this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
676 points (93.1% liked)

Political Memes

5492 readers
1970 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sebinspace@lemmy.world 75 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

Not making a point here, I just like numbers:

China has a population of ~1.4 billion

China has 698 billionares

China has the one billionare for every 2,005,730 people.

United States has a population of ~340 million

United States has 724 billionaires

US has one billionaire for every 469,613 people.

Edit: I like numbers. I don’t like Reddit/Lemmy formatting.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 41 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I think it'd be better when adjusted for GDP.

China gdp: $17.96 trillion

China has 1 billionare / $25.73 billion GDP or 1 billionare / $18.22 GDP / capita

US gpd: $27.94 trillion

US has 1 billionare / $38.59 billion GDP or 1 billionare / $114.88 GDP / capita

[–] sebinspace@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

Ohhhh numbers. Very yummy.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Wouldn't a lower number of billionaires to a higher amount of profits be more favorable to everyone except billionaires? So that particular example actually favors the system in the USA, oddly.

Of course, GDP only accounts for excess goods and services sold to other nations, which for the USA includes financial services like trading platforms and exchanges, heavily skewing their actual production capacity.

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think so, yeah. Also, billionaire means anything more than 1 billion, right? It might help to look at how much wealth they actually have; for example, if one nation has 1 billionaire (with $30 billion) and another has 30 billionaires (each with $1 billion), I wouldn't argue that the former is especially better off.

[–] TomAwsm@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't know, seems better to have 1 money hoarding asshole than 30...

[–] enleeten@discuss.online 1 points 6 months ago

Hell / yeah / brother

[–] fah_Q@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] sebinspace@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Force of habit

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It's worth noting, though, that this doesn't take into account the levels of inequality beyond comparing numbers of billionaires/non-billionaires.

The Gini coefficient is a popular method of measuring economic inequality, on a scale from 0 (total equality) to 1 (one person owns the entire nation's wealth).

As of 2019, the US and China had Gini coefficients of 0.481 and 0.465 respectively, making them extremely similar in overall wealth inequality, which is extremely high for both nations.

[–] sebinspace@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Ooohhh.. new types of numbers…

Tonight, we feast..