from HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to world@lemmy.world on 10 Dec 12:09
https://sh.itjust.works/post/51325769
Fewer than 60,000 people – 0.001% of the world’s population – control three times as much wealth as the entire bottom half of humanity, according to a report that argues global inequality has reached such extremes that urgent action has become essential.
The authoritative World Inequality Report 2026, based on data compiled by 200 researchers, also found that the top 10% of income-earners earn more than the other 90% combined, while the poorest half captures less than 10% of total global earnings.
Wealth – the value of people’s assets – was even more concentrated than income, or earnings from work and investments, the report found, with the richest 10% of the world’s population owning 75% of wealth and the bottom half just 2%.
In almost every region, the top 1% was wealthier than the bottom 90% combined, the report found, with wealth inequality increasing rapidly around the world.
“The result is a world in which a tiny minority commands unprecedented financial power, while billions remain excluded from even basic economic stability,” the authors, led by Ricardo Gómez-Carrera of the Paris School of Economics, wrote.
#world
threaded - newest
60,000 is way to many. They need to be able to fit on a giga yacht.
Some pressing and stomping and they will nicely fit to any rusted sea tanker.
And then we make an artificial reef out of it
The coral all died.
More like eventually building their own Elysium.
Then we can shoot the fucker down and take them all out in one fell swoop. What a beautiful sunrise that would make.
It is true that the poorest people have very little money and the wealthiest people have a great deal of money, so the math checks out
Billions of poor people are giving their money every single day to companies owned by rich people, this explains why rich people are getting richer
Does anyone have any ideas how we can stop poor people from giving their money to the rich? Every time they use Google they are given an electric shock ? Every time someone goes to buy something on Amazon they get personally spanked by a local Jeff Bezos lookalike?
My proposal is taxing the everloving shit out of the richest people. 50% wealthtax over €20 million (a number I pulled out of my ass, but I think it’s important to not hurt the regular small businesses). If you can’t sell your assets for some reason, the assets are forfeited to be operated or sold by the government, to redistribute the result through welfare and UBI.
And what about thhe poor billionaires who can’t own more than 20 million euro you say? I don’t give a shit. Let them off themselves if it’s impossible to live with.
Rich people will give their money to enrich themselves or to fuck someone over. But giving their money freely to help humanity? Or accept being taxed? They are seriously homicidally resistant to that.
Off topic, I think billionaires should be required to do the lowest position in their organizations for a month once a year with their net worth assets frozen, their communication with any yes man or enabler being severed for that month, and be forced to live off of that monthly stipend for 1 month and if they get “fired” they cannot retaliate if the firing was in good faith and they lose 65-70% of their stock options for failing to do bare minimum competence.
Then they get imprisoned for taxfraud, and have their wealth confiscated. I no longer give half a shit about those parasites.
I think a year of every five, but ok.
We’ve seen them voluntarily do homeless stints. It’s just not the same thing when you know you’re going back to your mansion in a few weeks. Just fucking tax their wealth bracket out of existence.
Oh I want them taxed, but like I said, they’d rather watch the world burn than be forced to give a dollar.
Then don’t take the dollar, take the fucking hand.
Odds are when asked for the second dollar, it will be a lot more forthcoming.
I have to respond to “with at a 50% wealthtax over 20 million euros” because that is the easy answer
Europe already has a lot of experience with taxing the ultra wealthy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#In_practice
npr.org/…/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why…
rfi.fr/…/20250130-french-luxury-billionaire-spark…
And it’s hard because there will always be another country that wants rich people
Tax transfers to those countries to the ever-loving-shit degree. Want to move money to this tax paradise? Sure. We take 90%. Not on profit. On transfer. Let’s see them work around that. Want to move it to a country that doesn’t have the same rules? Sure. We take 90% of that.
Then they’ll be welcome to fuck right the fuck off, but I absolutely assure you, there is someone willing to start a new company in their place, if the market was previously in the “make you a billionaire” territory, but now the person can “only” accrue €20 million, someone will fill that hole, but that someone won’t be a piece of shit like Jeff Besos, because they won’t be allowed to become that economically powerful. Instead it’ll be 500 smaller companies, all competing for the market.
