Wealth inequality risks triggering 'societal collapse' within next decade, report finds
-
It is why they are hastily trying to turn the calendar back to 1933 but they might overshoot and get 1789.
-
-
Just hope nobody does a Napoleon...
-
Barron is way too tall.
-
"within the next decade" sounds like an unnecessarily long view on it. Next Christmas will come within the next decade too but it doesn't mean it'll be 10 years from now.
-
pretty sure they said the same ting 10 years ago
-
Have an additional one
-
Napoleon was actually about average height for the time. The shortness thing was just British (?) war propaganda to, for lack of a less on the nose term, belittle him in the public consciousness.
Barron IS still freakishly tall, though. He should either stop doing that or become really good at basketball or volleyball.
-
And the trend has only accelerated since. Especially now that the fascists are implementing Project 2025 with frantic haste.
-
so you're 100% on societal collapse by 2035?
-
but isn't their strategy literally how they have 90 percent of the wealth? seems a crushingly effective strategy. what do you suppose their downfall looks like? does it happen before or after ours?
-
Nope. As I clarified in my edit, the exact timeline from the headline is usually wrong and never the point.
-
Not to go off on a quite wild tangent from societal collapse but I think beyond propaganda Napoleon was often flanked by tall and hand-picked elite guards and ironically also old aristocracy generals themselves tall from richer diet and so appeared short in comparison.
-
Agreed. We just know it's coming so it's time to prepare for battle.
-
so it should read "something might happen eventually, we don't really know and we are probably wrong, so maybe just ignore this"
-
-
Nope. It's DEFINITELY happening. It's just the sort of thing that's nearly impossible to predict the exact timeline of. It could be as soon as a year from now and it could be in fifty.
Either way, the problem is real and worsening NOW, which is the second best time to do something about it.
-
There's a limit, and at this rate we are bound to get there eventually.
Look at it this way...either there is a finite amount of money, and the more it is amassed by a handful of people, the less there is for others to survive. Or there is an infinite amount of money, and it's worthless.
There really should've been a point of exponentially diminishing returns on personal wealth, like a long time ago. There shouldn't have been any super-rich after the steel barons of the early 20th century. You'd think we would've learned our lesson then.
-
Already there.
-
Does the word "risk" mean "guarantee"?
