it was a stupid study done to score points with specific groups, basically another bash Wal-Mart to appeal to those bobble heads who rally around that sort of stuff. It takes a lot to ignore all the other wealthy individuals and groups to zero in on that family.
Throw out the negative equity people and the numbers were not as bad, use median income and the numbers are better. I doubt the comparisons made in China and Russia are the same as this study you cite was.
Besides, most importantly, the Waltons earned it, most of the wealth locked in China and Russia are either ex political power players or their friends.
Still, when it comes to China and even Russia, what has really changed? The same people ruling and having control of the wealth when they were not "open" markets are basically the same now.
"Besides, most importantly, the Waltons earned it, most of the wealth locked in China and Russia are either ex political power players or their friends."
The distinction here is arbitrary. When we talk about such amount of wealth, I think the verb "to earn" lose some his significance. As a society, I don't believe we should accept that a few persons own such a huge proportion of the wealth (regardless whether they "earned" it, stole it, found it...).
Throw out the negative equity people and the numbers were not as bad, use median income and the numbers are better. I doubt the comparisons made in China and Russia are the same as this study you cite was.
Besides, most importantly, the Waltons earned it, most of the wealth locked in China and Russia are either ex political power players or their friends.
Still, when it comes to China and even Russia, what has really changed? The same people ruling and having control of the wealth when they were not "open" markets are basically the same now.