New Data Tracks Inequality Over Centuries

New Data Tracks Inequality Over Centuries


WE’VE SEEN INEQUALITY IN AMERICA
AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, AND IF YOU GO AROUND MOST AMERICAN
CITIES AND OTHER AREAS, YOU CAN SEE IT’S AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOODS
AND CITIES; HOW PEOPLE LIVE. BUT WHAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF YOU
COULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES
AND ACROSS COUNTRIES? THIS IS THE PERCENTAGE OF WEALTH
OWNED BY EUROPE’S TOP 10%. WHAT YOU ARE SEEING THERE, IT
STARTS IN 1300 ñ 700 YEARS AGO ñ THE TOP 10% OF SOME EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES OWNED 60 ñ 70% OF THE WEALTH. AND THEN THE BUBONIC PLAGUE
HAPPENED AND THAT DROPPED DOWN, AND IT TOOK HUNDREDS OF
YEARS TO START TO RECOVER. BUT THEN GRADUALLY, FROM 1550
ON, THE SHARE THAT THESE TOP PERCENTAGE OWNED CLIMBED TO 90%. AN AMAZING CLIMB OVER HUNDREDS
OF YEARS. THAT’S DIFFERENT COUNTRIES,
DIFFERENT TIMES, DIFFERENT RULERS, DIFFERENT POLICIES. NO MATTER WHAT, INEXORABLY, IT
CLIMBS AND CLIMBS AND CLIMBS, UNTIL, LIKE WITH THE BLACK
DEATH, YOU HAVE ANOTHER GREAT DEATH IN THE WORLD, AND THAT WAS
WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II. THAT DROPS DOWN, BUT NOT AS LOW,
60%, AND THEN IMMEDIATELY BEGINS TO
CLIMB AGAIN. ONE MORE THING ABOUT THE CHART
ITSELF: THE RED PART OF THE CHART ARE NUMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSED WIDELY RECENTLY, AND THE BLUE PART OF THE CHART
IS THE NEW NUMBERS THAT HAVE COME IN. AND WHEN YOU PUT IT TOGETHER IT
SEEMS TO TELL ñ SCARY ñ YEAH, IT’S A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
AND VERY INTERESTING MESSAGE. LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT THE TAKE
AWAY IS FROM THAT DATA, AND THIS IS WHERE I LIKE TO SPECULATE. BUT I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT. ONE TAKE AWAY IS THAT THE HUGE
SPIKE UP BEGINS IN THE 1500S. OF COURSE THERE ARE MANY
DIFFERENT REASONS FOR THAT, BUT ONE OF MY HYPOTHESIS IS THAT
THAT IS WHEN THE GREAT PLUNDER OF THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE BEGAN
IN EARNEST. IT’S EXISTED BEFORE, AND WE’VE
BEEN PLUNDERING AND PILLAGING ONE ANOTHER FOR AS LONG AS
HUMANS HAVE BEEN AROUND ñ I MEAN, GO BACK TO CENTRAL ASIA,
GENGHIS KHAN, KUBLA CON, AND IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON. BUT IN THE 1500S WE GOT THE
SHIPS, WHOLE NEW CONTINENTS GOT OPENED UP TO US. IT’S WE IN A SENSE. THERE’S SOME BLAME CERTAINLY FOR
MY ANCESTORS AS WELL. AND YOU KNOW, I LOVE THOSE
BEAUTIFUL CITIES IN EUROPE, IN AMSTERDAM, IS SIMPLE, ETC.,
LONDON, PARIS OBVIOUSLY, BUT A LOT OF THAT WAS BUILT ON
PLUNDERING. SO, YOU SEE THE EFFECT OF THAT I
THINK IN THESE CHARTS, AS INCOME INEQUALITY GROWS AND GROWS FOR
THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN CHARGE AND BENEFITED FROM ALL THE GOLD
AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS BROUGHT FROM THE SOUTHERN
HEMISPHERE TO THE NORTHERN ATMOSPHERE, AND THAT WEALTH WAS
CONCENTRATED INTO A FEW HANDS. AND THEN YOU HAVE
INDUSTRIALIZATION, THE ROBBER BARONS, AND THAT CONCENTRATION
OF WEALTH CONTINUES, EVEN PICKS UP SPEED. SO, NOW, WHEN DOES IT EVER GO
DOWN? OBVIOUSLY THERE IS ONE WAY THAT
GOES DOWN, WHICH IS NOT POSITIVE, TREMENDOUS DEATH, LIKE
THE BUBONIC PLAGUE AND THE TWO WORLD WARS. BUT I WOULD POSIT, AND THIS
COULD PROVE OUT IN AMERICA, THESE ARE EUROPEAN NUMBERS, SO
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT OF COURSE, THE THING THAT HAPPENED WAS,
AFTER WORLD WAR II IN AMERICA WE ACTUALLY HAD THE NEW DEAL PUT IN
PLACE, AND FOR THESE 40 OR 50 YEARS IN THE U.S., IT MADE A
GIANT DIFFERENCE. SO, WHERE BRIBERY STILL EXISTED
BUT IT WAS ILLEGAL AND HARD TO DO. SO THE POLITICIANS, AT LEAST ON
THE DOMESTIC END, REPRESENTED THEIR VOTERS A LOT BETTER. AND WHAT DID YOU HAVE? A FAIRER TAX CODE, SOCIAL
SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID SET UP AS A SOCIAL
SAFETY NET. THAT ALSO APPLIES IN EUROPE,
WHERE YOU BEGAN TO HAVE A SOCIAL SAFETY NET AFTER THE WORLD WARS. OF COURSE IN EUROPE THE SAFETY
NET IS MUCH BETTER THAN IT IS IN THE U.S., AND THAT LEADS TO A DECREASE IN
INCOME INEQUALITY; WE GET A LITTLE MORE EQUAL, WHICH IS
GREAT. ALTHOUGH YOU’LL NOTICE IN THOSE
SOCIETIES IN CONTINUED TO GO UP DURING THAT TIME, EVEN UNDER THE
SCANDINAVIAN STYLE SOCIAL SAFETY NET THAT THEY HAD IN EUROPE AT
THAT TIME. AND THEN IN 1980, AT LEAST IN
AMERICA ñ THIS CHART IS AGAIN FOR EUROPE AND IS SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT ñ WHEN WE BASICALLY LEGALIZED BRIBERY IN 76 AND 78
BECAUSE OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, AND WE ALLOWED THE
RICH TO PAY OFF POLITICIANS IN THE FORM OF CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS, WELL THE GOVERNMENT GOES BACK TO BEING
CAPTURED BY THE WEALTHY, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MONEY THAT THE
TOP 10% HAVE SKYROCKETED AGAIN. SO WE ARE NOW AGAIN GETTING
TO A POINT WHERE THERE IS TREMENDOUS INCOME INEQUALITY IN
EUROPE AND AMERICA, ESPECIALLY IN AMERICA, BECAUSE THE
GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN CAPTURED. AND THEY ARE BEING CAPTURED NOW,
NOT JUST IN AMERICA, BUT ACROSS EUROPE BY HARD RIGHT,
QUASI-AUTHORITARIAN LEADERS THAT ARE JUST WANT TO PUSH THAT
EVEN HARDER. YEAH, WHEN YOU HAVE THE GREAT
DEATHS, YOU SUDDENLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, BECAUSE SONY
PEOPLE HAVE DIED, THE RELATIVE POWER OF WORKERS GOES
UP, BASICALLY. BUT THE THING IS, WHEN YOU HAVE
THESE MAJOR COLONIES OVERSEAS, AND YOU HAVE INDUSTRIALIZATION,
