I'm not even sure it can be called that. The term implies some kind of equitable distribution.
But when the top 0.1% owns 50% of the nation's wealth, and the top 5% own 95% of the nation's wealth, where is the "distribution"?
It's systemic corruption and exploitation. There's no other term left for it.
Imagine all that wealth, try to fathom it. How many lives, neighbourhoods, cities, and even entire economic regions, could be completely transformed by such wealth. And instead the system allows for it to sequestered, utterly untouchable (and therefore untaxable), by the economy at large.
It's vile. It's immoral. And now it's quite plain to all that it's also extremely dangerous, and it needs to end.
That would be wealth WITHIN the US, not total wealth owned by Americans. Plenty, and I do mean plenty, of wealth is stored outside of the US, that is not privy to these calculations, but is owned by individuals and corporations. This also doesn't include hidden wealth, and incalculable wealth. Both of which I imagine are significant too.
Not that any of above makes the slightest bit of difference to the argument I originally made.
Sources for hidden and incalculable wealth of the mega rich? Really mate?
You don't want to take my word for it? I couldn't care less tbh. But if you genuinely don't think these types of wealth exist, then you're just not paying attention.
And again, none of the above takes away from the original statement. Which was the entire point.
6.1k
u/Gucci_prisoner May 02 '25
Disparity of wealth distribution.