The veracity of the statement has no bearing on the fact that you dismissed/questioned it first, and now agree. Your position changed....and so has your argument now from 'staggering wealth inequality isn't a bad thing" to ' wealth inequality isn't staggering'.
Forgive us if we take the words of economists, historians, reality, and our own senses over a random person's opinion.

Wiki- in 2014 the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation's wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%; similarly, but later, the media reported, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent".[8] The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%. The average employee "needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO earns in one hour"
If that's not excessive, I have to wonder what could be in your opinion. My wife, head of her department for 10 years, working 45-50 hour weeks, makes $30k a year working like a dog (at a job that is life and death for her customers, platelet donation, her department keeps our only local blood bank open as the only money making department, she doesn't make fries.)...Warren Buffet makes >10000 times that much doing absolutely nothing...not excessive?! Also, because he only pays taxes on what he spends, he pays less in taxes than we do.
Thpp!....Ack!

My position hasn't changed. Contrary to the assertion in the video and the summary, wealth inequality here in the US isn't "staggering", nor is it even remotely excessive.

Well, then your position changed 180 degrees from your original statement....so why the snark?
Or is "staggering" not "excessive" in your mind?

Dogboy49 said-
"American wealth inequality is staggering. "

???? Stated as if that is a bad thing.......

Yes, I totally agree that EXCESSIVE wealth inequality is a bad thing.

On a related note, drinking EXCESSIVE amounts of water is a bad thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

The point was that excessive wealth inequality is a bad thing, so bad it has led to revolt in extreme cases, not so bad it causes a revolution every time.
You seem to be agreeing with that.
I'm glad we agree.

There are problems in the US that may eventually make the US more likely to fall into a revolution, but I doubt that the type of wealth inequality we have today is high on the list.

We have had a few riots in some of the larger cities. Poverty and lack of opportunity are definite contributors to these riots. However, these localized riots never seem to spread, even though we have the income disparities you mentioned. At least for now, I don't think we can expect a "French Revolution" type event to occur, even though there are quite a few millionaires and billionaires living within a few dozen miles of the poorest people.

Yes, widespread poverty, largely because of insane wealth inequality. (I'll elaborate if you wish) The rich had plenty to eat, and as the dismissive "let them eat cake" implied, had no concern for those who didn't. It was that disparity paired with the dismissal of the peasants plight by the ruling class that tipped a bad situation into civil war/revolt, imo.

Yes, poor are going hungry in the United States, maybe not starving to death often, but suffering to death from ailments caused by the only diets they can afford, which barely qualify as food. No, it's not to the extent of 1700 France, but we wouldn't tolerate anywhere near those conditions today, so that argument is ludicrous.

The real poor in America don't have roofs or electricity, where are these TV'S they're parked in front of exactly? The homeless problem is growing exponentially...those are the real poor surfs in this analogy, not just people like me who can live fine on $15k a year.

Nope. I am implying that in the late 1700's, the wealth inequality in France was combined with widespread poverty and starvation, and such conditions do not exist today in the US. The suggestion (Newtboy's) that we should fear a revolution today is unsupported. Back then, half of all children then died before the age of 10, many due to the famine they were experiencing. We just don't have the kind of poverty today in the US that the French peasants endured in 1780.

Yes, I have heard of the French Revolution. You seem to imply that the main cause was wealth inequality, but you have not offered any reason as to why you think that.

Many believe that the biggest contributor to the French Revolution was widespread poverty. Peasants were starving.

This condition does not exist today. Especially in the US, the poor are not suffering in the same way they were in France in the mid 1700's.

In France, it was necessary to riot in order to eat. Today's poor in the US have a hard time getting up from their TV sets.

It is.
Ever hear of the French revolution, from which we got the saying "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich." That's the end result of staggering wealth inequality.

"American wealth inequality is staggering. "

???? Stated as if that is a bad thing.......

If being in Heaven means being around the people who say they will go, Trump supporters, then Hell is a billion times better. The fact that God doesn't care enough to tell his followers that they are following the literal antichrist system, is telling.

Trump Supporters... They HATE LGBTQIA people. They HATE the needy and the poor. They HATE scientific truth, like climate change. They are filled with HATE for foreigners. They LOVE wealth and inequality. They LOVE greed. They LOVE war. Every Trump supporter is like that. They are all bigoted people.

And when I say all Trump supporters, I mean damn near all the ones I personally know. My family, the people I work with. All evil, bigoted people who thump their chest about how Christian they are, and how anyone who reads the Bible would have to be Republican. Who agree with Jerry Falwell Jr. how those who don't support Trump are immoral. They are all stuck in this evangelical cult of Trump.

The day I see the Love of Christ from Republican Christians in masse, will be a miracle. But every fucking day I have to listen to Fox news near all day every day. I have to listen to listen to provable lies that are being taken as gospel, and having to hear how everyone who isn't supporting Trump is evil and against Christ.

Now you may argue that doesn't represent all Christians. But that clearly represents the vast majority of those who care to vote, and certainly of the kids in this video.

