Hacker News Reader

No, but it is bounded by how much exists at given time. Further, had you bothered to read the article, they explicitly talk about the growth of wealth in the word. I hate commenters like this - don't read the article, think they know something about what it says.

View on HN

It's true that the tone of the article wasn't stabbing at the rich and wealthy, but I think the commenter's point is still valid.

The headline utilizes a highly politically charged statement model - "The top 1% control $LIMITED_COMMODITY"

I didn't get that. Besides, the thing you are disingenuously failing to understand is that while wealth grows and is not a finite thing on long time scales, the growth is slow enough that controlling 40% of the currently existing wealth, and a sudden surge to say 10% total wealth increase in the next year (a big jump) going only to people not in the top 1%, would still leave those people with a huge disproportion of wealth ownership. It takes a huge amount of mental gymnastics to pretend this is is something that could change any moment because wealth is not fixed amount resource.

He commented specifically on the headline, not on the article itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com