What happened to the different european wealth taxes is that it was implemented with loopholes as big as the France-England tunnel, and any rich asshole who didn’t feel like paying taxes, could just transfer it somewhere else, and call it an investment. Instead, tax every single cent they move out of the country at 90%. That way they’re forced to invest their money in the country they’re making their money off of. Maybe give them a rebate if they move it within Europe to facilitate growth across the union, let’s tax that at 45% instead then.
90%
That’s because they left giant loopholes in those laws. Like allowing the ultra wealthy to remove their money from the country. They got that money because of the country, they don’t get to then fuck off and take that wealth out of the country. They’re free to leave, the majority of their wealth is not.
And poor nobles can cry me a river, sell the assets. Take the stocks too. The entire idea of shareholders running the company needs to die anyways.
If it’s a free market within the country, the vaccuum created by the wealthy leaving will be filled in by smaller business servicing the same industries.
Big corporations that have wealth concentrating with the top brass and share holders do not add anything of value to the market over cooperatives and other worker owned incentive structures.
First you need to put the non-rich in charge and prevent them being bought off by the rich. That’s the hard part, but not impossible.
Well… their labor
I don't think it's fair to compare incomes across the planet without considering cost and quality of life it buys.
For example, my current salary working in London is some seven to ten times higher than what I'd be earning in Hungary - but the differences in cost of living (okay arguably my quality of life is better though) means that general long term goals like buying a flat, will take about the same time to get started with (mortgage application, saving for deposit, etc.), and same time or even longer to finish (as in fully paid off).
Compared to a poverty-stricken African country sure I'm better off, but equating high earners with the true source of the problem, the aforementioned 60 thousand people, is disingenuous in my opinion. High earners aren't the problem - generational wealth that "generates" more wealth is.
Those 60,000 people have so much money that you can factor in cost of living on the moon and they’d still have thousands of times better lives than anyone on earth.
You do realise that I'm NOT part of that 60k and I wasn't defending them, right?
Read the second part of the damn post ffs, where it equates high earners with the highest wealth people as if they're equally the issue.
Dw man, I hear what you’re saying, I can read. I kind of agree that it’s PRIMARILY those 60k chucklefucks that have ruined humanity, but I’d say that ultra high cost of living and therefore artificially boosted wages, value, worth, all of it is a consequence of this capitalist surge of “line must go up”. The rat race has always existed, as has inequality, but the appeal of trying to right the balance by donating, volunteering, etc. has all but died out. If you’re not living hand to mouth, most of us should be helping the poor, it’s just such a fucking absurdly diminished prospect given the giant cancer of the ultra rich. We need to fix it and get some goddamn compassion back.
“things are hard for the petit-bourgeoisie too” really isn’t the argument you think it is lol.
There’s a pretty huge difference between “my expenses are a lot and I’m kind of illiquid right now” and “gee I hope I can eat this week”
Holy shit is this instance full of idiots.
Who the fuck said anything about petit bourgeoisie? A high EARNER still has to work, dipshit. Still has to produce something to get paid. We're not talking about landlords here, or shitheads living off investments, but people like DOCTORS. Do you consider medical professionals "petit bourgeoisie" just because they earn more than the average?
And even high earners can be in the "gee I hope I can eat this week" category.
But please do skip my point about cost of living being important when it comes to wages, and fight a completely made up argument you put in my mouth because fictional BS is easier to fight than what I actually said.
Yes.
Sounds like you need to pick up a dictionary. Maybe even a thesaurus.
Sounds like you need to look at their lifestyles and whether sick and dying are turned away due to no money or insurance.
That isn’t the doctor who does that. It’s the insurance companies.
Sadly, private practices also do that. I have neighbors who are "noncompliant" because they can sometimes scrape together enough for either a single visit, or meds, usually not both.
We often have to pass around donation envelope to help a neighbor afford a visit and/or prescription, and if more than one is sick at a time, those donations aren't enough and have to be split.
Private practices have a lot of money to pay for insurance: medical-malpractice insurance, insurance related to the building (fire, storm, robbery, etc.), insurance related to employment, and so on.
You lost me at your first word which was a slur.
Ah, another slur, and ableist to boot! Good job!
I don't use any AI, and if I did, it certainly wouldn't be developed by the broligharchy.
