as in the past—no resources, no continuing medical care, no hope, and no respect from elites like yourself. No doubt you prescribe to the Republican ideology of ‘all to some–and none to some’, a process bereft of any common care and concern for your fellow human being. Sort of tragically sad our human condition.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            “True, the wealth gap has doubled from 1-10 to 1-20, yet the poor person is living as richly as only the wealthy could in years past.’ Really? On what planet?”

            Planet earth, in countries where people have been able to experience a greater degree of personal and economic freedom and liberty.

            Most people in the US earning below the so-called Federal Poverty level have hot and cold running water; shelter that protects them more than adequately from the elements; a flat-screen or other TV, or several of them; one or more adequately operable cars; computers; internet connection;, even AC in most of their home, or at least, fans; and a tremendous range of affordable nutritious food available to them, to name just a few things that either didn’t exist in plenitude as they do today, or couldn’t exist due to the absence of electricity over a century ago. They were unavailable even to millionaires and royalty back then.

            Before the government interfered with medical care by continually socializing it for nearly a century, it was less costly than it is today, thanks to that interference. Doctors routinely made house calls–house calls ! (I remember their visits to my parents’ house in the early 1960s, pre-Medicare/Medicad. My podiatrist visits me at home). Their fees were more affordable to all, including low-income earning people. Hospital stays, too, were more affordable to everyone. For those who were truly indigent, charity in various expressions provide adequate assistance.

            You need to disabuse yourself of that Marxist/statist propaganda that you allowed yourself to be fed, check honest history, and your very flawed premises.

            As for Republicans and their statist ideology, advocates of legitimate individual rights and the free markets that they engender, get no support from Misesian libertarians and anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists, including myself, just as Democrats (statists who lean to the left) do not.

            A pox on both the Democratic and Repubican statist houses.

          • John woodworth

            Well, ruffle the feathers and out pops the pedant. Your paleo position works theoretical wonders, and in these perilous times, perhaps provides some console, but not even Murray Rothbard can stave the craven face of Capitalism, at full pulse, as it ever widens its path of inevitable destruction and suffocation of any rational social order.

            At what cost your freedom, sir?

    • Dimitri Ledkovsky

      He’s probably a millennial (read: “young”), entitled, somewhat elitist, probably a libertarian (whatever that is; it’s different things to different people). Sometime in the past year he acquired the editorship of this newsletter/blog. It’s hard to come up with dynamite writing every day. But he seems like an all right guy.

      • Sol

        I’m not saying he’s a bad guy – just kinda stupid.

    • dsaulw

      How about making a substantive comment instead of resorting to name-calling?

      Mind you, I have some issues with this article too, so I am not saying this to defend what he has written.

  • Kernel01

    Options and a Back-up Plan = Freedom.
    Precisely. And succinctly Freedom = Many Choices (thru the free market), and Unfreedom = One Choice Only (which means that Government is your only option). Less Government = More Freedom.

  • Steven Hotho

    I’m all for respecting the honestly acquired wealth of the richest, as I am of respecting the fair remuneration of the working person. In the never-ending war between capital and labor, labor has been getting a raw deal for quite awhile now and we see the results in the crony capitalism of today with its financialization of absolutely everything.

    • Very true. But the issue has always been: “what is a fair distribution of labour v capital? I am a great believer in ‘cooperatives’ rather than corporations where employees own a % stake in the enterprise. This way labour can earn a fixed minimum ‘wage’ and earn dividends based on the success of both capital and labour. John Lewis in UK is one example and I believe National Carriers is another; trade unions become redundant and strikes are eliminated.

      • Steven Hotho

        Yes, I think this is the ultimate utopian ideal; rather small, local cooperatives and guilds that would primarily be owned by the workers. It would mean a society that did not enjoy much in the way of technological goods, but much more social peace and, probably, more personal happiness.

