Local social spending and political dissatisfaction of the economically deprived
frontiersin.org
frontiersin.org
It’s also short term beneficial for the wealthy, but long term deeply detrimental to all members of society: killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, a large, highly educated, culturally engaged population able to survive opportunity costs of taking economic risk.
A lone multibillionaire in a society of impoverished people has a deeply boring and dangerous life.
The lower your GINI coefficient, the more people can create culture, luxury, and the sorts of things the wealthy enjoy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequali...
This is why, among other things, our multibillionaire are buying their way into the highest levels of government and media distribution. In their boredom, they are playing kings and manufacturing consent.
His politics looks like done by mafia boss. Russia invaded Ukraine so Ukraine should pay reparations to USA. And forget about international documents like Budapest memorandum
Yeah, I'm not so sure your linked article is a scholarly assessment of President 45's foreign policy. I don't need to read it, thanks though.
1. Multibillionaires don't live amongst impoverished people and aren't in any danger anytime soon. The homeless tents don't affect Zuck, Musk or Bezos, and there's very few resourceful Luigis out there willing to destroy their lives to put billionaires in danger. They're more likely to be hit by lightning than be in any danger from the poor. Not to mention they're always surrounded by private security in public.
2. Any statistics you look at, the median and average american citizen is far from being impoverished even by rich developed country western standards. I recommend people visit some developing countries to get a perspective on what true poverty looks like.
Having to compare America, one of the richest nations in the world, to a generic developing nation is proof enough that something is very imbalanced. Compare the USA to Switzerland or New Zealand?
0 - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saving-money-emergency-expenses...
Do you think the poor in your average western country have a lot more liquidity than Americans? Especially after inflation and increased CoL with stagnating wages.
>Having to compare America, one of the richest nations in the world, to a generic developing nation is proof enough that something is very imbalanced.
Who is making that comparison? I'm telling you to look at statistics. And statistically American citizens are wealthier than most developed nations. And the poor american citizens pose no thereat to the rich American citizens in order to be a problem for them as the OP makes it seem.
And I'm telling you, that the statistics are completely irrelevant.
If you ask people from all over the world, from Canada to Korea, from the lower class to the middle class, everyone will say they're more unhappy than they were before.
Great, now how you propose we make all people happy? Based on what criteria?
Our society is not an utopia that can ever achieve a perfect balance where everyone is happy at the same time, but lives in a constant state of change where the unhappy have to fight and struggle to change things in their favor, most of the times at the expense of the happiness of others.
I understand what you're getting at here, but this misses the point. If people are used to a decent quality of life, and that quality of life declines, they're going to be miserable. It doesn't matter what other countries are like.
It's really in the same vein of "clean your plate because there are people starving who'd love to be in your shoes", which has never been a good argument.
More importantly, if a lot of people are miserable, especially if they think some other group of people is the reason, it's going to cause civil unrest. Right now, the billionaires have been successful at tricking people into thinking it's immigrants or some other group, but that won't always be the case.
False. It was always the case and it will always be the case. People as a whole, as a collective mob, are incredibly stupid and easy to manipulate against their own interests. Just see elections. Since the super rich own the media both the legacy media and the online social media, it's easier than ever to manipulate them. And people aren't getting any smarter, on the contrary, just look at the education system and IQ numbers, meaning they're getting easier to manipulate not harder.
> it's going to cause civil unrest.
People claiming that civil unrest will unleash against the super wealthy any time now, have constantly been wrong. All the civil unrest from the poor is only affecting the average middle-class people.
And how do you expect poor people will find where the likes of Musk and Bezos live and what do you expect will happen to them once they try to go after the super rich? Exactly what happend to Luigi. Law enforcement will allocate 100% resources to go after you and throw the book at you. The rich and powerful are untouchable, so the only ones who will suffer the wrath of the poor will be the middle class.
Those who think the super rich will somehow be even remotely affected by some hypothetical revolution of the poor that will somehow turn the tides in their favor, have read too much fiction and are deluding themselves with the highest concentration of copium in the world. If the poor were to have the power to threaten the rich with violence you're gonna see a missive reduction in your rights an a massive increase in state oppression.
So a poor vs rich revolution in the US is not gonna happen. The closest thing was Occupy Wallstreet but that fizzled out pretty quickly once they introduced identity politics to divide the people and have them fight against themselves on gender and race.