Why are you lying?
Also, just because you dislike a word, it doesn't make that a slur.
Can you read? That was a news article.
Secondly, "bitch" is a misogynistic slur to refer to women.
Thirdly, "imbecile" is an an ableist slur.
Check your privilege.
Edit: impressive you dug through a month's worth of comments to protect that privilege. 🤣
A month's worth of comments? It's literally on your front page. No need to dig when the shit literally floats on top.
What's truly impressive is that you've been proven wrong multiple times, and instead of accepting that, you ran to moderators because your feefees were hurt. As such, I have no interest in any further pointless discussion with willfully ignorant idiots. Goodbye.
🪞
What happens if the petit-bourgeoisie stop working? No food? Oh shiiiiit.
It’s almost like that’s a term used to discredit members of the working class. Don’t go throwing away allies in the fight to end the rich.
Most of them don’t see themselves as part of the working class and are directly contributing to the current status quo we see around us
If you look at the polling on the universal policies then you’ll see they very much do. It’s hard not to be aware that you would starve if you didn’t have a job.
Petit bourgeois are generally NOT part of the working class. They're by definition the lower segment of the middle class (European style class structure where lower class IS the working class, middle class distincts itself by the fact they're not required to be in employ of others to make their income).
Then the term definitely doesn’t apply to the “professional” class in the US. You generally aren’t hanging your own shingle until late in your career or if you came from money. Doctors are very much reliant on employers here and most of the West.
What is the salary range of a Physician General Practitioner? As of December 01, 2025, the average salary for a Physician General Practitioner in the United States is $245,390 per year, which breaks down to an hourly rate of $118.
However, a Physician General Practitioner's salary can vary significantly. Here’s a look at the typical salary range:
Top Earners (90th percentile): $292,769
Majority Range (25th-75th percentile): $231,690 to $270,190
Entry-Level (10th percentile): $219,217
https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/physician-general-practitioner-salary
I'd say $118/hr is petit bourgeois.
Sure, and what do you call a doctor without an employer?
Either rich or unemployed.
If they don’t come from money then they aren’t going to work for themselves until late in their career. Just like good trades people. Having toys doesn’t mean shit if your existence is still predicated on employment.
Then maybe they shouldn't be class traitors. Same with tech workers, nurses, cops, etc.
And maybe if a doctor can save a life, they should do that and take up bills with the state.
Living inside the system is not consent to the system. Comparing doctors to cops is ridiculous. Cops entire reason for existence is to defend the system.
You can save a life and let someone die. I disagree.
What even the what? Are you sure you replied to the right comment?
People like you always have this kind of take because you’re benefiting from the system that allows such a gross gap in wealth. That’s why things won’t change. The very small group of ultra wealthy has a much larger army of “my experience isn’t so bad” types walking around thinking like you do.
Where the fuck did I say that? Fucking hell, the state of Lemmy at times...
I'm literally advocating for change here, BY FUCKING TELLING Y'ALL TO NOT BLAME THE FELLOW WORKER, but the actually wealthy.
The top 10% earners make approx. $120k a year. Which seems a lot, given there are people in India who make less than 1% of that in a year.
But that wealth disparage is NOTHING compared to the difference between said high earner (whose real income will be maybe 1/3 of what they make, after taxes, rent, etc.), and one of the 60k.
My point is still to blame the members of the 60k, not those who make $60k.
The class war got into people’s heads as ‘working - middle- upper’ but now it’s really ‘worker - owner’.
Do you need a paycheque, or do your assets alone feed you?
Put the litmus test away. PPP is a real thing and pretending it isn’t is not going to earn you any friends. A two bedroom condo in the US is easily 600,000 USD. The problem isn’t the people trying to get off the rental treadmill it’s the people making prices that high so we need high wages to live. In other words, the elite in the wealthiest countries are fucking everyone over, not just Panamanian farmers.
No it’s the billionaires and also the millionaires that own only a few houses or apartments because we’ve allowed basic necessities to become paths to financial security. Those non billionaires are benefiting from the same mechanisms the elite have installed, but get less flack because their level of wealth doesn’t seem as bad. Someone making $32k a year or less is getting screwed harder than someone making $132k by the system that makes the $1m+ a year club.
