• hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well, I don’t know about your but I’d prefer a system where it wouldn’t be possible for a single person to amass that many resources in the first place

      • ameancow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Worker co-ops, social safety nets, guaranteed income and a robust, free universal healthcare option are all things we could do RIGHT NOW without hurting our precious capitalist empire at all. In the long run some businesses like the Healthcare companies will suffer and have to downsize, but it’s always been absolutely astonishing to me that a company like Tesla, IBM, Boeing, Walmart or other mega-companies close plants or stores and send tens of thousands of people into joblessness and poverty nobody bats an eye.

        The moment we talk about actions that might impact the insurance empires suddenly we have to all worry about the workers and all the businesses that are connected to the insurance company and so on.

        • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Worker co-ops, social safety nets, guaranteed income and a robust, free universal healthcare option are all things we could do RIGHT NOW without hurting our precious capitalist empire at all.

          Let’s talk about just one of these, “guaranteed income”. What annual amount do you think we as a country can afford to give everyone in the US?

          Edit: The fact that I have negative points for asking a simple question is a textbook example of ideologues’ hostility to even the slightest bit of what one would strain to even call ‘dissent’. Pitiful.

          • Zacryon@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            The fact that I have negative points for asking a simple question is a textbook example of ideologues’ hostility to even the slightest bit of what one would strain to even call ‘dissent’. Pitiful.

            I’m going to take the rage bait on this one, in hopes that you’re not trolling:

            No. It’s stuff like this, which makes several of your comments here earning downvotes.

            If it were “a simple question” you wouldn’t whine about getting downvotes. The fact, that you care about votes here and in this context at all is a sign of your “ideologues’ hostility” towards contrary opinions. If it were “a simpue question” you wouldn’t be so condescending to call downvotes “ideologues’ hostility” or “pitiful”.

            Your “simple question” can still be suggestive and carry a message which clearly show that your intentions are not to neutrally ask a question but to challenge the readers and the common opinion found among them. Given this context, such questions can even seem ridiculuous to ask at all, as the amount of wealth accumulated by wealthy people is insane. (See for example this one of many illustrations: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ ) In other words: your question seems a bit like rage bait.
            Combined with your other comments here, a clear picture cristallises about your opinion on this topic, which further hardens, that it’s not just “a simple question”.

            It’s totally fine for me and probably a lot of other users here if you’ve got a different opinion. If people disagree with you or don’t like it, you get downvotes. That’s the way of Lemmy. Heck, I’ll probably earn a downvote from you. Do I care? No. Not really. Of course it would be nice if we could agree. But I accept that you probably won’t like what I’ve written here and that you’re giving me a downvote for that. It’s an expression of your opinion. And that’s ok.

            If you were about to get banned for your “simple question”, or your question got removed, then we could talk again about hostility. Until then it’s political discourse. Isn’t democracy beautiful? ;)

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I don’t mind billionaires existing, but I absolutely mind them getting special treatment and getting away with crimes.

    edit: if you’re mad about this comment, I have to think you’re just jealous of the rich assholes. If billionaires paid their fair share of taxes and were prosecuted for crimes, the world would be objectively a better place. Instead, I guess for some that’s not enough, it’s a fully socialist world or NOTHING.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I never said fuck-all about what should exist. I said “I don’t mind [with an important caveat]”. Indicating that I’d prefer a step toward equality than a less realistic absolutist approach to it

        • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          There can be no billionaires without inequality. If you’re ok with billionaires existing, you’re ok with inequality.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Right. Absolutism is the only way.

            Humanity will destroy itself because of this mind virus. All or nothing. Destroys lives at every level and it will lead to our extinction. But go ahead and embrace it. Because you’re RIGHT, after all.

            • Allero@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              A genuine attempt at civil discussion:

              What you’re pointed at is that, unless the world’s GDP suddenly skyrockets millions of percents, we can’t make everyone a billionaire.

              And if only select few can be billionaires, this is inequality.

              Thereby, what is suggested is to redistribute money more evenly so that non-billionaires (i.e. pretty much everyone) could enjoy a better life, as opposed to few people buying their second golden toilet for the sake of it.

              • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                I’m not sure I follow. Thanks for seemingly being non-reactionary though.

                If I could wave a magic wand, I’d first come up with some new form of socialism where maybe not everyone is 100% equal, but where literally everyone would get to live a fully comfortable life without fear of death or suffering. They’d get to take extended vacations and have fully paid healthcare. No starvation and no being limited to the shittiest food available. Maybe some people could have more than that, if they accomplished something to justify it.

                Since I don’t have that magic wand, I’d just settle for billionaires paying equal percentages of taxes and being jailed when they break the law.

                Apparently, suggesting the latter, for a lot of these commenters, means that I am a huge capitalist who loves inequality. Because I couldn’t possibly recognize that capitalism is both a huge piece of shit in practice but also does provide motivation to workers.

                • Zacryon@lemmy.wtf
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  that capitalism […] does provide motivation to workers

                  I wonder how all of those people in other civilisations survived which didn’t had a capitalistic system.

                  In other words: I hope you’re aware that capitalism is not the only way to motivate people to do stuff. As if people weren’t interested in ensuring their survival or even progress.

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Why the fuck is Gritty a member of Crowder’s mug club? Fucking cancelled.

    (If you’re not going to fully Photoshop that fascist out of the meme, use the Calvin & Hobbes version)

  • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Wealth is not zero sum. Me having money does not mean I’m taking money from you, or the other way around