Whatt your graph shows is only a reduction in percentage. The top 10% still amount to around 25% of the wealth - which is wild considering that companies that were privatly owned didn’t exist. So what equity positions are we talking about?
Comment on Personalized Political Spectrum
Riverside@reddthat.com 1 day agoTerrible analysis based on cold-war líes. The USSR for example saw a massive reduction in the wealth and power of leaders compared to what came after and what existed before:
Tell me again how Che Guevara and Rosa Luxembourg were chasing power when they sacrificed their lives for the betterment of others
RidderSport@feddit.org 1 day ago
Riverside@reddthat.com 1 day ago
The top 10% still amount to around 25% of the wealth
Yes, so? Do you expect or wish a society with completely equal distribution of resources? I agree with the fundamental principle of harder working people receiving more than those who contribute less (as long as everyone’s needs are met). The top 10% by the way weren’t mostly politicians, they were highly trained workers like university professors, surgeons, media personalities, high profile artists…
custard_swollower@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Uh, your graph is missing power levels for Lenin and Stalin.
webp@mander.xyz 1 day ago
over 9000
Rumo161@feddit.org 23 hours ago
Based