1262
submitted 1 month ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/world@lemmy.world

cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/57305272

Total billionaire wealth in the EU reached €2.4 trillion by late November, exceeding Italy's entire GDP of €2.2 trillion and approaching France's €2.9 trillion economy, a new Oxfam report found.

Archived version: https://archive.is/20260118190308/https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ara3abf5ee

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mrfriki@lemmy.world 76 points 1 month ago
[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Most of the words ultra-wealthy are verifiably sociopathic. Capitalism literally rewards those who posses the least empathy, the most.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's more than that. It's a feedback loop. Having distance from the consequences of your actions encourages sociopathic behavior. Power such as wealth is the easiest way to create that distance, even if you don't want to

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] eestileib 70 points 1 month ago

I believe Plato pointed this out in The Republic.

He thought the richest citizen needed to have no more then 5x the wealth of the poorest citizen or you would inevitably slide into oligarchy.

[-] nuxi@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

We crossed that threshold so long ago that you can make 5x the poverty level and still not be able to afford a house.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 17 points 1 month ago

How strange that some Texas university was recently banning a professor from teaching Plato to students because it had too much "equality" in it.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago

plato sounded DEI to them.

[-] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 70 points 1 month ago
[-] fort_burp@feddit.nl 66 points 1 month ago

Recent high-profile acquisitions include Jeff Bezos purchasing the Washington Post, Elon Musk buying Twitter (now X), and Patrick Soon-Shiong acquiring the Los Angeles Times. A billionaire consortium also bought significant stakes in The Economist.

In France, far-right billionaire Vincent Bolloré has transformed CNews into what critics call the French equivalent of Fox News. In the United Kingdom, three-quarters of newspaper circulation is controlled by just four wealthy families.

This is amazing. News and communication in the internet age was supposed to be democratised publication and agency to the voice of the average person, and it is to a small extent, but for the most part society was just like

[-] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I was a longtime reader of The Economist, but over time as I grew older and presumably wiser, I found it was not what it pretended to be.

It loves to cloak itself in the legitimacy of rigorous economic research and neutral data driven positions, but it is really thinly veiled opinion pieces driving ideological neo-liberal economics. It's a mouthpiece for billionaires to persuade educated laymen on a particular brand of **politics under the guise of the certainty of rigorous economics, while practicing ideological pseudo-economics.

I cancelled my subscription a decade ago. I still read Public Library copies from time to time, but I find it obnoxiously disingenuous and dangerously lopsided with terrible conclusions. On rare occasion I find something ellucidating, I'm left to wonder if I can trust the source, or was it ideologically driven data fabrication or just a rare tossing the dog a bone for credibility.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I couldn't agree more and had exact the same experience.

In my case I was actually in the Finance Industry when the 2008 Crash happenned and seeing what was done (the state unconditional saving Asset Owners by sacrificing the rest, in constrast with the whole Free Market stuff I had been reading on The Economist for almost a decade) and their take on it, really opened my eyes to the complete total self-serving bullshit of not just The Economist but also the whole edifice of Free Market Economics (a skepticism further boosted by me actually starting to learn Economics - especially Behavioral Economics since it's the only "Mainly Science rather than Politics" part of it and my background is party in Physics - and deepening my understanding of the Finance Industry as I tried to figure out the Why and How of the Crash).

That shit is Politics hidden behind a veil of Mathematics purposelly misused in a way eerily similar to how I saw pricing for over the counter derivatives being done in Finance: designing models so that they yield the desired results under certain conditions and further controlling their output by feeding them with cherry picked inputs and then presenting the output of the models as "Mathematical proof" that things are as as you say they are, so basically circular logic with some complex Mathematics in the middle to hide their true nature as unsupported claims.

It's pretty insidious Fake Science stuff if you don't have a strong background in Science and access to the right information to pierce through it.

load more comments (1 replies)

Your post is a succinct summary of the "study" of economics. It's just supporting a conclusion in exchange for taking a bunch of bribes and cherry-picking data to support your argument.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 51 points 1 month ago

Capitalism is a threat to democracy.

But thanks for getting on nearly the same page, Oxfam.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Fickle_Ferret@lemmy.ml 46 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The sky also happens to be blue. That gotta be news too.

Edit: Okay, having read the summary, it seems like they have proved causality between growing economic inequality and democratic backsliding. Which yeah, most people could have guessed, but now we have a fancy bunch of paper that says so.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago

So tired of this tbh - I just don't understand how anyone thinks wealth consolidation to few could be a good thing.

Even if you ignore ethics and assume the billionaires are benevolent - it's just a bad investment to invest majority of resources to a small number of investments. Does any successful large project hold 99% of their investments in few projects? It's absurd.

