• 1 Post
  • 334 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle
  • I’m not debating magnitudes dude. The question is should a functioning society allow for someone to accumulate 12 billion USD in networth? Now answer that same question for 1 billion? Now again for 500 million? Now again for 100 million? Now again for 50 million?

    The answer is no. Plain and simple. I don’t care that I’m closer to 100 million than 100 million is to 12 billion, to simplify your point. Idgaf. The reality is neither 100 million nor 12 billion should be allowed. So why are you not advocating for a lower boundary value? You’re saying it’s because we need the 100 millionaires to make this work. I’m saying no we don’t. I’m saying we can get more support from people if we pick a value that actually makes sense. Letting anyone own a 100 million dollars is still letting someone play king to an unbelievably large group of people. That shouldn’t be allowed.


  • Look it, you can defend them as much as you like, I’m not here to debate the granularity about which hundred millionaire is less awful for remaining a hundred millionaire or judging them individually based on their human woes and vices.

    I’m here to say the largest tent pole and the simplest message is constructed by being honest and effective. The honest and effective truth is when someone gets more than some tens of millions, let’s say 20 or 50 if you’re worried about the millionaires, they become a danger to society and to their communities. Any number of billion is so far removed from reality that I don’t think it will actually interest most people. If I had heard that just 6 months ago I would have chalked it up to just another fake effort that won’t change anything. And even if now I see the value of putting aside these nitpicking differences when it comes to the movements overall health, I still feel obligated to say dream bigger.

    We don’t need hundred millionaires, we need neighborhoods and family and unions and community and if we have to guns.


  • I don’t think appealing to the worst people in the world will ever work, hence why I recommend lowering it to a good value and not a possibly feasible but less meaningful number.

    I agree my suggestions are not based on data, and ideally they would be, but the goal is that no one accumulates enough wealth to influence whole cities let alone countries. 1B is still too much.

    I think change will only come when the vast majority of people want it, and what motivates the vast majority of people is not a slightly better value but an actually good number.





  • I’m not saying this would be a bad thing, just that this isn’t “more than most people could imagine” kind of wealth. Maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetimes… but imagine?

    Ask any 10-year-old what they’d do with $1M and somewhere between their personal butler, building a rocket ship and bringing dinosaurs back you will find the limits of human imagination quickly outpace the confines of $1M.

    ^ The person I responded to said “maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetime.” And then referenced $1M. I was simply anchoring to their value colloquially like you would in casual conversation.

    I’m not trying to come off as defensive, I apologize. I responded to a comment that felt like it laser focused on one sentence within the article, only to be responded to by you with again what felt like a laser focused comment about one sentence. You weren’t like “by the way, the median lifetime earnings of an American is badadadada. [Insert your thoughts on my comment], but I just wanted to correct your quoted value.” Which would have made your comment’s point more clear to me, you just dropped a random correction that wasn’t super relevant to the point I was trying to make or even the point of this thread.

    I praised you for correcting that value in the thing you responded to.

    … although to your credit at least this is something worth correcting. It’s good to recalibrate statistics, “US people make more than a million dollars over their lifetime”.

    Again, I apologize for coming off as defensive that was not my intention. I appreciate the calibration of casual figures, that’s good for everyone (and something I particularly appreciate).






  • If you take all the wealth in an area and split it evenly among that populace there is no “upwards” - everyone is equal in terms of wealth. Money funnels “upward” because of wealth disparity, if someone owns more wealth than the average person than on average some of the average person’s money goes to that wealthier person in the form of rent or interest on debt or profits from the factory or what have you.

    If all wealth was distributed this way it would look like everyone owning their own home and a portion of their place of work and their car, etc etc. I’m not saying money wouldn’t pool again over time, or that a new upwards wouldn’t be established, but I don’t think you phrased it fairly. The way you said it felt to me like an assumed hierarchy of better people and worse people - when in reality it’s just wealthy people and not wealthy people.



  • The technical alpha slapped and I’m fuckin dying to get back in. I was really hoping for them to open up a beta but now I’m just sad I have to wait till October to play this.

    I understand the delay to get things right, but there’s almost half a year where no game is satisfying this itch which is a shame. Marathon hasn’t been delayed yet and I know Hell Let Loose guys are making an extraction shooter that looks sick as hell that’s due to release this year as well.

    All I’m saying is I would have paid €40 for that alpha it was so good, October will be a slam dunk, but the genre will be more crowded by that time.






  • Paying rent is “the significant tax” you’re talking about except because landlords don’t care about their properties past maintaining the investment value (which rarely correlates with actual maintenance or actual value) housing isn’t improved and at times is barely up kept.

    In a society where every building was owned by the people living or working inside it, yes there would be a small buffer not currently being used and yes that would likely have to be publicly managed. That would neither be difficult or expensive from a government perspective and it assuredly would be far cheaper to society as a whole than rent is.

    This isn’t even considering that my rent goes to some rich asshole instead of a government employee maintaining my community as a 9-5. I’d much rather create a new well paying job per 1000 homes than buy the rich another vacation or yacht.