• Dmian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The only acceptable number, but not only in Europe, everywhere, is “0”.

    And if you already don’t know why: a billionaire has way too much money and power, and can influence governments in their favor, creating unsurmountable inequality and subverting the system’s rules. Billionaires are the cause why capitalism is failing (and since no one can stop them now, it will completely fail, and will drag the environment, and human survival, with it).

      • Dmian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        When I say capitalism is failing is because for it to work, it need rules (offer/demand, competition without monopolies, etc), that these billionaires have eliminated or subverted. They changed the game rules in their favor, and are now so powerful it’s impossible to stop them (non violently, I mean). I honestly think we just entered a dark era of humanity, one in which its existence is in question. And yes, I’m a pessimist, but I try to be optimistic with all my might, but everything I see or read prevents me from being optimistic.

        • occhineri@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          When I say capitalism is failing is because for it to work, it need rules

          Because it is unstable. It is much easier to disrupt the system than to balance it in a stable-like state against it’s nature. Capitalism has gotten out of hand and will collapse sooner or later. And no: I am not a pessimist

    • severien@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s quite easy to get rid of billionaires (raise taxes, they will move away), but it’s a question whether it is really beneficial for the country.

      • Dmian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Easy? Who’s going to raise taxes for them, politicians? The same politicians whose campaigns are financed by these billionaires? Whose reputation can be tainted by the media conglomerates owned by these same billionaires?

        There’s no stopping them now, and I have no idea how this is going to end. Things happen too fast now. I fear for the future.

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You sound like you’re one of the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” who doesn’t understand that he’s being defrauded.

        You’re a hooker thinking she’s actually the pimp.

        • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re basically saying, “group X shouldn’t exist because they have influence on how the world works, and I want the world to work my way.” Basically, if they had the influence they’d use it to control things in the way they want. They don’t have that influence and it pisses them off. They’re jealous.

          I’m also not naive enough to think that my life would change at all if all the billionaires were gone tomorrow. People who want billionaires to have less seem to think it will mean they will have more… which is again, jealous.

          • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, we (that includes you!) are extorted into giving wealth to people who contribute nothing to society, but criticizing this is jealousy.

            Just like slaves were just jealous of their masters, right?

            To be slightly less cynical: look up how many empty houses/apartments there are in your country and then look how many homeless people there are. Chances are, the first number is larger. And now ask yourself: is that sane?

            Or even more basic: why are we Westerners fattening, while other people are starving? Because there are some very rich people who profit from that situation.

            BTW: you’re oversimplifying the solution, to just “removing” billionaires. I assume, you’re doing that out of mental laziness, and not stupidity. That interpretation, while being very literal, is an attempt to divert the discussion, a straw man. What is meant here is, changing the economic situation in such a way, that billionaires can’t even exist. No one should be able to accumulate that much wealth, especially not if that wealth is purely extractive.

          • tetraodon@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s not the point he was raising at all.

            The world is provably (*) broken. Economically, environmentally. You name it. The system we have is unsustainable, and unsustainable means that it will be eventually unable to sustain itself and inevitably collapse. It is causing suffering to billions of humans and uncountable living beings.

            And given what we know about most billionaires’ personal lives, it takes a certain kind personality to be jealous of their miserable lives.

            What you call jealousy has nothing to do with wanting things to change. Try compassion and empathy, tinged by fear.

            (*) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

      • Dmian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not at all, you’re just projecting. And also not understanding what I’m saying or why. I know it’s useless, but find out what the New Deal was, when and why it ended, and what happened since. You won’t do it, but nobody can say I didn’t try to explain it to you. Cheers.

        • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I had a general knowledge of the New Deal, but read this as a refresher.

          https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/new-deal

          It mentions some comments FDR made about organized money, I can only assume these are the rich people you’re talking about.

          In 1936, while campaigning for a second term, FDR told a roaring crowd at Madison Square Garden that “The forces of ‘organized money’ are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

          He went on: “I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match, [and] I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces have met their master.”

          What is my take away supposed to be from The New Deal? There were some good programs, some not so good programs, and it didn’t bring us out of the depression, the war effort did that. So……?

          80+ years of history have passed since it ended, so I’m not sure what exactly you want me to look for in that time period.

          The idea that rich people exist is not new. There are rich people in the Bible, that book is old as hell, and people were bitching about them back then too. Some percentage of the population will always find a way to get rich. Oh well.

  • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    We need an EU wide 100% wealth tay for any wealth over say 15million€. I am willing to negotiate about the second number.

    • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      So anyone who gets a certain amount of money might as well close all the companies they own?

      • Kiliyukuxima@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or give them to the employees or something. Probably 15M is a too low threshold to enforce that but it would work. It would basically distribute the wealth amongst the people who produce it

      • storcholus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe not 15 million, but let’s say at 100 million you get a dog park named after you with a statue that says you won at capitalism

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Trickle down economics works like a piñata. Once you break it open with blunt force, the stuff you want starts to trickle down!

    • root_beer@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s some bookkeeping sorcery going on there, gotta be

      Also: why’s it yellow? It’s got 3, so it should be green

    • freebee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The other 2000 billionaires have their residence in Panama, their 5 parent companies in Seychelles and 10 others in Cayman Islands, which in turn own 100 subsidiary companies in Ireland and the Bahamas which in turn own 1000 subsidiary companies in the Netherlands and Delaware, which own and pay their butlers, cars, yachts and jets and on paper they themselves barely earn enough monthly themselves to afford 1 public toilet visit.

    • zcd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if we had to use a private submarine for each one it would still be worth it

    • Quokka@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Be environmentally minded please and follow the three R’s. In this case we simply reuse the same guilotine.

  • rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the better comparison would be the number of billionaires per capita. Say, per million people. Not that this isn’t a good infographic - keep the overall count. But include the per capita as a frequency-of-occurrence stat.

  • nodimetotie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Am I the only one who finds the color scheme unintuitive? (a comment more suitable for DataIsBeautiful, probably)

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s important to remember that while all billionaires are bastards, some are just evil because they take value they neither earned nor need, meanwhile others got rich off being the family whose spat between cousins was WWI and are actively working to undermine left wing and pro equality movements literally today including conspiring to push bigotry towards lgbt people to distract from the class war

    • pgp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really, we might have only one billionaire, but all the millionaires are very greedy, as well as the upper clear as a whole. Combining that greed with the sky rocketing cost of living, mainly due to digital nomads and airbnb, we’re certainly not an example. Just a collapse waiting to happen.

    • Rocha@lm.put.tf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Having almost no billionaires doesn’t mean we have any less wealth inequality than the other countries.

      We’re just poor af as a whole.