  • DonRL

    There has always been the conflict between the rich and the poor and we will always have the poor.
    The real issue is opportunity. Do all have opportunity to make their fortune. Since all abilities are not the same some will succeed and become very rich and some will remain poor. There is also the issue of being diligent in what one does. Some will use their skills diligently and succeed given the opportunity. Some with the same skill will not be diligent but will be lazy even though given the opportunity will not succeed.
    Given the opportunity all may succeed but all will not.
    Those who do not will blame those who do for the poverty the have of their own making, hoping that they will be given a handout. There are too many hands out in this day and time. Those who can but refuse to work diligently should not be allowed to live off the labors of the diligent who have worked for what they have.
    Those who do the work should get the benefit of their labor. Those who do not should not benefit from those who do.
    The poverty of those who will not work should motivate them to work to improve their lot.
    Those who cannot work due to no fault of their own should be cared for by those who have the ability and resources to do so without government interference and without the government oppressing those who have labored for what they have to appease those who will not work for their own upkeep or betterment.

    • I am reminded of the parable of the talents. Agree with your contention but I would add that if we rely on charity only to support the afflicted we might return to the Victorian times. Perhaps rather there should be more stringent welfare rules and application; we are far too lax in our dole provisions today when people demand it as a ‘right’.

      • DonRL

        Thanks for your comment.
        I agree that certainly we should have more stringent rules for any welfare whether it be local gov,, church or national gov.
        I think local gov. welfare would be much more efficient with less fraud that the national gov welfare.
        I know of situations where welfare fraud was and it was reported but nothing was done by the gov. to investigate ore stop it. It seems that welfare fraud is OK with the gov. as long as it is done by a minority racial group.

        • Agree entirely – if the suffering poor are to be supported then an enforceable regime is required.

        • Col. Edward H. R. Green

          “I think local gov. welfare would be much more efficient with less fraud that the national gov welfare.”

          I am opposed to local government welfare programs for the same reason that I oppose them on the state and federal level: because they would be funded by force via coercive taxation, a legalized act of theft, but theft nonetheless.

          No. Again, No, and No again.

          Assistance MUST be privately and voluntarily funded and offered, and best done so at the local level, where the giver and the receiver can see each other eye-to-eye, and the giver can inform himself of the recipient’s situation, and judge, according to his own standards of giving, whether or not to offer any form of assistance, and if so, make the recipient understand his expectations to use that assistance to get back on his feet.

          If the recipient is utterly disabled and unable to be productive through no fault of his own, the giver can offer his help as yet another form of generosity and benevolence as what he showed a basically able-bodied and able-minded individual temporarily facing difficult straits..

          Coercion initiated against a peaceful person and any part of his property, however great or small his wealth may be, is an act of violence that treats the person forcibly deprived as if he were a slave, a slave to those who rob him, and a slave to his “beneficiaries”.

          Coercion against peaceful people and their peacefully-acquired wealth is never a just means to any end, including a “humanitarian” end.

      • Col. Edward H. R. Green

        Private givers of charity can set the terms for receiving their assistance, as is their right on the basis of their private property rights, and in so doing stringently, make certain that their assistance goes only to those whose plight is not of their own foolish making.

        With government involved in making provisions, it will involve theft via coercive taxation and no regard as to who gets how much and why, for those who distribute the dole will have no interest in making certain that its recipients qualify because they will not be doling their own money. If people are robbed to fund welfare programs, people are more ready to demand assistance as a “right”.

        Your concern about returning to “Victorian times” and its workhouses for the indigent–which were operated by the government–are ill-founded.

  • Clyde James

    Who cares about wealth inequities? The hundreds of millions who get pennies, while a few thousand families get trillions. That’s who

  • Boysie

    I remain amazed that Cut_n_Pate Journos like this – with sawdust for brains – can actually get paid for such mindless puerile rubbish – Ah well it takes all sorts – extremely unhappy to know that the endless stream of verbiage thats pases for journalism in America…

  • lulu

    Wealth is finite if it represents effort and resources. Period end of story. One earth. Only so much to go around.

    • Writing “Period end of story” does not turn crypto-Malthusian nonsense into truth.

