Economic inequality is at its highest level since 1928 and is about to increase even more due to automation, this climate of victimization/identity politics is being increasingly forced at a higher level by corporations, a simple way to build goodwill in the public opinion and feel that they are in the right.
Indeed, and we can solve it as it was solved in 1929, through massive economic mismanagement. If the money supply is contracted by a third again we’re guaranteed a large destruction in wealth, reducing inequality. We could use one of the other ways we know work historically too, war or famine. After the Black Death killed 30-60% of the European population there was over 100 years of broad based prosperity, similarly after the Plague of Justinian, the fall of the Western Roman Empire or in Germany following the 30 Years War.
> Global inequality is driven by changes both of the inequality within countries and the inequality between countries. The below visualization shows how both of these changes determine the changing global inequality.
> – Inequality within countries followed a U-shape pattern over the course of the 20th century.
> – Inequality between countries increased over the course of 2 centuries and reached its peak level in the 1980s according to the data from Bourguignon and Morrison shown here. Since then, inequality between countries has declined.
> As is shown in the visualization below, the inequality of incomes between different countries is much higher than the inequality within countries. The consequence of this is that the trend of global inequality is very much driven by what is happening to the inequality between countries.
Those were tragic unwanted accidents. But look at the fall and collapse of Western Rome, Spanish Empire and Chinese Dynasties, a foreign power will help to break down our stability in less effective regions and forcing them fight against each others promoting perpetual inequality. Look at the Balcanes or the breakdown of any large enough empire which achieved unity for long enough.
This comment kinda baffles me, mostly cause of the implication that "identity politics" progressives don't talk about economic inequality enough. Not sure where exactly that is the case, except maybe in pop feminism that wants more black women of color to be billionaires. But that kind of thinking is widely criticized by the left too.
In my experience they do not take it into consideration at all. I’ve been told far too many times by silver-spoon identity-politic progressives that I don’t get a say because of racial and gender privilege, with no regard for any economic struggle.
You’ll have to forgive me for daring to ask if renaming buildings of alumni who held what are now regressive views is the hill to die on. Of course it’s a black-and-white right or wrong, so if you ask a question you’re just excommunicado.
This has been my experience as well. My favorite was being "schooled" by a woman who had grown up overseas: with servants who'd wait at her feet, private prep schools, US top private college paid in full by parents, etc. Then telling me how privileged I was. Growing up lower class American definitely did not see a lot of privileges..
It has been my experience as well that being a white guy means the other person - being a bully for the most part - feels that they can talk down on you endlessly with no consideration of your actual life experience.
