[quote=flyer]What is going on politically doesn’t really surprise me, when you realize 75% of the financial wealth in this country is held by the top 10 percent of households, with the bottom 25% divided among the remaining 90 percent.
It has been stated that we would have to go back to the Gilded Age to see this level of wealth inequality:
“The unequal distribution of wealth remained high during this period. From 1860 to 1900, the wealthiest 2% of American households owned more than a third of the nation’s wealth, while the top 10% owned roughly three fourths of it. The bottom 40% had no wealth at all. In terms of property, the wealthiest 1% owned 51%, while the bottom 44% claimed 1.1%.”
And it’s claiming more lives each year–even in the top 10 percent–should financial anchors be lost for whatever reasons.
I’m well aware that the core of these inequalities runs deep, as has been discussed, and it makes sense to try to resolve these issues, but, since this gap only seems to be increasing, imo, the sad part of the political hype being sold on both sides, is that, contrary to the promises being made, there is no quick fix, and very few people will see any meaningful changes in the outcome of their lives over the next decades–regardless of who is elected.[/quote]
Yep, again, I think we, everyone will have to ask what risks we are willing to take to go down the same route we are heading down now (concentrated wealth, oligarchy type environment where 1% controls our politics now)…and the risks of what may happen if things don’t change.
At the end of the day, when the situation is bad enough, I think when you have just too many unhappy people, it’s not going to end well.
Of course, they are stating unemployment is almost 4% now and the economy is recovering.
I give it 50 years or less before the shit hits the fan.
It did take WW2 to get the US out of it’s last depression.