      “Effort and resources” generate wealth only to the extent that they are inputs into production – and then, only to the extent that someone values the output of the production. Different productive processes will result in different wealth-generation for the same inputs.

      For example: your computer, plus what you know about productive processes etc, plus the effort it took to type the words, were all inputs into your comment. And yet the output – the comment – did not add to human wealth, because it was ignorant nonsense. If you had spent that five minutes tending a garden, the time would have generated some wealth.

      Snark aside: you missed the two critical issues that Malthus likewise ignored
      (because he was an idiot). (1) technological advance (making more stuff with
      less inputs and less ‘waste’), and (2) excess capacity. [Note that (1) also means that excess capacity becomes greater over time].

      More stuff from less inputs is the entire story of human achievement, which has – despite what mewlers and pukers will assert – resulted in all but the very very poorest having lifestyles that were not available to anybody a hundred years ago.

      Virtually nobody in the developed West dies of hunger anymore: the inability to obtain enough calories to stay alive is absolute poverty. In the West, there was a time when people actually died of hunger in reasonably large numbers during the lifespan of people who are still alive.

      However we could still do way better, by reducing the amount of resources that get wasted – and I don’t mean tiny amounts of resources like the ones you wasted showing the internet how little you know about economics and history.

      There are large-scale ‘effort and resources’ that get dedicated to pointless, useless, ends that create no wealth whatsoever.

      BUT… there is also ‘effort and resources’ that go to wealth-destroying ends on truly massive scales.

      If the owners of those resources do so voluntarily, that’s their absolute right. But when resources are used in wealth-destroying ends and the owners do not commit those resources voluntarily, there we have genuine slack capacity that should be clawed back.

      Everything done by government is wealth-destroying… it transfers resources to politically-connected recipients, and wastes or otherwise consumes part of the resources in the transfer process. And it does not obtain the resources it transfers, without coercion.

      Government takes – by force or threat of force – dollars of high marginal utility, and dedicates them to lower-marginal-utility ends.

      You can tell this because the median dollar of government expenditure goes to a recipient who is richer than the median net-taxpayer. (Most government dollars get spent on bureaucrats and cronies, not on the poor).

      That means that dollars are being forced to flow from less-wealthy pockets to more-wealthy pockets, in ways that people would not do if they could choose freely. Again, that’s obviously true a fortiori – if government actually provided value for money, then it could be a subscription service (like churches are nowadays).

      But no… government can’t do that – it requires a coercive capability: that’s prima facie evidence that it knows it doesn’t provide value for money to the people that it takes money from.

      So there is plenty of ‘slack capacity’; if government was wiped out of existence, the things it claims to provide would be furnished by competing firms at minimum cost.

      The resulting output would also be of higher quality: monopoly provision always leads to output that is expensive on a quality-equivalent basis – i.e., less units of quality-adjusted output per dollar of expenditure. that’s true whether you’re monopoly-providing bread, or Chairman Mao suits, or telecommunications services, or courts, or national defence.

      Malthusian short-sighted tripe has been tripe since Malthus wrote, and it will be tripe when the human population stops growing and starts shrinking (as it will later this century, just after it hits 11 billion).

      • Excellent response. I have been studying demographic projections and you are quite correct, but add that even when the global population reaches <11 Bn, the 16-64 year olds (producers) as a proportion of the total will be less than 2:1 by 2050 in the OECD countries, plus China, Russia and Brazil. Who is going to pay for all the oldies?

      • libertyPlease

        hahaha….that literally made me laugh out loud. Your comedy power levels in this post–OVER 9000!

      • Col. Edward H. R. Green

        “Everything done by government is wealth-destroying… it transfers resources to politically-connected recipients, and wastes or otherwise consumes part of the resources in the transfer process. And it does not obtain the resources it transfers, without coercion.”

