More discussion here:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18958478" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18958478</a>
What I'd like to see more in these articles is an acknowledgement of how power laws work (or perhaps log-normal distributions or stretched exponential distributions <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.0212" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.0212</a>).
Is this one of those things where the vast majority of the 3.8B has a zero or negative net worth?<p>I'm not trying to deny anything about wealth inequality, but I wonder what this clickbaity statement really says about anything.
I don't think Forbes Billionaires List is not accurate enough to track wealth changes from year to year as Oxfam does. It can show some trends over several years at best.<p><a href="https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620599/tb-public-good-or-private-wealth-methodology-note-210119-en.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...</a>
I think this happens because of technological development creating and enhancing positive feedback loops due to specialization and economy of scale. Can we have similar levels of technological development without such super concentration of wealth?
The most important thing for non wealthy is organization. Sharing issues and knowledge. Instead of relying on the rich to give them solutions (no incentives to do so..)
I guess I’m too cynical to believe that any attempt to go after those 26 people will land on them rather than on me - I’m comparatively well off but much less able to defend myself than a Donald Trump or a Bill Gates.