Maybe this is better than 20% of the people generating 80% of the wealth?
Maybe it's better if more people own individually smaller amounts of capital? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
The article only states that the non-member one-third is nearly twice as wealthy as the co-op two-thirds
How so? First of all you (questionably) accept GDP as a measure of "wealth", secondly you miss the point that a person may be member of a coop and be engaged in other economic activity elsewhere.