YOU HAVE THESE MAJOR OPPORTUNITIES WHERE ONLY THE
RICH CAN BENEFIT FROM THEM. A POOR PERSON CAN’T BUY A BOAT
TO SAIL ACROSS THE OCEAN TO MINE FOR GOLD, AND A POOR
PERSON CAN’T BUY A FACTORY TO BENEFIT FROM IT. THEN OF COURSE YOU HAVE THE LAWS
AND TAX POLICIES DESIGNED TO BENEFIT CERTAIN PEOPLE AND
NOT OTHERS. IT’S A COUPLE GATED SYSTEM, AND
CERTAINLY SOMEWHERE THAT WE NEED TO BRING AN ADVOCATE ñ
SOMETHING THAT WE BRING AN ACADEMIC INTO DISCUSS THIS, BUT
IT IS INTERESTING TO SPECULATE. WELL, ONE WAY IS, LET’S TAKE THE
FIRST STEP AND GET OUR GOVERNMENTS BACK. AND IF THEY ACTUALLY WORKED FOR
100% OF THE PEOPLE, RATHER THAN
THE TOP 10% AND TOP 1%, THEN I BET WE’D BE A LITTLE
BETTER OFF ON THIS. AND THAT’S NOT JUST A GUESS, IT
IS BORNE OUT BY HISTORY, AT LEAST ON THE AMERICAN SIDE,
WHICH I HAVE STUDIED A LOT MORE, AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE CHARTS,
FROM THE 1940S TO 1980, BEING FAR MORE EQUAL THAN IT IS TODAY. YEAH, AND IF YOU ARE RICH AND
THIS SCARES YOU, THIS DIRECTION WE ARE GOING, DON’T
WORRY, EVEN IF YOU SUCCEED ñ EVEN IF WE SUCCEED BEYOND OUR
WILDEST DREAMS, YOU CAN STILL BE FAR MORE WEALTHY THAN
US. YOU NEVER DO POORLY. YOU’VE NEVER EVER DONE POORLY. THE ONLY QUESTION IS, HOW WELL
DO YOU DO? WHETHER IT’S OWNING 50% OR 90%
OF ALL THE WEALTH. BY THE WAY, THE CAUSAL
CONNECTION COULD BE IN REVERSE, WHICH IS WHAT THIS ANALYSIS
DIDN’T LOOK AT: WHEN INCOME INEQUALITY PEAKS, WE GET MASSIVE
DEATHS. AND I DON’T KNOW, I DON’T KNOW
IF THAT HAD SOME OVERALL EFFECT, AT LEAST ON THE WORLD
WARS. IT MIGHT HAVE INSPIRED THE RATS. NO, I’M JOKING BUT I’VE
MENTIONED THIS MANY TIMES, I HAVEN’T TAKEN MUCH OUT OF MY
TIME IN ACADEMIA, BUT THAT IS ñ BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS. IF YOU WANT TO FIND A PROTECTOR
FOR VIOLENT REVOLUTION, THERE IS NOTHING STRONGER, AT LEAST IN
THOSE COUNTRIES, THEN INCOME INEQUALITY. WHEN THAT GETS TO A CERTAIN
POINT, PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE NOTHING LEFT IN A
SYSTEM, NO MORE REASON TO GO ALONG WITH IT, VIOLENCE
BECOMES THEIR ONLY OPTION. THAT IS PERFECTLY LOGICAL, AND
NOBODY WANTS TO GET TO THAT POINT. NOT ONLY TO THE POOR AND
MIDDLE-CLASS NOT WANT TO GET TO THAT POINT, THE RICH
SHOULD WANT THAT POINT EVEN LESS, BECAUSE THEN YOU ARE
RISKING EVERYTHING. IF YOU’VE ALREADY GOT 70 ñ 80% OF ALL THE WEALTH, THAT EXTRA
10% DOESN’T DO YOU ANY GOOD IF IT
LEADS TO REVOLUTIONARY VIOLENCE AND THE KIND OF DEATH YOU HAVE
SEEN THROUGHOUT HISTORY. THAT IS A TERRIBLE WAY TO PLAY
THIS, SO IF THEY HAD ANY SENSE AT ALL, THEY’D BE ON
BERNIE SANDERS ASIDE, GOING, YOU KNOW WHAT? LET’S EVEN THIS OUT A LITTLE
BIT. GET THIS DOWN TO 65%. WE’LL STILL BE DOING GREAT,
HISTORICALLY, BUT MY HEAD WILL BE SPLIT OPEN BY A
PROTESTER.

