More billionaires equals more living in poverty.
Yea, crapitalism.
Yeah, sure:
Sort: Trending
Uh huh, looks like 'murica 60 years ago, how is that going now?
Building a country is great, what happens when the wealth goes to the top and the middle isn't needed anymore?
You haven't answered the chapter 9 challenge.
Facts bro, your entire argument BTFO by facts.
More billionaires equals more living in poverty.
Yea, crapitalism.
From 88% living in extreme poverty to 0.2%, from no Billionaires to over 1000, facts.
I feel like I said this before, what happens when the rich get more than they can spend and don't need the middle class anymore?
It looks like present day united snakes.
Did you read chapter 9?
Where does the money go once the top has more than it will ever spend?
Why do they need thugs to keep people in line if the system is serving these people sooo well?
I feel like I said this before, what happens when the rich get more than they can spend and don't need the middle class anymore?
What do you have to show for that premise, any figures, any facts?
Did you read chapter 9?
Where does the money go once the top has more than it will ever spend?
Why do they need thugs to keep people in line if the system is serving these people sooo well?
more nonsense without a basis in reality. Evil crapitalist raised billions out of extreme poverty.
Technological efficiency gains lifted billions out of poverty, evil crapitalism concentrated that value in billionaires and left the people doing the work to wonder if they can make all the bills this month.
Sure, that explains the millions of millionaires, the thousand billionaires and hundreds of millions of middle class Chinese.
I'm telling you, baah, just as in 'murica, once the building is over and the money starts stagnating it will stagnate at the top with nothing for the bottom.
They can export it for a while, but only until those places catch up, too.
That's not at all what happened to America, poverty has steadily decreased.
The poverty rate of 10.5% in 2019 was the lowest recorded poverty level since the Census Bureau began reporting poverty in 1959.
You want to blame the free market which is directly responsible for the greatest wealth growth in the entire history of humanity for the poverty that existed before such development and growth was possible and pretend that a book which is a century old will somehow project the future of capitalism as dismal even though such future hasn't not only never manifested since that theory was floated and in fact capitalism continues to this day to lift impoverished regions out of extreme poverty, not Innovation, not Technology, but capital and the desire of profits and therefore more capital. You mock capitalism with a graphic that proposes that human nature is one of slavery, of subjugation, for kings, and derries capitalism as not 'human nature' as if some appeal to emotion which invokes a sterile notion of human nature without conflict is an argument against an economic system. Not only does an economic system not require a history of millennia to prove itself as superior, yet despite this century old 'theory' of the alleged inevitable demise of capitalism, its still to manifest, and which brings me to the last point, if this theory had any credibility, you'd rejoice at the signs of capitalism failing, yet the signs are as absent as they've always been and every day wealth generated by free trade continues to enrich billions, making your thesis that "billionaires equal more poor people" completely baseless and false.
Yes, what are the facts of what happens when the top gets enough money to traffic in humans with impunity?