this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
100 points (98.1% liked)

Asklemmy

45564 readers
847 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

No billionaires

[–] Juice@midwest.social 4 points 5 days ago

They can't. Its not a matter of personal greed, its just how capitalism works, it creates immense wealth for a few on one end and mass immiseration for the masses on the other. Billionaires exist because of the system that creates them.

[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If only they could be more like Chuck Feeney.

In February 2011, Feeney became a signatory to The Giving Pledge. In his letter to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the founders of The Giving Pledge, Feeney wrote, "I cannot think of a more personally rewarding and appropriate use of wealth than to give while one is living—to personally devote oneself to meaningful efforts to improve the human condition. More importantly, today's needs are so great and varied that intelligent philanthropic support and positive interventions can have greater value and impact today than if they are delayed when the needs are greater." He gave away a final $7 million in late 2016, to the same recipient of his first charitable donations, Cornell University. Over the course of his life, he gave away more than $8 billion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

"Hahaha what a nerd. "

-- Gates & Buffet, from Epstein Island, probably

[–] JOMusic@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

We'd have the flying cars we were fucking promised by the movies we grew up with.

[–] ImmortanStalin@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago

More like China?

[–] markvandijk@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

War. Literally war. And not about the money, but about who has the most power.

[–] vegafjord@freeradical.zone 1 points 6 days ago

@return2ozma Let's say I'm a billionaire and I want to help the world.

Firstly declare that I have hoarded too much, and that it is about time to change from leadership to collective guidership.

The surplus values should not be hoarded with me, but shared among the workers.

There would be several focus forward, such as how to move towards moneyless and needs based economy.

I would use the framework of the oakframe to guide forward, and the machineframe to avoid pitfalls.

[–] dx1@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Contradiction in terms

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 103 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You wouldn't see any billionaires.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 11 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I don't think I've ever seen a billionaire IRL.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 week ago

The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Me neither. I have only personally known Millionaires. Both multimillionaires that I know fly totally under the radar by being completely humble, non flashy people.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If we're counting property values, millionaires are a dime a dozen in some areas.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

No I was counting as non property wealth, but as multimillionaire of world wide company. To meet the guy on the steet in a 90s Honda, you would never guess his wealth.

[–] MadBabs@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

The do this on purpose. Chelsea Fagan from The Financial Diet had a great video about this

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MTK@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago

Paradoxical question, if they truly helped they would never be billionaires.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Generally, everything would just be plain better as their dragon hoards are actually spent, and they dont hoard GDP from the rest of us. But you'd probably see a public service boom wherever they invested, and you'd likely see a lot less people struggling with anything from bills to food to even entertainment.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This is an interesting conundrum, actually. The big question at its core being:

Can you ever do enough good through philanthropy, so that it offsets the damage you had to do, in order to become a billionaire? Can even all the billionaires in the world do enough good with their money, to offset the damage done by a system, that allowed for them to become billionaires?

I, personally, don't think it is possible.

To give an actual answer: I think, the world would definitely be better, but unless those billionaires collectively used all the power their money provides, to do away with money and the possibility of billionaires altogether, I don't think it would amount to all that much.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Deep beneath a private island in the Pacific, in a hidden chamber lined with gold-leafed bookshelves and quantum supercomputers, the most powerful men on Earth gathered in secret.

Donald Trump adjusted his crimson tie and sighed. “It’s not working, folks. We tried giving them money, and they just keep asking for less.”

Mark Zuckerberg, seated beside him, nodded solemnly. “I even launched an algorithm that boosted posts about universal basic income. What happened? People demanded more gig work instead.”

Elon Musk leaned forward, rubbing his temples. “I offered to give away Tesla stock. Instead, they asked me to cut costs and fire more workers to ‘boost productivity.’ How do you give away wealth when they refuse to take it?”

Jeff Bezos, pacing the marble floor, gestured wildly. “I raised warehouse wages! They organized a petition to lower them, saying it would ‘teach discipline.’”

Peter Thiel adjusted his monocle. No one knew why he wore one, but it added to his aura of sinister brilliance. “We tried funneling money through offshore charities. We even funded a secret movement that encouraged people to demand better living conditions. What happened? They begged for longer hours, fewer benefits, and harsher bosses.”

Larry Ellison sipped a 200-year-old scotch and sighed. “We’re trapped. Every time we try to redistribute our wealth, the system forces it back into our hands.”

A hush fell over the chamber.

The room’s quantum supercomputer beeped. A projection lit up the wall, showing an economic simulation. Every time they injected money into the lower classes, the populace—driven by an inexplicable work ethic—found ways to give it back. They called for “hard work” over “handouts,” praised billionaires as job creators, and tirelessly pursued policies that kept wages low and corporate profits high.

Trump shook his head. “I thought people loved winning. This is the worst deal in history.”

Musk sighed. “Maybe we should leave Earth entirely. Let them sort it out.”

Bezos frowned. “Mars colonization isn’t ready yet.”

Zuckerberg scrolled through his phone, a flicker of hope in his eyes. “What if we just… stopped trying?”

The billionaires exchanged glances.

Thiel steepled his fingers. “That would mean living with the guilt.”

Ellison drained his glass. “Or we could take the nuclear option.”

The room fell silent.

“The nuclear option?” Bezos asked cautiously.

Ellison leaned in, his voice barely above a whisper. “We... give them everything.”

Gasps filled the chamber.

“No stocks. No corporations. No assets. No wealth,” Ellison continued. “We drop it all into their laps and walk away. No strings attached. No economic structures left to maintain. Just pure, uncontrolled prosperity.”

Musk paled. “That’s madness. A complete system collapse.”

Trump grumbled. “But maybe… the greatest system collapse.”