Author: Kennedi Daugherty

100 thoughts on “New Data Tracks Inequality Over Centuries

  1. So… those drops in the graphs, is that beause basically all the wealth was obliterated, and the rich had the most..so it seemed like it was equalizing while it was just gone across the board?

  2. 5:30 As William Blake said, in his 100 page poem 'Jerusalem', "They may rule the hill tops, but we rule the valleys and the fields."; thus, any who would 'capture' a Government are themselves captured, by the people who allow a Government to rule. Carpe Diem!

  3. My Hexadecimation: "If 6% of the people control 60% of the wealth, then we could all be 2 and a half times richer overnight, if only we were to kill 1 in 16 people; overnight."

  4. As i hardcore leftist, i have to point out that taxation of the 1% is not a real solution.

    A real solution is to change the top-down decision-making structure of each company so that the distribution of the surpluses/profits WITHIN each company is DEMOCRATICALLY decided. Regulation of capitalism by government has already been tried, it worked for a while, but then it has been gradually undone by the capitalists, because their exclusive control over the companies' resources had been left intact. Taxation — or the "liberal" government-dependent bureaucratic solution — negatively amplifies the class conflict and fails to resolve the mechanical contradiction of surplus appropriation in capitalism.

    Mondragon — Spain's 7th-largest enterprise — is a federation of COOPERATIVES where the workers democratically decide what to produce, how to work, and what to do with the surpluses. They democratically decide their own pays. Their average pay ratio between the lowest and highest earners is 1 to 5, compared to Walmart's 1 to 1034.

    In the Italian region of Emilia Romagna, 2/3 of its 4 million population are members of cooperatives. Even the social services including healthcare are provided by cooperatives.

    We need to develop the cooperative sector as an equitable sustainable alternative to the private sector & the government sector. True socialism does not require big government. We can eliminate the damages of both the capitalist domination & the government bureaucracy.

  5. Income inequality a non-issue, as relevant as the distribution of attached earlobes in society. It only became a "problem" when post-Enlightenment thinkers declared that it was a problem. Prior to then, class warfare did not exist.

  6. So when people die in mass wealth gets distributed?

    Could that just be due to the rich sacrificing the poor thus only the top of wealth and middle class survive. Which Makes it look even?

  7. Are you saying that the only way to achieve equality is for the rich to die en masse? You heard it here first, folks. It's time to bust out the guillotines!

  8. Europeans have been raping and plundering for all of the common era. Original peoples weren't involved, we possessed the wealth.

  9. TYT could you please talk about Unfunded Liabilities? The information is really mixed and it would be nice to have an objective view on it.

  10. If America wants a living wage they have to stop diluting the labor market with immigrants. More people competing for that job the better the deal the owner of that job can get. You have to manage the available labor to get paid for it.

  11. Nothing worse than being lectured about the rich having more money than they need by a fat bloke wearing shiny rings on both hands and a big shiny wrist watch who is sitting behind his custom branded desk in front of a TV wall and surrounded by neon.

  12. UnAmerican communists. The free market should decide everything. Born in to poverty? Bootstraps. Too old to work? Suck it up, you should have saved more, GOP looted your social security? Deal with it. Get cancer? Shrivel up and die on the street, survival of the fittest. Entitled millennial snowflakes think working jobs they are overqualified for to pay off student loans they accrued while trying to break into a competitive professional career means that they should be able to pay their rent and have health insurance. The world owes you nothing, even if you work hard! Ayn Rand is the Bible!

  13. stop with the communist stuff guys don't hate on the rich because they are more successful than you plus this Data proves that it is inevitable and everyone plundered even people in the Southern hemisphere , Europeans were just better at it

  14. Germany had a practically negligible colonial empire, and other countries in central Europe had none at all, yet they all have beautiful cities (at least those which weren't entirely destroyed in the European wars). Now one may argue that the wealth obtained by colonial powers was just "redistributed" throughout the continent through trade or something.

    But ultimately, apart from notable examples like India which were wealthy, or the US which was made wealthy by the European founders themselves, most colonies were economic burdens for the European powers. Colonies were sought after for prestige and in the hopes they'd bring wealth in the long run, but the wealthy ones were largely weighed down by those which were burdens. I mean for example, the main reason France tried to hold on to Algeria and Indochina through warfare in the late 1900s was because there were large populations of Frenchmen there. The rest of their massive colonial empire; mostly in Africa, France just discarded without a second thought because they were essentially not worth the trouble anyway.

