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

  • ComradePenguin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 hours 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

  • Pyr@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    In my opinion if anyone has billions of dollars and hasn’t given a majority of it away to charity or those in need, that person is on some level at least somewhat an evil person.

    Sure, much of it would be tied up in stocks and stuff that legally can’t be sold for specific purposes or timeframes, but if you have net worth in the billions and any stocks that could be sold for cash and then donated it should be. Or if you have an annual income that’s much more than you need to live an extremely comfortable life and then you just spend and invest the excess instead of donate.

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day 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.

  • 4grams@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    There is no such thing as a good billionaire. There are billionaires who might be temporarily aligned with you but make no mistake, none of them will love you back…

  • paultimate14@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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.

  • Cooper8@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Offer him the option to transition Valve to a workers cooperative. Boom, he would no longer be a billionaire.

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    If it were to be a revolution he would be given the chance. Just be a director of valve for a normal director salary. If he take it then he would be just another worker.