Also I wouldn't say I was a cultural Christian at all. My family was, we went to church once a week. Then I got serious about it. I started watching TBN all the time. Started going to an evangelical church. Blasted Democrats and anybody who wouldn't trust Fox News and Fox News alone (my prior comments as Charon seem to have been purged, but I'd blast evolution, trust only in Fox). I went 3 services a week. I was one of those people who'd make sure I said "Merry Christmas" just to be sure people got the message. As I've said before, the initial moment was realizing that the GOP was becoming more and more like the antichrist, and that it was the polar opposite of what Christ himself would want. I became a Libertarian, backed off the 3 services a week to just one, mostly in search of a church that wasn't practically telling people that Republican is the only way a real Christian could vote. Then in 2008 at the Republican debate when a room full of pro-life Christians started chanting "Let him die! Let him die!" with great enthusiasm, about a guy not having insurance and what should happen to him... that was the catalyst that opened the door to everything being so wrong. to say "this... this whole thing is wrong..." And then God did nothing. Christ did nothing. It's gotten a billion times worse since then. Those type of Christians continue to be the main reason people have the same moment where they go... no... and move on. I went, became Pagan for a time, and found it just as connecting to God, at least for those who were serious about it, and empathy says, if they are having just as sincere a relationship with their God as Christians have with God, then it is all equal... and the logic then said, "or not equal, and just as stupid".

Now perhaps I wouldn't be so anti-Christian if I wasn't surrounded by them at work, and having to live with people I'd shit and piss on their grave if their eventual grave wasn't attached to my sister's. Then again, I'd see the news of what these people are doing to this country, fucking it over for profit, and hurting the very people Christ said to help, and doing so in Christ's name... which is the technical definition of using the Lord's name in vain, not just saying something like "Jesus Christ" in exasperation. I do put up with my girlfriend being Christian, though it and her high sex drive are the two things that most drive me nuts... but beggars can't be choosers, and marriage is the only way out of this hell hole of being with my parents at 50 fucking years old... at least until child support goes away...

NOBODY is seeing the love of Christ demonstrated by people like my family, 80-95% of the people at work, Fox, TBN, CBN, 700 Club, Jim Baker, and the like. And they do represent the public image of Christianity. If the moderates and liberal Christians are the majority of Christians, then they don't make their voice known, they don't vote in opposition to these sort of people in this video and on Fox. So either God isn't moving their hearts, they don't care, or God doesn't exist. Even if he does, if my family, Bob, the people I work with, these kids, the other Trump supporters are the main ones there, then I don't want to have to be around them forever, it's bad enough being around them for a short life. Want people to come to God, then start with those sort of people and get them to see how they are doing more harm than good. They have to more at making the world a better place than they do, to leave the world in better shape for centuries to come. Not to take it all for now, not to assume Christ is coming back soon, but always practice he's 50,000 years from coming back... and 1,000 years from now, it's still 50,000 years from then. To act the way Christ said to act, not the greedy fucks that make up the GOP. To actually show the love he showed. He hung out with sinners, and railed against those who were walking around thumping their chest about how holy they are, yet these GOP Christians are thumping their chests, and shunning those who sin differently.

Anyhow I could rant on, but that's enough for now. I do appreciate the higher degree of kindness you tend to show than certain others, and my family... almost all Trump supporters I personally know...

I'm talking about racism itself, not the tools and advantages used by racists.
By themselves, power inequities aren't harmful like they are when paired with racism. Carter had a power inequality with the entire planet, and never once abused it. He's abnormal, absolutely, but also proof it's possible.
Without the power inequities, racism isn't an issue (most) people care much about....case and point, people don't care that many blacks are racist against whites because they can't do much damage to whites based on disgusting racist morals, (at least not on an institutional level)...so much that many claim it's impossible, that non whites can't be racist because they don't hold power, but that's the exact misuse of the term I'm talking about.
I don't disagree power imbalances matter, I don't disagree those imbalances are used by racists as weapons, and are how institutional racism is born. Imo, it's a bit like saying guns=murder. Guns are often the tools of murderers, so they're related, but aren't the same thing. I know it's nit picking, but how can we have a productive discussion on an important topic if we can't agree what words mean?

Systemic racism is different from the blanket term "racism". Had they used that term, I likely would have agreed with them.

You really like the sound of your own voice, don't you?

1) You cherry picked and then exaggerated my statements.

2) You toned it down a bit, while still doing both of the above.

3) Now you're just cherry picking.

There's no point debating you if you're just going to be disingenuous about it.

Does a group of white people who are purposely excluding racial minorities seem equally, more, or less prone to racially charged violence than a multi-ethnic group?

And before you bring that black group back into the discussion, remember, odds are (at least in the US) they don't have the range of options the whites do. Most of the time, a group of 50 or more black people forms with no other racial groups present because they're pushed into less desirable areas and excluded from the wealthier side of society. I agree that it's possible that group could be prone to violence, but I'd argue that their reasons would stem more from social inequality, rather than racism. You can't make that same argument for the white group.

It makes perfect sense when you line it up with all the other issues like god, guns, gays, civil rights and so on. Notice these are all things that have little to do with the economy or massive income inequality, the rich keep the masses distracted with shiny objects and things they don't care about while they continue to take over everything.