Not true and it omits to mention that increasing the inequality was intentional. Not as in a consequence of technology but politicians mandated that more profits and less wages would be good for the economy and implemented policies that made it so.
Here is what happened in Sweden which you can see is third in increasing the 1%'s share. Sweden has lots of companies that export stuff to the US and other places. Now they get paid in dollar which they convert to Swedish kronor.
So a Swedish company sells cars to the US and gets $100 million/year. Convert it to kronor and you get about 1 billion. Government decides to help them so they decide that Swedish currency is only worth 50% of what it used to (yes they can/could decide that). Suddenly, they the company now makes 2 billion per year.
Meanwhile, Swedish people buy TV:s and game consoles from the US. All that now cost double of what it did since their currency is worth half of what it was.
So what should the Swedes do? Demand salary increases to offset the higher prices of course. Since the (exporting) companies makes double the profits, they should be able to double the salaries. Except it wasn't so easy in the eighties to just demand that especially not when the government opposed salary increases. Salaries did rose though, but not nearly as much as they would have to keep pace with the increasing profits.
Btw, this is not a simplification at all. There is a tape of the prime minister at the time saying that "salaries are to high and that's why the krona needs to be devalued." Similar things happened in other countries too.
There is a tape of the prime minister at the time saying that "salaries are to high and that's why the krona needs to be devalued."
Yes, it happens all the time and in many countries - it's called Keynesian economics and it's the dominant paradigm of modern economics. (Namely, inflate the real value of sticky nominal wages away to make hiring people more attractive.)
I have no idea why you believe this is some conspiracy to increase inequality. It's true that recessions reduce inequality, and ending a recession will increase it. But is it maybe possible that proponents of stimulus have ending the recession as their goal and increased inequality is merely a side effect?
Here is what happened in Sweden which you can see is third in increasing the 1%'s share. Sweden has lots of companies that export stuff to the US and other places. Now they get paid in dollar which they convert to Swedish kronor.
So a Swedish company sells cars to the US and gets $100 million/year. Convert it to kronor and you get about 1 billion. Government decides to help them so they decide that Swedish currency is only worth 50% of what it used to (yes they can/could decide that). Suddenly, they the company now makes 2 billion per year.
Meanwhile, Swedish people buy TV:s and game consoles from the US. All that now cost double of what it did since their currency is worth half of what it was.
So what should the Swedes do? Demand salary increases to offset the higher prices of course. Since the (exporting) companies makes double the profits, they should be able to double the salaries. Except it wasn't so easy in the eighties to just demand that especially not when the government opposed salary increases. Salaries did rose though, but not nearly as much as they would have to keep pace with the increasing profits.
Btw, this is not a simplification at all. There is a tape of the prime minister at the time saying that "salaries are to high and that's why the krona needs to be devalued." Similar things happened in other countries too.