Inequality In U.S. Today Is Worse than in Apartheid South Africa or 1774 Slaveholding Colonial America … and TWICE As Bad As In Ancient Slaveholding Rome

Even Slaves Had It Better

Inequality in America today is twice as bad as in ancient Rome, worse than it was in Tsarist Russia, Gilded Age America, modern Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen, many banana republics in Latin America, and worse than experienced by slaves in 1774 colonial America.

Nicholas Kristof notes at the New York Times that inequality in the U.S. is worse than it was in apartheid South Africa:

The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data. The gap has worsened in the last decade, and the United States now has a greater wealth gap by race than South Africa did during apartheid. (Whites in America on average own almost 18 times as much as blacks; in South Africa in 1970, the ratio was about 15 times.)

And see this:

Indeed, economist and inequality expert Thomas Piketty notes that – according to an important measure – inequality in America today is the worst in world history:

For those who work for a living, the level of inequality in the U.S. – writes Piketty – is “… probably higher than in any other society at any time in the past, anywhere in the world …”

In other words, there might have been some squalid country in the distant past where the disparity between people without any job and the king was higher than between a jobless American and the top fatcat in the U.S.  But the spread between the American worker and the American oligarch is the greatest in world history.

Indeed, inequality in America has become so extreme that the “99% versus the 1%” meme is grossly inaccurate … because it’s really the .01% versus the 99.99%.

The cause of America’s runaway inequality?

The Wall Street Journal notes:

Many aspects of the recovery, and the Federal Reserve’s stimulus policies, have benefited the rich over others.

Indeed, bad government policy is primarily responsible.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • unheilig

    Not “bad” government policy, deliberate, calculated government policy, instituted at the behest of their corporate fascist paymasters.

    • sallyhampton

      We get the government we deserve and too many have not voted or vote against their interests. Choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders is a classic example.

      • Jean William

        we keep voting for old white men they run both parties. we get bamboozled.

  • Old Wolf

    By and large, the policy is quite calculated. It’s a holdover from the old Jim Crow laws, and the earlier black codes. It was all designed to keep them poor, to keep them on the plantation and dependent upon their would-be ‘masters’. The history of the 14th amendment, which was designed to prevent such laws, is a history of working around them, nullifying them, and attempting their best to make sure that their masters could remain above the law, and their ‘property’ beneath it.
    Unfortunately, the republican party in the last 50 years, seeing the democrat party’s success, decided to feed into the role of unequal law, allowing their friends profits at others expense, and reveling in the old powers of the slavemasters.
    No person could be kept as a slave that had the rights enshrined and protected by the constitution. That was the argument behind the Civil Rights act of 1871… and it protected all of the rights, including the article 1, section 9 and 10 rights against unequal law (bills of attainder). The cruikshanks case attempted to get around that, along with the Slaughter House cases, by claiming that the right to be free of monopoly created by unequal law wasn’t protected, and those rights in the bill of rights really weren’t protected either, because they preexisted the constitution and weren’t dependent on it.
    But what that act of 1871 did was vest those rights as protected property interests, in such a way that it is unlawful (and even felonious) to attempt to remove them. There is no ‘due process’ that makes it legal. Title 18, section 242 of the US code illustrates this point, along with title 28, section 1343.
    Anyone who attempts their removal is a felon, anyone who fails to prevent it is liable as an accessory, and individually civilly liable.
    Is it any wonder that they are claiming those rights are no rights at all?

  • This is something most get confused on, but this will explain what government schools did not!

    14th Amendment Citizenship: Citizen = SLAVE

    Prior to the alleged ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no legal definition of a “citizen of the United States”, as everyone had primary citizenship in one of the several states. The Constitution referred to the sovereign state citizen, and no one else. Those who went to Washington, D.C. or outside the several states were commonly called “citizens of the United States.” In the Constitution for the United States, the term was used to identify state citizens who were eligible under the suffrage laws to hold office, and they were required under the Constitution to have primary allegiance to one of the several states.

  • Juana Dalton

    At university I studied sociology and worked on questions inequality in the world today. I helped the site essay writing service from GrabMyEssays