605
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by ininewcrow@lemmy.ca to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

Everytime I look at small problems or big global problems, if you follow the money trail, it all leads to some billionaire who is either working towards increasing their wealth or protecting their wealth from decreasing.

Everything from politics, climate change, workers rights, democratic government, technology, land rights, human rights can all be rendered down to people fighting another group of people who defend the rights of a billionaire to keep their wealth or to expand their control.

If humanity got rid of or outlawed the notion of any one individual owning far too much money than they could ever possibly spend in a lifetime, we could free up so much wealth and energy to do other things like save ourselves from climate change.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] alilbee@lemmy.world 108 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm not sure that I agree. While I would support something like outlawing billionaires or at the very least, a tax bracket that claws back significant chunks of what they are draining from society, there are vast nuances to these issues beyond "the billionaires want it that way." When you say "everything from ... can all be rendered down", I think it's pretty important to recognize how much detail and nuance is lost in that rendering down.

Billionaires and the accumulation of wealth are just stand ins for the accumulation of power in a capitalistic society. When power is removed, it creates a vacuum. Who fills it? In the ideal, I know most of us would say "the people" but this is an insanely complex balancing beam to maintain without some group of assholes finding a new, non-capital way to extract and centralize that power.

None of this is to say that eliminating the notion of a billionaire is a bad idea. I'm with you all that the very idea of a billionaire is heinous and impossible without vast exploitation. I just do not think that issue being solved would be even close to some panacea for all of the world's problems. There would just be twists in the existing problems and fun new ones.

[-] Jochem@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

Exactly. Don't hate the players, hate the game. We are too focused on finding a scape goat to see the inherit system is the problem.

[-] alilbee@lemmy.world 39 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Hate both, where it's appropriate. Some of these players perpetuate the game that we all hate. Elon Musk is a player who has become part of the structure of the game, fighting regulations and damaging democracy for the sake of his own capitalistic endeavors. Someone mentioned below that Dolly Parton could be a billionaire. Not gonna hate on Dolly Parton who I assume did not come by her wealth through being an asshole, but more just being successful and our current "game" rewarding her with more than she would have in a better society. I would tax the absolute fuck out of her though.

[-] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

you know what, give each one the chance for a nice life. dolly wants a recording studio and school and whatever at her ranch? wants to run a theme park? cool, I can't imagine her community saying no.

fuckerberg wants to run a cringe mma gym under his apartment?maybe contribute a few lines to vlc or something every year (with extra review)? sure. no more than anyone should have.

shitty Jeff wants to be an aging beach himbo, maybe help people train at an outdoor gym? be my guest.

but they won't. not until you already have a gun in their mouths, and at that point, its less effort to just kill them.

[-] alilbee@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

We're looking at two extreme ends of the pole here. Zuck, Bezos, Musk are the shittiest public billionaires. There are also more secretive ones who are arguably even more destructive. These people have absolutely justified their own downfall, if it ever comes to pass. On the other side, Dolly doesn't even technically count on this list because she has given enough away to not be a billionaire. Those are the easy cases where almost every reasonable person agrees on the "right" thing to do.

Now, we have to remember that there are people who exist at every little increment along that scale of giving back to general shittiness for the global population. Focusing on the billionaires themselves and their lifestyles or whatever is not the answer. We need to focus on making effective tax brackets, effective regulations on the avenues billionaires generally target for power (political institutions, media companies, etc), and effective spending of the increased income from those new taxes to help raise the lower class to a more equitable position. That's a socdem perspective though, because I do not foresee capitalism collapsing in my lifetime and I like to be pragmatic.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I don't agree with that argument.

You're right from the point of view that removing those with immense power from their billionaire wealth will be replaced by someone or another group. It's our natural human condition to always want to be in control and there will always be those among us that will want more power and more control than others.

Removing the ability of any one person accumulating enormous amounts of wealth just levels the playing field. If those with a higher need to want more power don't have the ability to control an entire sector, an entire region, an entire community or even an entire nation than others will have the ability to challenge them and regulate their power and control.

As it is now, when we allow individuals to gain enormous amounts of power, no one has the ability to challenge them. When those with enormous power decide to affect governments, industries, society or finance, there is very little any one can do to challenge them. Sure we can band together and take billionaires to court ... but it comes down to how much money you have ... the ability to challenge power means you need money and whoever has the most money has the most power. It isn't a justice system that treats everyone fairly, it's a legal system that favors those with the most money.