Nobody is disputing that.
A lecture I listened to over the spring (in health related field, no less!) noted that those who are reluctant to end corruption are usually benefitting in some way from the corruption.
See US politics.
The far more troubling problem to me is the division of wealth inside the countries. If we tackled that then there would also be a lot more money for the workers at the foreign owned factory in Hungary. You are right that the national income isn’t the problem, but you’re missing that the wealth gap in the wealthiest countries feeds the gap between countries and regions too.
Yet fewer people are poor because we instituted capitalist policies. Moving away from mercantilism was a great idea and benefitted most to a greater degree than mercantilism provides. Now we need to move beyond capitalism to address the failures of capitalism.
Because of capitalist policies or because of advancements in science, engineering, and medicine culminating around the same time that just happened to coincide with capitalism’s birth?
Capitalism only benefits capitalists.
Fewer people are poor despite the capitalists, not because of.
Their giant hoards of wealth exemplify how many more could have been pulled out of poverty in the last 100-150 years.
Because directing more wealth away from feudal authorities/noble families to private individuals was good for increasing wealth distribution. This happened at different times in different places.
Nah, it can benefit the rank and file provided the wealth was poorly distributed before by creating more jobs. This is exactly what happened when it was adopted by most nations in the 19th century.
China’s for-profit business investments in Africa since 2000 are an example if capitalist policies bringing people out of poverty. Im not sure your claim has the validity you think it does.
The previous poster is more or less quoting Marx and Engles who praised capitalism in the same way and for the same things, while suggesting it was time for it to be superceded in the same way.
Now I know that not everybody has read their work, but you sound like somebody who might be interested.
Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists. (G. K. Chesterton)
That’s 80’000 people vs. how much?
So about 4 billion people
Or about 8 billion pairs of legs and feet
Uh, right. Hey, i ran on fumes yesterday.
The fact is money is relative. $100k USD is a lot of money in New Guinea and is not going to buy as much in London. This is why it is perfectly acceptable for someone like Thiel to assemble a private army with his wealth while people starve because they haven’t worked the grind correctly like Musk, Thiel or the Mountbatten-Windsors have /s.
You had me in the first half…
In the entire existence of humanity, class struggle still has yet to end.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b4923960-3612-408c-9b9e-f4a1e06db49c.png">
This seems not conducive to the common wellbeing of humanity I think.
Guillotines are surprisingly cheap to build.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f5b95c82-bd88-4f0c-b2ed-b7e6a3ceb092.mp4">
The implicit song here goes hard
.22lr even cheaper and less assembly required
Would need to be able to penetrate their thick skulls.
Maybe we should use a higher caliber bullet?
It penetrates and ricochets inside instead of exiting, makes for good brain jelly!
Put a maximum net worth. Every dollar over it equals one punch to the kidneys.
let’s make it “every one million dollar over it” and these greedy fucks would still not survive it.
Great idea in theory.
Curious to know how we implement it in practice
Is there a digital collection that hosts propaganda images that are against the thieving wealthy?
I started to feel that’s a mathematical issue, not an economic issue. Since the internet is a thing, a person’s influence and wealth can increase exponentially(benefiting from the networking effect aka power law), while the best tax law can do is still linear.
We need a tax law that grows exponentially. After certain points, it should collect almost 100% of the “controllable assets” (assets you can control, not necessarily owed).
But of course, we will never get it. People who have the will to climb the ladder tend to have less empathy for the masses, and they need to pay back to their stakeholders to help them get on top. It’s another paradox we need to deal with.
TBH the only thing that can fix humanity is extraterrestrial life lol.
Followed through until the doom and gloom. Organize!
I would call it systemic, in fact I’d argue it’s the central flaw of capitalism (but one that imo can be mostly fixed with heavy regulation and taxes scaling to near 100% as you say).
When wealth = power, those with wealth will always attract even more wealth.
We’ve had this before, and can again. Look up FDR-era marginal rates.
It’s an overused statement by now but it seems worth repeating: many people find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
People might think that the extremity is a good thing as it will force change, which may be true, but realistically the world will be in for an extended period of conflict/war/suffering first and that period will probably last the rest of our lives.