        Everything you say here, and in the paragraphs that follow it, down to your penultimate paragraph, I said, similarly, to my ladyfriend as the local newscaster informed viewers of how a MA State Rep. Richard Neal was instrumental in having an old train station in Springfield totally refurbished. It was disgusting to watch Neal glow with pride about his “accomplishment”

        “Saturday 6/24/17

        A black-tie gala will Saturday will feature dinner, dancing and a celebratory cake-cutting. The gala will also feature a host of special guests, including Gov. Charlie Baker, former Gov. Deval Patrick.”

        Sunday 6/25/17

        A reception will be held Sunday for the hundreds of contractors who worked to restore Union Station to its “original glory,” along with their families. The event is scheduled from 10 a.m. to noon.”

        Yes, the vulturine high-level current and former government employees will celebrate alongside the crony-contractors the coerced funding of the project, the artificially high prices the contractors were paid that benefited them and their families, and the massive, mis-allocation of raw materials and products in the form of paint, sheetrock, electric wiring, plumbing, glass, etc. that was thereby made unavailable for the production of private houses, garages, offices, driveways, walkways, and their improvements, that people valued more highly than the renovation of Springfield Union Station.

      • lulu

        No Clearly it does not turn nonsense into truth but neither does an overly long response, most of which is obvious.

    • Steven Hotho

      Exactly, where is the determination of spiritual wealth, which should measure the pursuit and attainment of wisdom? I would say, we are in very poor straits there.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      You bray, “One earth. Only so much to go around.”

      That finite “pie” is much, much bigger than you “think”.

      If it were not, everyone would still be hunter-gatherers and living in conditions that prevailed during the Stone Age.

      • lulu

        Yes I bray. I have watched it happen here in beautiful BC. Just exactly what is there enough of to go around? Clean air? Arable land? Fish in the ocean? Money for sure is around. The trouble will be with what this empty $$ can buy.

  • Praetor

    Inequality measurements are just a standard for poor and average working people. These studies are measuring Briton with Mexico or Sweden with The Congo. There is no comparison between two differing societies or the cultures. The studies should not be about wealth but quality of life. How do you compare a Maasai tribesman life with a NYC Garbage collectors life. I would thing that the Maasai mans life might be better. We are talking about a Global Meme.!!!

    Even with in a society the measurements would be hard to quantify. The quality over quantity seems more important.

    The Declaration of Independence states it clearly, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Some pursue riches, others a pig farm.!!!

  • georgesilver

    The article is a roundabout way of saying “what we need is sound money”

  • JohnnysZone

    Reading half-way through this article, I was about to toll the bell for The Bell, but it managed to finish to a somewhat sensible ending, as it blamed government for slower than potential human progress. While, this is true to a large extent, it shows that the author is a young millennial with a still naïve world view. Gone are the days of elitist meme deconstruction. Because, you see, government is owned by the rich, it is just a façade they have erected between themselves and the sheeple. And then – allow the rich to keep the fairly earned wealth? There is barely any fairly earned wealth without govt or other crony help, stealing and lies etc. (By wealth I mean such riches that one goes to the side of the owners, for whom the laws for the common folk do not count, but who can direct, manipulate and dispose of commoners as pawns in a game).

    Regarding the meme that the commoners are now living better than kings of the past, so they should be …(what? content with the system? – it was not really defined in the article), there is so much wrong with this propaganda line, that I have lost count:

    – Human ingenuity is generally independent of the system (it can only be slowed to a higher or lower degree by the system)

    – Every generation lives in the now, so past comparisons are somewhat useless

    – If one is a slave, but has shiny gadgets attached, one is still a slave

    – Food is not that healthy these days as it used to be

    – One is exposed to much more stressors than before – electromagnetic waves, noise, pollution, societal stresses, complexity, poisons, etc.

    – Cancer was not a problem 100 years ago

    – Members of the elite and well-connected used to live up to 80-100 years of age before the modern “developments of medicine”

    – System intervention in ones life and spying is much higher than before

    And finally, if you want to look into inequality, equality of opportunity and where we are in the current cycle, you can have a look for example at the current article:

    https://matrixawakening.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/the-fallacy-of-the-american-dream-modern-day-capitalism-and-free-trade/

    • dsaulw

      This is a good response and generally along the lines of what I was thinking.