    Countries like France, the Netherlands and whatnot were first grade rich nations before the second half of the 1800s when colonizing more than just the Americas became a thing. The reason Europe has beautiful rich cities is largely due its own cultural merits brought in by the Renaissance and modernization, and then to advances brought by the industrial revolution, and cultural revolutions which privileged aesthetics in architecture and whatnot. Colonization and European dominance were possible because Europe was rich and dominant in the first place, not the other way around.

  15. It makes me laugh when I witness all the trolls here bashing common sense. I wonder if there are real legitimate people behind these bashing posts, or is it some CIA PSYOP room where agents attack the site to discredit it because they are scared that they are waking up the common man to the realities in which we live?

  16. Their greed has gotten to them so much that our generation is bound to be the one to finally throw down the chains of currency.

  17. Cenk, you forgot to mention that an important factor in reducing the gap in the early 20th century besides the world wars, was the competition from communist countries. Capitalism had to look for ways to better distribute wealth in trying to compete and show a more humane, caring face

  18. Its from vox – the propoganda outlet for corporatists and the rich.
    That is why they used selected EU countries (which tax properly) to get a low ~65%
    Currently, world wide, the top 10% owns 85% of the wealth, top 1% own 50%.

  19. Nop, evolution must take its toll on the population, die off, rebirth.
    People must die, no near immortality so don't even think about it.

  20. The top 10% may not be so fearful of a loss of their wealth or an uprising if they are the ones in charge of or of influence to the workings of autonomous or semi-autonomous robots designed to violently or non-violently depress dissent. We move closer and closer to that reality the more drones are more common place and commercially marketed.

  21. I recommend you a study by two economists of the Bank of Italy about wealth in the very long run. They studied the case of Florence from 1427 to 2011. Out of the 5 top richest families in Florence in 1427, 3 were still among the richest in 2011.

  22. I don't believe that drop in the twentieth century.  The uber-rich consolidated their wealth during the 1900's, and now the percentage is much greater today.  Today they own like 90% of the wealth.  The wealthy obviously skewed this research.

  23. Stop fuckin saying southern hemisphere and just say it……..say it……say Africa is what your ancestor plundered because Europe had no natural resources!!! There…I said it for you!!!!

  24. I disagree with the new deal being the major factor after the wars, the millions of returning vets built the middle class, especially after WWII, which lowered wealth inequality. WWII and those who fought in it cam home and changed our society fundamentally.

    The best way to deal with it is in anti trust laws and such, and breaking up the giant global corporations, regulating Wll street better, and breaking up too big to fail banks.

  25. I don't understand how multi billionaires are still so money hungry. When you're talking about your money in terms of generations…you don't need to be stepping on the little man to make millions of dollars. it's just gross and tacky. That's why we make sure to donate a ton, we have more than we need and there are people that can really benefit from our help

  26. First, inequality does not equal inequity, so if one is richer does not mean he is more privileged.
    Second, the only valid point here is corruption. Redistribution of wealth does not solve anything, just creates a loop.
    Third, lets say there are 2 people in the economy with wealth of 100 and 1000. Say the whole economy grew 100% in a year because of increased international demands for its goods. The wealth increased to 200 and 2000. Although, wealth inequality doubled, both people are better off by the same percentage. So increase in inequality does not mean that poorer people are worse off.

  27. this cycle of history will contunue untill humanity implements a democratic non monetary system to replace monetary models

    anything else we try only postpones the inevitable cycle

  28. Distributed and decentralized renewably powered homes, buildings and business will distribute wealth too. High insulation, high efficiency, roof top solar PV, Tesla batteries and electric vehicles will keep money in family's pockets rather than fossil fuel companies.

  29. "And that was world war 1, and world war 2." … and the great depression, and the spanish flu. Nobody ever remembers the spanish flu.

  30. Mark my words.
    In every revolution, the poor kill the wealthy.
    When the crops fail, the guillotines will come out.