Outlawing billionaires won't create a utopia, it won't remove our conflicts we have with each other. What it would do is level the playing field and distribute power among many other people who would all challenge one another as to what they can or can't do. It would create a more democratic system where power would be spread to more people.

Once we create that distribution of power, we could then spend our energies solving the problems we have with each other and our world, rather than in spending all our time trying to defend finances.

As it is now, democratic power is impossible because power is only centered on those who have the most money.

[-] alilbee@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

My argument would be that by eliminating the means of wealth being an avenue to power, it will merely shift to the government that is enforcing those rules. Those same shitty people will infiltrate that government and use it to inflate themselves while oppressing others. There was no utopian society prior to capitalism and fiat currency, and there won't be one after.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that this is an impossible problem to solve. I just do not think eliminating the notion of a billionaire is the cure for all of your listed ills. I agree with you that it would absolutely have impacts on all of them, but we would still wake up to world hunger, climate change, etc.

Each of your listed issues is a complex, multi-faceted problem. We cannot boil down that nuance just so we can point to our favorite enemy, deserving as they might be. Fight them too, but don't lose sight of the bigger picture.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] blazera@lemmy.world 43 points 6 months ago

Somethin to remember, money is very important to how our current society functions, it gives a lot of power to those that have a lot of it, but it itself isnt something anyone needs. Say, you get rid of all the billionairess and redistribute all of those funds so that everyone is well above the poverty line now. All of these folks that have a lot more money now want to use that money. They've been putting off medical care so they try to setup an appointment. Getting rid of all the billionaires didnt create more doctors though. They can only tend to so many people regardless of ability to pay. Say, folks want to eat out and treat themselves. Certainly more people than before will be able to, but not everyone, kitchens and staff can only output so many meals, again regardless of ability to pay. And that's overlooking how many people no longer work there, that hated it there and only tolerated for the funds to survive.

Basically money does not actually create any resources or services, redistributing the money doesnt mean you have enough resources to cover what that money could buy. That's the main goal here, having resources for everyone. Capitalism sucks and getting rid of billionaires is important, but dont get complacent with that underlying mission. We need to be working on providing needs to people in a way that doesnt require money. It involves a lot of volunteer work and a lot of automation.

[-] Lemming421@lemmy.world 34 points 6 months ago

Counterpoint - if people don’t need to take crappy jobs just to afford food and shelter, those jobs will have to provide better pay and conditions to get employees.

Also, if more people can afford to get further education, you’ll get more doctors and engineers and high skilled workers, because they’ll be able to do the training instead of getting several minimum wage jobs just to support their families.

I’ve said it before - any society that can afford billionaires can afford to feed, clothe, shelter and provide basic medical care to all is members, it’s just choosing not to.

[-] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 24 points 6 months ago

I'd freaking love to work as a waitress. It was my dream job as a kid and when I tried it here and there I enjoyed it a lot. But the pay is shit and the social status, being looked down on, as someone stupid or lower... Man, I'd love to be a part time waitress. But until socialism hits and a part time waiting job would be sufficient to feed half a family I'll stick with the biomedical industry and PhD program.

It always makes me so sad to think about how children talk about those "shit jobs". You won't find a kid who wants to become a financial advisor or a tax attorney. Most kids want to build homes, cook, wait, clean, work with animals, drive trains, drive trucks, ... Jesus how many kids I see who are freaking fascinated by garbage trucks and want nothing more than to work as garbage men. And then they grow up and society indoctrinates them into thinking these are bad jobs for lower people, and reality shows you that you can't make a living off these jobs, so better do something you cannot even pronounce.

[-] FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago

When i was a kid my neighbour was a waiter and he raised 3 kids with his wife. Not an easy Life but they did it. Now a waiter has to choose between a place to live or food to eat

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This is the circular argument I often have with my friends about wealth and it all boils down to just power.

When billionaires lay claim to enormous amounts of money, it gives them an equal amount of enormous power.

Have that wealth redistributed to millions of people and that wealth no longer matters and no one person has any great level of power.

It's our own belief that we need or see that it is necessary to have individuals with enormous wealth that is the problem. The belief that our world can only exist if there is infinite wealth.