      I am always put off by these articles which tell us how good we have it. Admittedly, there have been many innovations for which we ought to be grateful. But what is the point of such articles? To defend the system that we have now? That would seem to be a foolish thing to do, so I have no idea why libertarians are so inclined to employ such rhetoric. They are tone deaf.

      It seems to me that the best way to gauge the relative success or failure of a given society is to evaluate the conditions and prospects for the young. By doing so, we assess whether the decisions being made show foresight or whether they reflect a looting mentality. On this basis, modern American society must be judged a failure.

      To wit: today’s young is much sicker than previous generations, with epidemics of obesity, autism, allergies, ADHD, seizure disorders, psychological disorders, etc. Today’s youth are subjected to a hyper-expensive and indoctrinating college experience, with relatively poor prospects for good jobs upon graduation. Today’s young are being forced to shoulder massive state and national debt that they did not agree to. They are being ripped off by social security, medicare, obamacare, etc. They are confronted with a weakening of civil liberties and increasing police brutality.

      I could go on and on here, but the gist is this: “young people are getting the shaft, big time”. This reality alone tells us that it is not time for libertarians to “declare victory” and tell everyone how great things are.

      • JohnnysZone

        If you read the article I have attached above, you will see that there are cycles when the system works for improving the general well-being of the population (Chart 7) and periods where the looting of the elites becomes so pronounced that either a revolution or a war or a depression follows. Right now we are close to a peak “elite overproduction”. And honestly, if the stories about the NWO are true (many things speak that they are), then probably there will be no “recovery” for the median citizen anymore / anytime soon.
        Another aspect that is missed completely here, is that these are all economic discussions about materialistic improvements, as if that is the only thing that counts. But aspects like ethics, morals, spirituality, harmony and freedom of existence are completely neglected. I am afraid there has been practically exactly zero development on that front over the last 2000-3000 years if not more. I come more and more to the conclusion that all aspects of “civilization” are controlled by pervert satanic psychopaths (the elite, bound by blood ties and common doctrine and “great work”) over quite long periods of time. For example, the USA was founded by freemasons and illuminati, who are linked to the European royal blood lines, strongly influenced by the Jesuits and who never intended to have a truly free or independent state from Britain and the City banking interests. So seeing the USA as a failure is not a coincidence, but a logical consequence – it was programmed from birth.

    • dsaulw

      I was also glad to see you mention the problems of EMF exposure and increases in cancer. You may be interested in this article that I recently wrote.

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/05/d-saul-weiner/diseases-of-civilization/

      • JohnnysZone

        Interesting thanks!
        I still feel that the other factors mentioned like change of diet (actually “they” sell us the wrong diet plus the poisoned / junky / GMO food), crowding in polluted and stressful cities, cigarettes (promoted by the system) disintegration of the family and society (promoted) are also to blame. If you think about it, you will notice that the nature of the system is materialistic, satanic and it inverts everything, so that we lack any sound references or morals and ethics left.

        • dsaulw

          Yes, I definitely agree that poor diet and GMO foods are harming us. The nature of the system is materialistic. Solid morals and traditions are either neglected, frowned upon, or made illegal.

          When researching electrification, I was struck by how it produced a marked increase in the suicide rate. Presumably, this is only the tip of the iceberg and that it is producing a lot of depression, anxiety, and (generally) a greater difficulty coping with the demands of living. It must also be undermining our spiritual development.

    • Doc

      “Gone are the days of elitist meme deconstruction.”

      Yes, greatly missed.

      • JohnnysZone

        I have to say that a lot of very good bloggers have been throwing in the towel recently, as they see no way of massively awakening the sheeple and thus consider their work fruitless and thankless. Examples are:

        – Brandon Martinez at non-aligned media, now available as a mirror at http://dorsetpatriot.net/t/nm/
        – Peekay truth (YT)

        • Doc

          Maybe a sign of the times. I stopped writing ten years just to stay under the radar.

