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.

  • daltotron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Fuckin, extremely doubt it, this strikes me as an extreme oversimplification. You’d get tons of abuse from governments still, just as we did pre-huge amounts of disproportionate wealth, you’d still get tons of slightly poorer but still pretty rich people banding together in interest groups to get their shit passed which would probably also include like, suburban moms in SUVs that were created from white flight.

    More than any of that, you wouldn’t be solving the core human behavior, of picking short term gains as a strategy to scale up quicker and with more force, to crush or more easily control your opposition, than any strategy which remains morally better, mutually beneficial, and promises better long term gains. It’s not just like, stupidity and dumb luck, that causes/has caused the structure of society to turn out like this. Outlawing billionaires just means that they’d take the financial system and cause hyperdeflation, or that they’d pivot to exercising more forms of soft power. More than that I kind of disagree with this extremely common messaging around this issue because I think it oversimplifies things to the point of basically being wrong, even though it’s highly agreeable at first and second glance.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      True and I agree with most of what you said … but I would prefer a world where power was distributed to more people than concentrated to a small group of people.

      It wouldn’t solve the world’s problems because we all seem to have a hard time existing with one another. But at the very least, it would make it far easier for us to solve our problems everywhere.

    • antidote101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s actually quite difficult to cause hyper-flation in either direction. You generally need an external destination for the money that’s outside the economy being targeted. Japan had a deflationary economy for 30 years, which was produced by falling population numbers and negative interest rates. Their quality of life didn’t drastically decline, just the international purchasing power of the yen (and even that wasn’t too bad).