The quantum supercomputer calculated. The answer flashed on the screen:

Projected Outcome: Billionaires’ wealth depleted. Poverty instantly eradicated. Within five years, 98% of former billionaires regain their fortunes due to economic demand for ‘strong leadership’ and ‘wealth redistribution toward the competent.’

Zuckerberg groaned. “Even if we burn it all down, they’ll just build it back up around us.”

Bezos sat heavily in his chair. “Then there’s only one solution.”

The others leaned in.

“We keep trying.”

Silence.

Then, one by one, the billionaires nodded.

It was their curse. Their eternal struggle. No matter how hard they tried to give it all away, the world would always find a way to make them rich again.

And so, reluctantly, they raised their glasses.

“To ending poverty,” Musk muttered.

“To losing,” Trump added.

They drank in grim silence, knowing that, once again, they were doomed to win.

[–] Hyphlosion@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Thanks to the first sentence, I read this comment in the voice of The Narrator from George of the Jungle.

Whoa, that makes it so much better. Thank you! Here's the imdb for the narrator of the '97 movie:

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0779423/

[–] Daefsdeda@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mo_lave@reddthat.com 16 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Society if billionaires actually helped the people

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

The world would be better if there were no billionaires. That would be a huge help. Nobody should be allowed to amass that much wealth. And a financial system set up to prevent such a thing would ideally also offer more of a level playing field as far as individual wealth goes.

“Billionaires” (multi-millionaires in the late 18- early 1900’s) did help back in the day - they built libraries, schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc… but they were still absolute bastards that were anti-labor, killed people to avoid paying them more or giving them a decent work week, imported, abused, and discarded labor, among many other rich-barely-controlled-asshole things they did.

[–] bountygiver@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If billionaire actually helped people it would be pretty much like government spending tax money.

Could've be much more efficient by just taxing the billionaires right away.

[–] Blaiz0r@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago

Yes, it would look a lot more like the 50s when tax was highest on the wealthy

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

"Billionaire" means "person who can direct large amounts of the means-of-production"

The left wants to tax those people and put the MoP back under democratic control.

So if they used their control the way the People would it'd looklike socialism. But that's a hypothetical because that's not their self-interest.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

The Owenites and other Utopian Socialists of old would rise from their graves, vindicated at long last for, against all odds, finally succeeding.

[–] OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

We don't have the supply to fill the demands to simply throw all billionaires money into solving every crisis. That is why wealth inequality is so vast. Dollars are a made up system. In its raw form it's just paper. Backed by the govt. Where as it used to be backed by the gold standard which is why we hoard so much gold. That is a real tangible asset.

Paper is just paper its artifical, it's only good once spent. You can have infinite money if they forever printed it. Instead we balance inflation and deflation and finite supply that is dwindling the more we clear cut and strip the earth.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We don’t have the supply to fill the demands

What makes you say that? Making food and housing and medical care for everyone isn't impossible

[–] OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

We certainly have the housing and buildings, I am doubtful we have the medical supplies and medical machines like MRI and others. Look at 2020 during covid where the medical workers did not have PPE and how the supply chain was/is still stressed. We also lack the natural resources where we can just throw money aka paper at problems and their gone forever.

The govt. Balances our money system based on supply and demand well they try like all govts. The earths resources are finite and we have consumed them at such an accelerated rate that even now we have supply chain issues on certain rare earth metals and all other natural resources. The war in Ukraine aside from Nato and russia being so close is actually over trillions of dollars worth of rare earth metals and natural resouces. Which Russia needs to revitalize their economy. Also why Trump wants to settle a deal beneficial to the US, trump doesn't care about the war he wants access to the mineral deposits.

I also think that we likely have the food supply currently, in the future not so much due to climate change. We all see the impacts daily which will continue to worsen, and eventually water will be scarce causing migration of people as the globe shifts it's weather events to different locations. We won't lack water it'll just be too uneconomical to transport it to where it's needed due to weight and our archaic fuel sources.

The food isn't the hard part right now. It's transportation of goods to locales like deep into Africa as an example so we would have to consolidate people to reach everyone most effeciently. Then we can solve the issues you speak of.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Look at 2020 during covid where the medical workers did not have PPE and how the supply chain was/is still stressed

I think these are more logistical and planning problems than fundamental lack of supply. The mask shortage was resolved by increasing production afaik. There is a large discrepancy between countries in the ratio between quality of health outcomes and expense of healthcare per person; even if it turns out to be a supply problem to get the most advanced available medicine to everyone, it is certainly possible to get the most impactful medical services to everyone.

We also lack the natural resources where we can just throw money aka paper at problems and their gone forever.

This is probably true though, spending by itself might not be enough, just I think that's more because of dysfunction than natural resources.

[–] OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago

110% it's from dysfunction that is how our current system is designed. We use so many archaic processes to do things, still rely on old very outdated infrastructure, coal power etc.

It's too inconvenient to switch to green energy because the rich live good and like the lifestyle the cost is higher for green energy but that circles back to a made up monetary system. What is cost when paper has little intrinsic value?

Just go talk to your average person not even a rich person pick a middle class person. People are not willing to make any concessions at all in their lifestyles to save others and help the collective good. Very few will even family members complain of issues but won't change how they operate and consume.

I don't think we fully lack the supply but bear in mind things are finite and we are seeing what little we have left diminish and nations are fighting over mineral deposits. That is why I said we have supply chain, logistics, transportation issues above all because those sectors allow the most efficient delivery and utilization of our resource expenditures so we net lose little as possible.

I think until we find a better source of fuel for major transportation of goods in bulk basically something revolutionary. We are kind of stuck not fully but held with one hand behind our back. The only sector I think compares to the effeciency we need are perhaps trains.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fandangalo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›