  • Doc

    The chart you are showing in the article is referring to income distribution, not wealth distribution or the wealth gap. These are normally treated as different entities.

    I also wanted to point out that there are places with relatively high income equality where the wealth inequality is relatively high. Sweden is a famous example. Nothing wrong with income equality per se, but forced income distribution apparently drives wealth into the hands of the few.

    • JohnnysZone

      If you look at the article I attached below, you will notice that Sweden actually has less wealth disparity and better upward mobility than the UK & US. The latter two are nominally more capitalist, but they are also much more crony capitalist.

      • Doc

        If you have a good article on the subject, please summarise it and then post a link to support it. Not what you are referring to.

        As for Sweden, the government there runs its own variety of fascism, as does the UK and the US. Crony for sure.

        I have lived in Sweden for 45 years, and in 6 other countries, and I don’t believe any official stats coming out of that place or any other. It’s all made up.

        The top familes in Sweden probably haven’t n’t paid an iota in tax for the last century. It’s s an unbelievable racket they run over there. I paid 80% in tax my last year there.

        Still lovely things going on in Sweden, but proper equality isn’t one if them.

        • JohnnysZone
          • Doc

            Had a quick look at it:
            “The more socialist countries of Germany and Scandinavia not only offer lower income inequality (less wealth concentration) as is to be expected, but also surprisingly higher upward mobility”.
            First of all, those countries are hardly socialistic, they are fascist. That’s were you normally end up when you try to implement you socialist ideas. But that was perhaps besides the point.
            Secondly, the opening paragraph equates income distribution with wealth distribution but they aren’t the same thing. The graph shows income distribution. I don’t bother to read things that can’t even get that right.

          • JohnnysZone

            Yeah, right agreed that their socialism = fascism. Hitler’s party was also called socialist…

        • JohnnysZone

          I believe you. Sweden is one of the most masonic / jew controlled countries in the world (together with the UK, France and USA). Still the (official) stats say the USA is even worse in terms of GINI coefficient (to be expected) and upward mobility (surprising).

          • Doc

            If Sweden is controlled by Masons or Jews, they surely are good at hiding it. Where did you get this idea from?

  • Mikhail Kolotov

    To the readers of The Daily bell. Hello, friends. I read this site for the last few years and, you know, I feel unity with all of you. Therefore, I’d like to offer you something. I’ll be grateful to moderators of this amazing website if they post my comment because I believe that here I’ll find smart and interesting people able to join me and do cool things together.

    If you are interested to take part – you’re welcome…

    Now I provide you with some details.

    I want to buy/rent several islands in different climate zones in order to implement my wonderful concept of thematic islands travel. It is absolutely unique and, I think, it has p[otential to become the most beautiful of all. I do it because I want to leave something valuable in this world and I want people to travel in the wonderful places. I pray that I be able to do everything in a proper way.

    I want to involve some people from the USA and, probably, Dubai in the main project. I made a list of people whom I’d like to see as investors and all of them are from the USA. Plus, I thought that may be some of you, readers of The Daily Bell, will recommend me good people who can value the ideas meant to make our world better. May be by your recommendation I’ll meet the most interesting investors.

    My previous activities brought me not financial succes but a lot more – experience and wisdom.
    At this point I need around $10000 for my travel from Russia to the USA and meetings with investors. If you are interested, I offer you to become this investor. My idea is really worth of implementing, you will be pleased to participate, and, of course, you will get a good profit.

    Will be glad to meet smart people! My e-mail is: createislands@gmail.com

    🌊⛵
    Mikhail

  • r2bzjudge

    The problem is that everyone isn’t getting richer.

    The middle class is now a minority. All boats are not being lifted. I don’t know the reason, but supposedly the number of homeless in L.A. increased 23% in the last 12 months. The wealth gap becomes more and more of an issue, as groups move in opposite directions.

loading