The other side of the argument is that the change of eliminating billionaires won't happen overnight. I wish I could pull a switch right now that could drain the bank accounts of billionaires and instantly transfer that wealth to millions of people but it won't work that way, ever.

I envision a gradual change ... where billionaires are just steadily taxed into non existence, where their wealth is just slowly absorbed into public services everywhere and at the same time any individual that accumulates enormous wealth is discouraged. It would be a process that would last decades or lifetimes and eventually to a point where individual excessive wealth is eliminated.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 8 points 6 months ago

The other side of the argument is that the change of eliminating billionaires won't happen overnight. I wish I could pull a switch right now that could drain the bank accounts of billionaires and instantly transfer that wealth to millions of people but it won't work that way, ever.

Why not? "We" designed, built, and used such a switch before. It's #7 in this diagram:

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago

While that's correct in the short term we know it's possible in terms of resources to feed everyone as we produce more food than we need. Likewise plenty of states have socialised medicine and aren't running out of doctors. All of these problems can be solved in time, especially after eliminating useless jobs created by capitalism.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

In the US we used to have a very high tax rate for those who were extremely wealthy, Distributing the excess back to the government/citizenry. We need the return back to that.

The citizenry need to ask for that, as well as for ranked-choice voting.

[-] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

but the post is right, billionaires got the law changed to benefit themselves...

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] sudo42@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The thing keeping us from eliminating the billionaires isn’t the billionaires. It’s the ~40% of society that are convinced we have to have billionaires to survive. Those people always come up with unending lists of reasons why we just can’t survive without people of unimaginable wealth and power.

It’s not the billionaires. It’s the enablers.

[-] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The thing keeping us from eliminating the billionaires isn’t the billionaires. It’s the ~40% of society that are convinced we have to have billionaires to survive.

I call this set the "idiot army", the activated dunces. It's propaganda, this 40% is not inherently bad people, it's guillible, low-education, low-information people that have been activated by malicious propaganda to promote the interests of the billionaire class.

The solution lies not in eliminating or dominating this group, it lies in de-activating them. The typical person in this group, if not being actively directed is too busy in their own world to destroy society.

The first step towards any sort of revolution (violent or not) or real change our world needs has to start by destroying all for-profit news. As long as for-profit news controlled by the billionaires exists, the idiot army cannot be deactivated, and any acts of heroism will be called acts of terrorism.

Edit: But how to destroy the news? Law, as long as we exist in a state, use the available tools. Focus on ranked choice voting, increasing voter turnout, and running for office to collaborate with others to make laws that prevent the news from being so toxic and so profitable. What kinds of laws? Just throwing out ideas

  • Change the First amendment (bill of rights) so that it applies only to individuals. A news business or organization does not have the right to free speech or press.

    • Make the news unprofitable and risky for a business
    • This would probably have a ton of other beneficial effects as businesses could then lose the right to lie
  • Any company that produces news content may not operate in another other industries, and may have no executives or board members currently in any other company or married or have children in other companies.

    • Make it difficult for the bad people to be in charge of the news
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 8 points 6 months ago

Great point and one I often circle back eventually when I have these discussions with my friends.

I'm starting to think that it is another one of ingrained human traits .... we always want a world with protectors, leaders, figure heads ... it's like being children and wanting to be comforted by a parent, a mother or father.

Except it's a twisted kind of need that we outgrew a long time ago because we are all becoming very capable, knowledgable and intelligent enough to exist on our own. Modern technology, the internet and mass communication is making us more aware of the world and each other and we are realizing that we don't need figureheads any more.

We're all made to think that we don't, won't or can't possibly think like this. We're made to believe that the world and humanity is one big dumb mob that would crumble without a leader.

I believe the opposite is true .... it's our supposed leaders, figureheads, strong men and billionaires that have all the incentive to keep the world as it is because it would mean they would lose most of their power and wealth .... and with it their positions as leaders and figureheads.

The Emperors are strutting about the world completely naked ... and we have to keep up the pretense that they are wearing the most beautiful fashions imaginable.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 30 points 6 months ago

Wealth is just one means of power. Destroying all billionaires, while a good step, would not even come close to solving almost every problem in the world.

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 8 points 6 months ago

Right now billionaires are a huge bottleneck to global development and those people who actually want to do something about our worlds problems. Getting rid of them won't solve our world's problems ... it will just make our problems easier to solve. Leaving them alone means our problems persist while they actively block everyone else from dealing with the world's problems.