Boomers hit that sweet spot. Now they get to check out as things are about to get real bad. Not that boomers everywhere in the world had it good. But a lot of them did.
American boomers, maybe. The 60s/70s was real shit for most of the Third World.
Much of our modern Economic Anxiety driving MAGA and the reactionary insanity of our foreign policy is these same Boomers being forced to live in a world that isn’t just the car dealerships in Detroit commanding the global economy.
For the 90s Kids, life outside the US hasn’t been this good in a century or more. Whether you’re in Bogota, Berlin, Beijing, or Bankok, it’s a time of unprecedented plenty.
The fact that America isn’t this shining city on a hill anymore is what Trumpsters find so galling.
In some places, like south america, things have not been that great since the start of a wave of right wing governments rising, unfortunately…
One reason why Buenos Aires didn’t make the list.
I see what you mean, in terms of democracy being a problem capitalism is trying to solve and, also, that the rich and powerful will never allow us to simply vote away their ill-gotten wealth and power.
I don’t think that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try though or just lament that we were born too late though.
If enough people wanted to, we could change things very quickly. I don’t see why that would mean we would have to have those all of those things, let alone for an extended period. Really, you’re rationalising a status quo bias.
If you aren’t straight, white or a man you are already suffering.
One of these 0.001% is valve ceo that many here on lemmy praise.
Ah yes, because we should condemn people over a statistic, even when the things they do may actually warrant some praise.
What is to be done?
That’s a crazy stat if true, maybe we should just tax those people.
Nifty. Each person in that top 0.001% has the combined wealth of 68,333 people just to themselves. That’s a whole ass city.
Does that mean, in a theoretical world where wealth is by all means easily distributed, you’ve got a mere 0.001% that could triple the per-individual wealth of half of the worlds population—if we just took theirs and passed it out?
I’ve heard philosophers say, it’s a figure of authority’s continuous responsibility to justify its existence. Given, wealth is influence and influence is authority, should we not audit cases where wealth is so concentrated and ask ourselves question like ”how is this contributing to the benefit of all?”
I’d.argue, we shouldn’t allow such concentration of wealth in the first place—meaning there should be a preventative plan that Just Works. This can be compatible with whatever else you want, free markets or not. Be it a stronger progressive tax or a cultural change toward worker collectives owning the means to production, there just shouldn’t be such wealthy entities.
The concentration on wealth leads to concentration of influence, meaning politics and media. We’ve had a shrinking number of independent major news organizations since the 1980s. A 1983 analysis showed that about 50 companies “controlled more than half” of U.S. media. Today, there are estimates of a handful of people owning the vast majority. Not to mention, they can apparently choose to purchase massive Social Media platforms (like Twitter) immediately before an election.
Right now, though, we have this problem where such silos already exist. They use their influence, vast as it is, to protect and enrich themselves—PACs, Super PACs, gratuities, lobbying firms, and more recently meme coins. All acting as a conduit to influence politics and legislation. We can’t make progress while these issues continue to stand in our way, can we? So, what do you do?
Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
I guarantee you that that 0.001% agrees, there are too many of them, that should be 0.00001% instead
Fuck the rich!
I call for hard limits on personal networth and the worth of companies
No single person should be able to control more than 10M, companies shouldn’t be worth over 1 billion
Anything over that, goes to taxes.
It’s a single basic rule that requires more rules below for sure to ensure it works well, but this should be codified in a world wide constitution.
This way, nobody gets crazy amounts of money, nobody will have to be poor because the government will have a huge income that it can use for universal healthcare, education, universal basic income, etc…
Crime would go down the drain because nobody NEEDS to be a criminal anymore. There will still be a few anti social elements but good luck finding people wanting that life if they can just have a good, safe, and happy life.
Bribery and corruption? How even, and why take the risk?
There is no logical reason why anyone should have to be allowed to control this much wealth.
Investment companies must all be dismantled and all their funds transferred to independent non profit organisations that, again, won’t be able to control more than over a billion. Government can transfer money to these foundations so that loads of people can have investments for startups or whatnot
We’d need similar simple rules for governments too. All governments must be democracies, and all should follow a world constitution where we have a few basic rules that make sure nobody will ever get too much power.
