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.

  • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I think a world without money is a fantasy.

    Money is just a means of trading time, time that I put in, for time that you put in.

    Some things like being a doctor are harder than being a fast food worker, it takes years of training, and hard work. It makes sense that their time is worth more.

    There is a ceiling though where you’re not actively contributing “time” you’ve previously committed time that’s just appreciating because it’s “invested” in paying people for their time. That’s where the problems come in because you have effectively a years work of thousands of people in your pocket, which is a concentration of unchecked power.

    Taxing billionaires out of existence ensures that money is invested (in a democracy) by the voters (through their representatives) and keeps the concentration of power from distorting the politics.

    This issue isn’t billionaires, it isn’t capitalism, it’s and always has been throughout history, concentration of power. It’s past time we fixed this unforeseen loophole created by the modern world where a handful of individuals become as powerful as a country.

    When you have bosses that aren’t “gods among men”, that can’t just buy up their competition to squash it, it’s much easier to negotiate with them to pay you a fair salary. You’re not just a number. Similarly, you can get more done in politics because nobody’s got so much money that they can significantly grease palms/run a campaign by themselves/etc.

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      The “loophole” is how capitalism works. Here’s my super simple definition of capitalism. Capitalism just distributes resources based on capital. The problem is that capital is a resource that needs to get distributed. Sure a doctor and fast food worker are both being paid for their time. But not the hospital owner, not the restaurant owner. They’re being paid for their capital, they had the capital to own this business, so they own the capital it generates.

      I dont think Im really disagreeing with you though, taxing the owner class on a much more aggressive sliding scale of wealth definitely needs to happen, but we need more public sector workers for all that taxed income to be put to use for. The system is flawed and needs changing, just remember that the work still needs to be done regardless of the solution.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The definition of capitalism:

        an economic system based on private ownership of capital

        I think where I disagree is that capitalism is an untamable beast or that private ownership is bad. Private ownership at the small scale breeds competition and interoperability. At the large scale it becomes a monoculture just like a truly socialist government would be (in both cases the average person’s individual buying power and individual vote aren’t going to move the needle much).

        Putting limits on capitalism so that small and medium businesses dominate and the middle class has enough money to reasonably take chances on creating new businesses without gambling their life savings is what I want to see.

    • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      People thought the world without chattel slavery was a fantasy at one point.

      Yes we simply added more steps to it, but progress is progress

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      You make more money that harder you are to replace. In the case of the billionaires, they are theoretically hard to replace so they make a ton.

      Of course you don’t need to be a billionaire to to be wealthy. You can just be good at business and managing money.

      “Taxing them out of existence” is the craziest and dumbest idea I’ve heard in a while. You can’t just do that as it is there money that they rightfully earned. There also would be the issue of the people who have 990 million dollars. Do you want to tax them to oblivion to?

      Billionaires are not the problem

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        There is nobody that’s worth a billion dollars, that’s wealth hoarding. There is no reason our government should endorse that level of wealth hoarding. It hurts infrastructure, it hurts innovation, it hurts national security, it hurts the press, and it hurts our democracies.

        It’s the same rational for why we shouldn’t have monopolies and why we have laws against them. Concentration of wealth/power is a very bad thing.

        I genuinely do not believe you can be a good person and make a billion dollars. You have either scammed your customers, scammed your employees, or both. There should be a limit on individual wealth.