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

That doesn't even come close to meaning we shouldn't do it.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Didn't say we shouldn't. Explicitly said it was a good step.

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

my apologies, I completely read past that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DivineDev@kbin.run 27 points 6 months ago

Here's a good visualization of the wealth the richest people on earth command vs pretty much everyone else: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

[-] vodkasolution@feddit.it 13 points 6 months ago

Hey thanks. That is IMPRESSIVE and deserves a post of its own, please do it

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

I stopped when it got to the trillion comparison. Surely I can find a better use out of the next two weeks of my life.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

Nuh-uh. Even if billionaires are banned I still wouldn't have a girlfriend.

[-] fossphi@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

You know what, if they ban billionaires, Imma be your girlfriend

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 16 points 6 months ago

It sounds like you want less Billionaires in the world! Be the change you want to see!

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

This is exactly why I'm not a billionaire

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] zcd@lemmy.ca 15 points 6 months ago

Poverty and starvation still exist because of billionaires

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 months ago

“Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.”

[-] Kirth@sh.itjust.works 13 points 6 months ago

More is never enough for those people.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] antidote101@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Almost every billionaire in the world would immediately target any country that tried this for absolute and total destruction.

Sanctions on day one, exposure of phoney corruption scandal on day two, false flag invasion of another country on day three, deposed leader on day four, and splitting up of territorial sovereignty on day five.

Okay, perhaps not that quickly, but you get my drift. I mean, people like Peter Thiel have used people like Jordan Peterson, along with his own connections to white supremacists, and million dollar contributions to Donald Trump to ruin America in the span of a decade... And that's just one billionaire applying some loose change because he's a weird self-hating gay racist monarchist. Imagine what a bunch of billionaires really trying to destroy a country could do.

[-] sudo42@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

There’s the “joke” about the king/billionaire being asked, “Aren’t you worried about people rising up against you?” He replied, “No, I’ll just pay other people to kill them.”

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

As a German, I sincerely apologize for allowing our next mini-Hitler to emigrate to Silicon Valley.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] _star_fire@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

The problem with your idea is that it's not just about the amount of money, but the fact that some people will find ways to have more money, more power. As soon as you draw this line, you'll have an new level of the richest people.

So in order to really make a difference you would need to spread wealth evenly and no one would be able to earn more than that. And the same goes for losing money of course. This way people will not have the incentives anymore, but i think this will eventually move to a new commodity , because it is just in our nature.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dotslashme@infosec.pub 9 points 6 months ago

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I do think a ban on resource hoarding would also require an overhaul of the capitalist system. Hoarding resources is exactly the point of our current system and banning it would most likely have hard to predict consequences.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Fuckin, extremely doubt it, this strikes me as an extreme oversimplification. You'd get tons of abuse from governments still, just as we did pre-huge amounts of disproportionate wealth, you'd still get tons of slightly poorer but still pretty rich people banding together in interest groups to get their shit passed which would probably also include like, suburban moms in SUVs that were created from white flight.

More than any of that, you wouldn't be solving the core human behavior, of picking short term gains as a strategy to scale up quicker and with more force, to crush or more easily control your opposition, than any strategy which remains morally better, mutually beneficial, and promises better long term gains. It's not just like, stupidity and dumb luck, that causes/has caused the structure of society to turn out like this. Outlawing billionaires just means that they'd take the financial system and cause hyperdeflation, or that they'd pivot to exercising more forms of soft power. More than that I kind of disagree with this extremely common messaging around this issue because I think it oversimplifies things to the point of basically being wrong, even though it's highly agreeable at first and second glance.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] 1984@lemmy.today 7 points 6 months ago

I think billionaries are a symptom, not a cause, of the disease.

Some people are born in positions where they already have massive wealth and they grow up with connections to make it larger and larger. So that's what they do.

But the real issue is the system that keeps everyone in debt for life. Many would like to stop working and enjoy their lives instead. They don't need much. Just don't want to work and get by with decent living standard.

[-] lolpostslol@kbin.social 7 points 6 months ago

Yeah OP needs to spend more time with poor people. People are no better than billionaires on average, billionaires just get all the media attention.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
605 points (89.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

29522 readers
1263 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS