I remember a time when being a billionaire is seen as too much, and now we have a trillionaire.
Don’t worry market will regulate itself just wait a little longer. /s
It’ll trickle down. Any day now.
US need Luigi’s menthod as a guideline for the nation
Well if this administration can be believed (…I doubt it), there have been at least 3 attempts on Trump’s life in the last two years.
I know that I can’t take no more
It ain’t no lie
I wanna see you out that door
Baby, Tri, Bi, bye (Bye, bye)Billionnaires too. They’re not off the hook.
86 the trillionaire(s)
Doesn’t deserve to exist. Will burn.
A society that is in desperate need of
a revolution99% tax rates for extreme wealthYou wanna make a mess, make it in your neighborhood. I want the problem solved today by bank transfer
Say, how will you convince them today to do that transfer?
The point is that won’t happen without a revolution
Not all revolutions are violent, but the ownership class will sooner hire armies to defend their wealth and power than submit to a general strike, or the laws of a liberal nation.
Then there’s the matter of the climate crisis, exacerbated by data centers and the US’ cling to fossil fuels.
The mess will absolutely come to your neighborhood whether you want it to or not.
We now can say " the difference between a trillion dollars and a billion dollars is a trillion dollars." So we got that going for us, which is nice
It’s a sign of a failed system, but even billionaires are too much. No one individual/family should have that much wealth or power. The first billionaire was just over 100 years ago, and look at us today. The point is, once someone has that amount of wealth, reality bends around them making them powerful enough to protect themselves. They then influence the state which is not there to represent them, but us. All serious nations must consider a 100% wealth tax on anyone with over 10 million in net worth. Capitalism has made it a long time, sure. And one could argue life at the bottom is marginally better than feudalism or whatever, sure. But obviously we’re at the end of the experiment and need a reset.
I suggest a new system where the primary goal is increasing human and environmental wellbeing. All policies are tested and if they fail to increase wellbeing they are no longer Implemented. Why do things based on beliefs and feelings when we can have facts and knowledge…
The important part being that policies are tested. Every policy should come with a desired outcome, the time scale for achieving it, and a way to measure it.
Exactly. I find that most political structures and policies aren’t informed by facts but just raw belief or faith it’s a good idea. Most political structures are from hundreds or thousands of years ago and aren’t informed by science, more so something we’ve inherited and kept up with through familiarity. The basis is why rely on faith when we can easily have facts on what best fosters human and environmental wellbeing
Also similar to the scientific method, there can be revision if there’s new information substantial enough to show old information was incomplete or incorrect.
That sounds like central planning, and the thing about that is when your bureaucracy gets big enough to test all the policies for a whole society, corrupt bastards sneak in and start meddling for personal gain.
You wouldn’t test something just once. You pick a few towns or cities to test on or few regions. Maybe you can mess up the numbers for one or two but multiple would be difficult.
Come now, there’s just one trillionaire.
Yeah which is 1000 billionaires or a million millionaires. Its… an insane amount of money. Like thats fix the world money but to get that amount of money he had to fuck the world up.
And yes we’re all aware at this point that stock value isn’t real money. That almost makes it even worse. As a society we’re more concerned with fake numbers on screens than we are with people in our communities.
Not yet. A revolution takes place once it’s safer for the average person to join the revolution than to keep the status quo.
That’s how far the status quo needs to drop before a revolution happens.
Well, not exactly the average. Just the 10% or so people most in danger.
But yeah, I don’t think the US is there.
You need enough people to be able to overcome the military and law enforcement. So that differs depending on the country.
The USA has 2.81 million service members, so nearly 1% of the population. I’d say that one soldier with training and incredible amounts of war machinery could easily take out 10 untrained average americans even if they have guns, so 10% is likely not enough. Might be enough in a country with no money and hardly any military, but just think about it. How many angry people does it take to take out a tank or a fighter jet?
Violent revolution.
checks watch
Any second now…
shakes watch