  31. so let me get this straight, you want more and more workers to work for less and less in the goal of fighting the wealth gap. TYT should really think before they speak or grandstand. Regardless, they cant process data without taking what they want out of it. If you want to see racism, that's all you will see, if you want to see opportunity that's what you will see. Taking advantage of young and idealistic teen viewership is a pretty low tactic to advance your opinions TYT

  32. So since were residing in speculation land at the moment I'll ask a few questions.

    1: Who's coffers do you honestly feel that social program collections fill?
    2: Why this giant spike in top social tier growth since their inception and institution?
    3: Why do you think the average mortality rate is dropping like a stone, for Boomers "the majority" of Americas aging population?

    Fun fact follows:
    Board of trustees for social security indicates that the trust fund's assets are now $2.79 trillion. And the same trustees estimate that the program's income which is made up mostly of payroll taxes, as well as interest on the reserves and taxes paid on benefits this will exceed it's expenses and should exceed Social Security obligations through 2019. Yet after 2019 though, the Treasury will start spending down the fund; and it's reserves are estimated to be depleted by 2035. Even at that point, however, they proudly state that there will still be enough income coming into the program to pay 79% of what is actually owed.
    Where has all the money gone? given the international interest rates, and dividend rate of the investment of 2.79 trillion!! The growth of this fund in theory should be astronomical. And not even factoring in that Most Americans will never live to collect the full benefit amounts they collectively paid in?

    Speculate on that if you would.

  33. So since were residing in speculation land at the moment I'll ask a few questions.

    1: Who's coffers do you honestly feel that social program collections fill?
    2: Why this giant spike in top social tier growth since their inception and institution?
    3: Why do you think the average mortality rate is dropping like a stone, for Boomers "the majority" of Americas aging population?

    Fun fact follows:
    Board of trustees for social security indicates that the trust fund's assets are now $2.79 trillion. And the same trustees estimate that the program's income which is made up mostly of payroll taxes, as well as interest on the reserves and taxes paid on benefits this will exceed it's expenses and should exceed Social Security obligations through 2019. Yet after 2019 though, the Treasury will start spending down the fund; and it's reserves are estimated to be depleted by 2035. Even at that point, however, they proudly state that there will still be enough income coming into the program to pay 79% of what is actually owed.
    Where has all the money gone? given the international interest rates, and dividend rate of the investment of 2.79 trillion!! The growth of this fund in theory should be astronomical. And not even factoring in that Most Americans will never live to collect the full benefit amounts they collectively paid in?

    Speculate on that if you would.

  34. We have to choose: Either massive income inequality or democracy. We cant have both. Massive income inequality leads to hijacking of the political system by the oligarchs and destruction of democracy.

  35. If you want economic equality work harder and become rich. Wealthy people shouldn't have to give up what they have earned so you can do nothing and benefit from their wealth.

  36. Your assuming reason and common sense is playing into the decisions of the elite. How do you think Vegas is churning out profits? They will just keep rolling the dice knowing the bill will come out of the 99% share. What they have is a mental illness.

  37. No more inequality! We want a 100% female armed forces for the next 200 years. Mandatory selective service for all 18 year old girls under threat of fines and imprisonment! No more discrimination against our girls!

  38. I had this theory, that after the Revolution in Imperial Russia, the entire collective West shat their pants over what could happen if their own workers were unsatisfied enough to the point where they would begin an armed revolution.

    So to prevent that, they set up these social safety nets and improved worker rights in order to satisfy the middle and lower classes. With the disappearance of USSR, however, they had nothing to compared themselves to after, and so they gradually lost any interest in keeping those classes happy. I don't know how plausible that sounds.

  39. lol I wish they would track standards of living for bottom quartile of European society side-by-side with the inequality chart to get a sense for the relative difference in the kinds of inequality between "ancient" times and today. Question: how much ya think Carnegie would have paid for a television back in the early 1900s then when he was worth $300B in today's money?

  40. When ocean levels rise enough, the poor will inherit the flooded out mansions and hotels. At least the upper levels with a view !

  41. The income inequality is reaching dangerous levels in the US the only thing holding things together is the old generation did Ok. once they have tapped out then you will have people who their whole lives have been mired in poverty, destitution and despair eventually that becomes anger and hate. Then all it takes is a match to light the toxic stew.

