Why do these charts about the distribution of corporate wealth in listed companies over the last 10 years confound the OWS movement?
Articles often take a definite editorial stance and almost never carry a byline. Not even the name of the editor (from 2006, John Micklethwait) is printed in the issue. It is a long-standing tradition that an editor's only signed article during his tenure is written on the occasion of his departure from the position. The author of a piece is named in certain circumstances: when notable persons are invited to contribute opinion pieces; when journalists of The Economist compile special reports; and to highlight a potential conflict of interest over a book review. The names of The Economist editors and correspondents can be located, however, via the media directory pages of the website.
The statistics are useless without a broader 30 or 50 year view, the crux of the OWS argument is that it's getting worse over time and the difference is pretty staggering.
This is a very political article.
Also, it's dishonest to suggest that the OWS movement's validity has something to do with about corporate wealth disparity, particularly in listed companies.
This article is garbage.