Am I just deceived? I think I might love him?

  • LuigiMaoFrance@lemmy.ml
    153·
    23 days ago

    He’s just another fat dragon who got rich exploiting people through ownership of capital.
    Then he got children hooked on gambling because one billion wasn’t enough.

    He deserves to be locked up like the rest of them.

    • halvar@lemy.lol
      1·
      23 days ago

      since he would have gotten rich again by the right people attracting wealth obviously

  • kepix@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    22 days ago

    since the game news shelf ui update he really does deserve to be eaten

  • TheJesusaurus@piefed.caEnglish
    71·
    24 days ago

    There’s a real easy way for him to not be eaten. Make sure he has no more than $999, 999,999 in his pocket when we get there

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    23 days ago

    A billionaire who gives away 99% of their wealth to the poorest, first and exclusively, isn’t a billionaire, and still has enough money (maybe more!) for the rest of time.

  • sircac@lemmy.world
    5·
    23 days ago

    Just universal wealth redistribution, there is no way a human may ever deserve to accumulate so many resources…

  • paultimate14@lemmy.world
    111·
    23 days ago

    “Billionaire” is a convenient modern buzzword. It used to be “millionaire”. The classic joke from Austin Powers where Dr. Evil demands money is a good example. It’s just inflation.

    Plus, a lot of “billionaires” are only considers such because they own shares in their corporations. It’s a “theoretically if they could find a way to sell all of those shares at the current price without tanking the market value of those shares in the process, they could get $X billion from that”.

    If there were a theoretical global revolution, on of the the first steps of eating the rich is to seize and nationalize those businesses. Later, land reform will seize the extra mansions they own. They will still be left with adequate personal property to live quite comfortably. Finally, the justice system will need to evaluate what labor laws (or other laws) they may have been violating for years and using their wealth to get away with.

    Start with the biggest fish and watch as the rest start to downsize voluntarily and cut deals to avoid jail.

    I don’t expect to see any of this in my lifetime. Not in any major country, and certainly not globally.

  • ComradePenguin@lemmy.ml
    11·
    22 days ago

    This is really simple. If you have more than a 1000 million dollars. Every day you decide to keep it instead of saving lives and helping people. It will never be moral

  • Vetis@sh.itjust.works
    83·
    23 days ago

    There is a finite amount of money in this world. For one person to have more means others have less. There is no going around that simple fact.

    • leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      2·
      22 days ago

      There is a finite amount of money in this world.

      Not really… that’s kind of the whole point of fiat currencies, you can always mint more.

      Most billionaires don’t even have any money. At that level they don’t need it. They don’t pay for things. They just get loans they’ll never pay back, with older loans as collateral.

      The problem with billionaires isn’t money (though billionaires are one of the main problems with money). The problem with billionaires is that their fiat, virtual, wealth gives them an unfair amount of influence over everyone else’s lives, and that they alone get to enjoy a living standard (being able to get all your necessities and live a fulfilling life essentially for free) that should (and could, with an adequate distribution of resources) be available to everyone.

      • Vetis@sh.itjust.works
        11·
        22 days ago

        Let’s say there are 100 tables in the world. If one person has 50 tables then it means everyone else has less. If mister tables aquires an additional table, can we agree it is coming from someone else ? Someone poorer. Even if the governement can make a new table to replace it, the fact that mr table is sucking up all tables on the market is still a problem for every one else.

        You say they don’t have money, but if they live well, buy everything they want and influence the world as they see fit, I feel it’s disingenuous to say they don’t actually have money. They’re certainly sucking up your tables.

        I’m going on a tangeant here, but it’s exactly why you don’t want your government to be cash positive. A government in the green is taking that money from someplace. A government in the red is actually helping everyone else not drown. It’s all a matter of where that money is going. That explains why the vast majority of countries run in the red. A government paying it’s own debt is the same as deleting money from the economy.

        I do agree with your general sentiment though.