  42. I know "griefing" trolls don't read, so this article is for any rational adults here. Shaun King telling his own family's story: "Race, Love, Hate, and Me: A Distinctly American Story" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/20/1413881/-Race-love-hate-and-me-A-distinctly-American-story

  43. The rise coincides with merchant culture coming and private enclosure of lands and essentially the start of capitalism. It is because Capitalism can not provide equality unless forced and thus the natural state of people in capitalism is inequality. If you want equality you must force it onto capitalism but then that goes against neoliberals and many conservatives ideas of how the state should be with the market. You can not have equality with capitalism

  44. Rich people forgot about what happened in Russian and France before their bloody revolutions, this happen when your daddy buys you a degree

  45. In equality peaks and environmental factors together have been the impetus for both of Europe's die offs. The plagues were initiated in crop failure periods, but living close to the bone with high income inequality depressed large segments of the population's immune system's capabilities. Then, as in Poe's "Masque of the Red Death", the rich discovered that you could not run or hide when the spoor was on the wind and a large susceptible weakened population of their down trodden fellows were all around them. For the world wars period, population pressures, extreme inequality, environmental factors and food instability put everyone in a distressed, fighting mood.

  46. The oligarchs historically get so out of touch, they're essentially insane. And they wonder why they find themselves on some chopping block, or swinging from some tree.

  47. I'd like to talk about two of the speakers who attended the #WomensMarch and the total hypocrisy behind the movement.

    The first speaker is Donna Hylton. Donna was arrested and spent 27 years in prison for the kidnapping and brutal murder of 62 year old real estate broker Thomas Vigliarole. It has been stated numerous times that Donna has never shown even the slightest bit of remorse for her actions. My question is, why the hell does a remorseless disgusting murderer have any credibility? And does anyone else consider it absolutely ridiculous that people behind the #WomensMarch look up to this person as empowering? I certainly see anyone who looks up to this horrible person as ignorant and I hope most of you do too. When it comes to these two speakers, Donna takes the cake when it comes to criminal actions. However, the second speaker in my opinion easily wins the award for being the most full of shit and backwardly hypocritical in her agenda and beliefs.

    The second speaker is Linda Sarsour. Sarsour by the way means "cockroach" in Arabic. Just a little fun fact. Anyway, Linda, probably the loudest voice behind the #WomensMarch, is a strong advocate for Sharia Law. Just so many of you see where I'm coming from, here is a list of the reprehensible laws behind Sharia Law:

    -A man can beat his wife for insubordination

    -A female's clitoris is to be cut (Book 41, Kitan Al-Adan, Hadith 5251)

    -A woman cannot drive a car

    -A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years of age

    -A man can divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce

    -A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s)

    -A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's

    -A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death

    -Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman

    A divorced wife loses custody of all her children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it

    -A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits

    -A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative

    A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to four wives

    These are just a few of the laws behind Sharia (See the full list online). Laura is an advocate for Sharia Law and has repeatedly said she would like to see it established in the United States. She has also made many anti-semetic comments and is an avid supporter of Hamas. Also, her husband mourned the death of two terrorists Adel and Imad Awadollah in 1998. Now, why would a woman who is an advocate for a religious set of laws built off of oppressing women be an empowering speaker at the #WomensMarch??! I sense an ulterior motive and a seperate agenda. Not to mention the laughably ridiculous hypocrisy of Laura herself, supporters of the march who are aware of her beliefs, and the organizers of the march. Anyone else see the blatant hypocrisy?

    I'd like to just say, I am not Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, etc. I just point out stupidity and hypocrisy wherever I see it, whether from the right or from the left.

  48. Cenk is a fool. Democracy was atrocious in FDR's era (for example: Jim Crowe in the south). FDR conceded out of fear of communist revolution. Bourgoies democracy only exists for the employing class.

  49. rich guy: lets aim for 100% its never been done before and leave the plebs with literally nothing
    poor guy: sharpening the axes yes lets see how well that goes for u.

  50. At the peak of income inequality at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the pot started to boil over and it eventually exploded in the great revolution of November 1917. Such an explosive retaliation and rebound will become necessary once again if we do not stop this disastrous trend of inequality and economic oppression as long as we still have the chance.

  51. Hypothetically.
    Max income law, fair?
    No one American's annual can exceed more than 309.28 times more than the world's 41.97th income percentile nor 321.17 times more than America's 3rd income percentile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *