While we argue about which player-du-jour is slightly less-corrupt? than yesterday's media star.

Can't find much corroboration though, for the assertion that "87' was it? Individuals in the dis-US own more than 50%/or was it 80% of total US ''net worth"
(screw anything about "annual income", always obscured.) 'Benevolence' is rarely found in the richest of all perps. Brain-wiring?
Collectively then, the common denominator for the inhabitants is corruption so vast that even Econ hasn't a neat formula for bloviations on that degree of wealth-gap.
Faced with such a situation, wherein the only option is seen to be violent revolution, none of us here has a clue about extrapolating beyond a few months at a time.

A Pox on all the past models too, then (V.I.'s, Karl's et al.) Malthus on Population though--holds up. Now we have to pity all the young'uns everywhere, especially those
who ever imagined a 'meritocracy' could exist. To me the matter(s) have become so surreal, it isn't much worth paying attention to the daily mouth noises.

So then, which dies first: Nationalism or simply, the whole planet-ful?
(Not enough are scared-sufficiently about the common nest's precarious state--even to imagine massive-cooperation as a goal.)

I punt.