[kaputsmack]

It works? For who?

Ask the people who lost homes in 2008 if it works.

99,99% of world wealth is held by less than 1000 people.

Can you wrap your head around that? Less than 1000 people control all the wealth for the other 7 billion people who happen to be alive on this planet.

The environment is a wreck, the world is being destroyed, entire coral reefs are dying, we are pouring radiation into the sea, there are artificial islands of trash in the ocean.

We as a species will not last more than 100 more years on this planet.

What exactly "works" in your opinion? You have an iPhone built by slaves in China? Is that it? What works?

[mythrwy]

There are problems in the world but people will exist on the planet for far far longer than 100 years into the future.

Plastic in the ocean won't stop that, coral reefs dying won't stop that, global warming won't stop that, nuclear war won't stop that.

Not saying we shouldn't try to solve problems but lets keep things in perspective here.

[jstewartmobile]

"The ocean's dying. The plankton's dying. It's people. Soylent green is made out of people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle... for food. You've gotta tell 'em."

You've gotta tell 'em!

[patrick_haply]

> 99,99% of world wealth is held by less than 1000 people.

Citation needed.

[giantsloth]

I'm not quite sure this says 99.99%, but it's bleak none the less.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/w...

[patrick_haply]

It looks bleak, but 99.99% owned by 1000 people is deliberately misleading.

[goldenkey]

The thing is..owning capital isnt what it used to be with jewels piling up. Credit allows debt backed by that physical collateral to be used for someones tractor to be built. These people may be 'worth' a lot of money but their wealth is actually more diversified and illiquid than the average person's capital. I think its an important distinction because we can easily lose sight when we don't realize that one person's wealth isn't a zero sum loss for the rest of us. In a credit debt economy, we still lose but not binary..more like a percentage. Their money is out there doing work, helping other people. They can call it back eventually..but if someone is so rich they never actually recall their 'floating' assets, is it economically scientific to consider those assets equal to cash under a mattress? I feel like we need a new measure for almost perpetually floating assets so we dont consider ownership as relevant.

[corporateslave3]

Just take a look at the massive rise in quality of life across the world. Your alarmist post is bunk. Life is getting better for everyone all the time.

[tjalfi]

Regional inequality in the US has gotten markedly worse in the last 40 years[0].

[0] https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and...

[ionised]

This is such an empty, meaningless statement that only serves to deflect from the systemic greed and exploitation in the global financial system.

A man whose standard of life was increasing at (for example) 0.01% suddenly finds it increasing at 1.0%?

Or a family of 7 in some famine-stricken, war-torn nightmare now has half a bag of rice instead of a third?

At the same time your share in the overall wealth, prosperity and power of your nation is decreasing and being consolidated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

A gradually increasing quality of life is something that should be an absolute minimum expectation for society, short of the effects of natural disasters and war. This is not something you should be proud of or use as an excuse to avoid the discomfort of recognising the abuses and excesses of the obscenely wealthy.

Sure the GDP of any given nation might be rising, but that only tells you how wealthy it is, not who actually benefits from that wealth.

You have traded your right to the prosperity of your nation for a an absolute minimum baseline of what will keep people docile and subservient.

And this;

> Life is getting better for everyone all the time.

Is just offensively naive to the extreme.