Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
10
I figured this out a while ago but didn't realize it was 1:1
that's not 1:1
you know what I'm saying though. But the more I look at it, the more it annoys me for trying to trick me with absolute numbers instead of e.g. % of wealth owned
No. Not only is it literally not 1:1, it's completely bunk because you arbitrarily picked the scales of the two series (wealth vs M2). Divide the scale of M2 by ~3.5 and it'll line up with wealth of the bottom 50% "1:1" instead. Also, M2 is a shitty definition of "the money supply" before online banking.
you're not wrong but you didn't have to be this much of a dickhead about it
alessmussolini88 if you can hear me please save me
alessmussolini88 if you can hear me please save me
I've dealt with stupid lolbert econslop from dumbass freshmen for like 15 years.
>income inequality is lolbert now
uuh...
uuh...
You're literally doing hardmoney agitprop.
The gold/silver standard is how the rich got richer and the poor got poorer for thousands of years.
The gold/silver standard is how the rich got richer and the poor got poorer for thousands of years.
What's wrong with a little hardmoney agitprop?
The gold/silver standard is how the rich got richer and the poor got poorer for thousands of years.
Replies
1
considering the rich were white people who could fight and had taste, that doesn't sound too bad to me.
anyway, the graph was saying the opposite and libertarians LIKE inequality so I'm not sure your analysis is at all solid just in general
anyway, the graph was saying the opposite and libertarians LIKE inequality so I'm not sure your analysis is at all solid just in general