It doesn’t require a lot of changes at the top. Basically these three rules, all the rest flows out of those rules. We can keep capitalism and use it’s raw power to generate resources for everyone.
What this needs is political will, this needs people to want this, need this.
I didn’t know World War Three was the simplest way to world peace
A small family farm earning less than 350k a year could easily need that in land, capital, etc. just to operate.
But I hear you, somewhere between 10 and 50M would be ideal.
Suck on that 0.999% of the 1%!
And now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator Bernie Sanders
Its makes it sound like most people are lazy!
Wait… most people are lazy… maybe thats why they arent successful?
/s btw…
Well, chop chop, get back on the assembly line.
Why are you being lazy?
Remind me again how capitalism isn’t the problem? lmao
Do you think in feudal times things were better?
Well, I’ll tell you one thing. The solution for some of the bad monarchies should be taking place today but for the bad people running majority of countries but nobody has the guts to pull one for the team.
Sorry to nitpick, but can someone pls explain how a specific subset of people collectively hold 3x(50% of humanities’ wealth) - that totals 200% of a finite amount?
Just gotta do the math with the right variables. 50% of PEOPLE not of total wealth. So, the poorest half of people have a wealth sum equivalent to all the wealth owned by the richest .001%.
Headline specifically mentions “poorest half of humanity”, not “half of humanity”
… That’s half of humanity split to the poorest 50%. Poorest half of humanity.
find the poorest 50% of the earth’s population. determine their collective wealth
look at the wealthiest people on earth, and add them to a list from the top down, one by one. stop when you reach a collective wealth three times that of what you found for the poorest 50% of people. count how many uber wealthy people that was, and calculate what percentage of the population they are
So this subset holds half of all wealth on the planet, according to the OP headline phrasing.
So we’re up to 50% poor people + 150% ultra-wealthy = 200% of humanity’s wealth…
the poorest half of humanity does not have half the wealth
you’re stuck on that interpretation but its not what the words mean
if you sort everyone richest to poorest and then cut the group in half at the midpoint so an equal number if people lie on each side, the poorest half do not have half the wealth
you are misinterpreting the headline phrasing. there isn’t a second way to interpret it.
I feel like numbers at this point just are pointless. It’s like, can we use vocabulary that actually describes the situation instead of updating this every time the decimal point shifts?
Describing it in terms of wealth is kind of dumb. It gives the idea that the systems that caused this (Imperialism, colonialism, capitalism) are the solution. Like, the global South just needs “investment”. The numbers are this bad because of a century of western “investment” in its exploitation the global South.
There isn’t a number attached to this that somehow fixes the problem when we reach it. This is about what essentially amounts to slavery and subjugation of the majority of this planet. The language of these news articles is so passive. Like it’s describing the amount of stars in the galaxy.
It’s gone from can’t everyone just pay your fair share of taxes?
To can’t we at least tax the rich?
How about just the 1%?
Ok…, how about just the 0.001%?
And then somehow conservatives leaders will convince a voter base to take to the streets with pitchforks and torches, claiming it’s tyranny, then once they’re elected, the leaders will still tax the fucking voter base.
Just reject fiat and create your own 🤫
The French Revolution was a massive uprising in France from 1789 to 1799, driven by anger over inequality, heavy taxes, and the extravagant lifestyle of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette. The monarchy’s indifference to the suffering of ordinary people—while they lived in luxury—sparked outrage.
The revolution began with the storming of the Bastille, a symbol of royal tyranny, and led to radical changes: the monarchy was abolished, the king and queen were executed, and France became a republic. It was a chaotic time, with ideals of liberty and equality clashing against violence and instability.
In short, it was a dramatic lesson in what happens when leaders ignore the needs of their people.
Those puny little ants outnumber us 100 to 1. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life!
No comments about the “accept all or reject all and subscribe” really says something about no one ever reading the article. And just to be clear, I’m in full agreement of how fucked this is. It just really stuck out to me. And I highly doubt everyone who commented used some extention, script or service to get past that, I feel pretty confident that almost none did. If most did at least one would have posted a link so everyone else could get the full article.
Archive link
what’s wrong with a billionaire having $1B worth of yachts, while the rest of us are struggling to feed ourselves? what’s wrong with that?? (/s)
we need to organize. seriously!