The idea that one person could generate enough benefit to mankind in a year that they have fairly earned a billion dollars is ludicrous. The existence of billionaires is self-evident proof that the system is broken. It's impossible for one person to have that through means other than denying other people their fair share.
That being the case, no one under the age of 1000 at least should ever be worth a trillion dollars.
We should dip the first one in gold and put him on display as a warning.
Yes, the problem of wealth concentration is going unaddressed and getting worse.
The few with more than they need to live large for a thousand lifetimes using their ill gotten, exploitation derived wealth to exploit more wealth while contributing no labor to the society they extract value from without any consideration, let alone any appreciation for the society that provided the conditions for their great wealth in the first place. In essence, our oligarchs are fracking human civilization, for nothing more than ego.
This is what happens when you pretend a problem isn't a problem, and is in fact our purpose in life. In a crisis, the US's first declaration is that "we must protect our beloved ~~society~~ economic system of systematic exploitation." where else would such a road lead?
humanity is a failure of a species
We are basically following the Universe 25 experiment. I am trying to figure out how to be one of the Beautiful Ones
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
The fun TLDR version https://youtu.be/5m7X-1V9nOs?si=FOhzdsJmEqJXwbup
Original research https://youtu.be/iOFveSUmh9U?si=03LU40EC5Ifp_Cpl
Someone should kill them if they do.
I personally wouldn't be upset if a few of them died even today
Surely they'll have had enough then, right?
quadrillionaire time
I would say that if nature collapsed earlier this would be stopped but these parasites will profit from that too.
Once you get to a billion you should get a free ticket to the sun
Why waste the resources sending perfectly good stew meat into the sun?
Worst case scenario, they feed the pigs.
The problem with eating the rich is all the crazy drugs they take makes their meat rancid. Zuck however is probably the tastiest due to is wagyu diet and exercise routine.
I hear lizard tastes like chicken
That man is absolutely brimming with steroids and neurotropics.
The game ends when one kid has all the marbles.
So, we should get our pitchforks and meet up soon?
I can't afford a pitchfork. I have some plastic sporks though.
I have microplastic inside me. A lot of it apparently.
OH MY GOD WHAT A COINCIDENCE? I ALSO HAVE MICROPLASTIC INSIDE OF ME AND APPARENTLY A LOT OF IT AS WELL.
By your powers combined!
Thats their take????
The numbers are as follows:
The 1% own 43% off all wealth.
The 5 richest men raised their wealth by 114% in three years.
To offset the difference in rate increase between total 1% and top 5 aswell as the total amount of wealth also increasing with innovation we will pretend this number is a stable 100% increase every 3 years while we actually expect that rate to increase exponentially.
That means in 3 years the 1% will have 86% of all wealth.
If we dont solve wealth equality before 2030 more than 99% of the world will have to share less then 1% of existing wealth. By that time i believe no economy can sustain. People will be better of growing food in their garden and trading with their neighbous.
People will be better of growing food in their garden and trading with their neighbours.
Which the gov't will then start taxing because the top 1% will not be taxed at all.
What government? And taxes using what valuta?
When we get close to the 1% owning 99% of wealth i (which we cant know if it really will happen but it can be within 5 years based on oxfams recent numbers) People will have nothing left to pay with, employers and governments besides the 10 “winner” megacorps no institution will have money to afford staff.
There might be still some form employment as part of the corpos private army which may pretend to be a government but i highly doubt people will have to worry about giving up a % of their crops more like there land and lives.
I recognize i am sketching a very pessimistic picture here. I want to note i am equal optimist and pessimist. Maybe before that time the signals will be clear enough for a global wealth tax an ubi. I see many ways for the world to become great or horrible and feel like its important to get a grasp of all possibilities, even the extreme ones. The only thing i can truly say for certain is that change is inevitable.
As a kid i was often told “no one person can change the world” but no one person can stop change from happening either.
I’m sure it will be me, with my 3% annual raises
You get annual raises?
LOL at the implication that it would ever be Musk of all people
This 21st century cancer is gonna kill the rest of us.
We shouldn't even have billionaires, let alone trillionaires. That much wealth concentrated in any one person's hands is means that somebody somewhere is getting fleeced, whether it's workers or consumers, something isn't being distributed fairly.
If you see an anomaly like this in a computer program, you generally think memory leak.
Nah fam that sounds bad
Should we tell them that Mohammed Ben Sulayem is likely already one?
Explain? I've never heard of this guy. I look him up and find a retired race car driver? Is there some weird Emirates family money I'm missing?
Ah. Ok. Similar but ever so slightly different name than what I got in search. Thank you.
Inflation will get us there faster than that.
What are the odds that any of them will go in a Carnegie direction in their later years in a cynical attempt to try and rescue their reputation? I would bet that none of them even give that many fucks...
Been going on for over a decade. Gates and Buffet have been at the forefront of the project.
The dirty truth of things is that this wealth isn't being given up. Its simply being recategorized. Rather than owning savings accounts with tens of billions of dollars, you now sit as chairman of the board that commands tens of billions in assets. When you spent money from the former, it was taxable income. But now its charitable spending. Nevermind that it pays for all the same Davos Summit accommodations and Epstein island retreats you'd planned to spend it on anyway.
The institutions you fund end up being giant PR projects (like the Carnegie, Ford, and Hoover foundations) intended to advance the board's ideology. You just get to pretend its for a good cause, and therefore exempt from any kind of taxation or significant oversight.
Everyone ready for Musk buying the Wallstreet in 2034 and causing a crash so big, that the 2008 crisis looks like a meaningless day in comparison? All for the lulz and to become part of history forever.
Why would you use Musk when Bezos, Gates, and Buffet are the more likely candidates?
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.