• Riverside@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Terrible analysis based on cold-war lies. 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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?

        • Riverside@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours 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…