It makes absolutely zero sense no matter how you look at it unless you're truly full in on delusion that benevolent dictators exist and are impossible to corrupt or overtake.

[-] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

“But what if it is me someday!!!???” - some guy with 5 kids making $30k/year.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 month ago
[-] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago
[-] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

We’ve been pointing this out ever since the concept of currency became a thing, but I’m sure we will learn our lesson this time and stop doing it. This can’t just be how it will always be until we drive ourselves to extinction stuck on this miserable rock, Right?

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Structural issues make egalitarian economic systems difficult. Wealth and social influence compound once another in a virtuous cycle. Wealth has a strong hereditary bias, even in socialist economic models. And violence is historically a powerful tool for accruing wealth. Very difficult to establish universal deterrence against violence.

This isn't a question of people being smart or stupid. It's an elaborate balancing act that becomes exponentially more difficult as population size expands.

[-] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

As a very wise Irishman once so eloquently said it: “People. What a bunch’a bastards.”

[-] AlexLost@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Hey, the rock is fine, we've made society a miserable place. The pack is calling me...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ShutUpDonnie@lemmy.zip 28 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 month ago
[-] dipcart@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

Well let's get on it folks

[-] 0x0@lemmy.zip 24 points 1 month ago

In other news: water is wet.

[-] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 20 points 1 month ago
[-] hector@lemmy.today 20 points 1 month ago

Great to see the workings of those keen minds. Rich people a threat to liberal democracy, who knew? I mean except everyone that lives outside billionaires colon.

[-] myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 month ago

No fucking shit.

[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 13 points 1 month ago

It's not that they are rich, we've always had rich people. The problem is that we now have rich people with enough wealth to compete with nations, and they are getting even stronger. They are now starting to cut their own deals with nations that benefit them personally, with no regard to the nations, and millions of people that could be harmed by that policy. We've already seen Musk manipulate Starlink to steer a war in his direction, and unleash his hacking squad to rig an American election, just so he could use the opportunity to cripple all the government agencies that were investigating his crimes.

And it will only get worse. They are approaching Trillionaire status, and will be even more powerful. How long before multiple trillionaires form an alliance, and build their own personal military?

Eventually we will reach a point where it will become impossible to reign them in, and then we will all wonder why someone didn't do something about them when it was still possible, like NOW.

[-] matlag@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

There already are private military. Black Water and alike are absolutely private armies. But that could be expensive, even for trillionaires. It's a much better strategy to privatize the existing military and get it paid by the government. Watch it, it's going to happen!

[-] super_user_do@feddit.it 12 points 1 month ago

No shit bro for real? 

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 11 points 1 month ago

Screw Idiocracy. People reference it not understanding there were positives in the negatives. This is "Don't Look Up", that nailed our current corrupt leadership and techno-corporate lunacy, as well as ignoring what is right in front of us because shiny things are more interesting.

[-] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago

Yeah, this isn’t anything new. Literally centuries old analysis here. I guess it’s nice they updated it for the contemporary society, though.

[-] sircac@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Who would be surprised that concentrating most resources in a few is the opposite of the common good...

[-] sisyphus@leminal.space 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I suspect the only time the US got close to representative government was the New Deal era. Most people just live their lives and don't think in ideological terms. The ones that do are considered "too into politics" and usually believe in reform because it requires less of them than the alternative. Anyways, how about that bread and circuses?

[-] fort_burp@feddit.nl 10 points 1 month ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

No shit, Sherlock (c)

Waiting for another news. Like water is wet and education should function well

[-] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago
[-] Kaz@lemmy.org 8 points 1 month ago

Now lets do another massively funded research project to figure out the next step a lot of people already know.. LOBBYING!!

Rich people use Lobbying groups to manipulate countries and ruin the sovereignty of the nation, have done so since Lobbying groups were added to Capitilism...

[-] SoleInvictus 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's good science to challenge assumptions or previously accepted findings.

Usually these studies examine multiple factors for whatever context, then draw an overall conclusion based on the cumulative findings. This is then simplified by media, which then gets a bunch of "well duh" comments by people who don't read the news article or the research report.

load more comments (1 replies)

Poor people: "Well I guess there's only one solution really." Gestures to unpaid taxes and clears throat.

Billionaires: "Yes..." Looks at AI and fully automated societies before clutching pocketbook closer. "One final solution."

[-] darkmogool@feddit.org 6 points 1 month ago
[-] olenkoVD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

Are we waiting to hear it from the news to believe it?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
1262 points (100.0% liked)

World News

54071 readers
1883 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS