Doesn’t work like that. It’s more like fighting a Hydra.
If a Billionaire worth $50B dies, like 10 Children are gonna inherit $5B each. So we would have even more Billionaires afterwards.
From my experience playing Crusader Kings 2 and 3, gavelkind’s a bitch.
Splitting your enemy’s demesne amongst their successors gives you more but weaker enemies (and sometimes some friends), and leads to infighting and chaos amongst them.
Nine times out of ten murdering an enemy with lots of children leaves you better off than not murdering them.
(Of course, though, this scales inversely to the number of successors, so if there’s only one or two proceed only if their stats are lower than your enemy’s, or if it’ll still be a few years before they come of age.)
If the richest people were only 1000x wealthier than the poorest… wow.
Currently, the richest people could spend the entirety of every penny an average person would make from the day that person was born to the day that person died every single day and still not run out of money before that person died. That’s an entire person’s fiscal existence spent every day for their entire life and it wouldn’t even make a dent.
Thats what i mean, we theoretically can redistribute the majority of wealth to end all poverty and there would still be enough centralised wealth for the current rich to still live in royal luxury and feel special about.
Of course there would be massive opposition unless we figure what that does to inflation. So I don’t think it’ll ever happen but its a point that we absolutely could redistribute wealth without eradicating the upper class.
Instead as an actual solution i think we should count differently and consider all wealth to be a personal cost of a human taking resources from the shared planet. What you consume and possess is what you cost to others. Life is inherently a destructive action.
By measuring the cost and aiming to keep it low we can allow free access to groups (elderly for example) to a share of industrial output.
They don’t need to pay with money, society just needs to count the cost of their transaction. Invite for a welfare talk if there is a problem with overconsumption.
This project is a wip but i imagine that using what is called fountain pen money now could be used to pay classical industry with classical money. The fountain pen money is technically a debt but its the natural debt of human life with no expectation to ever close it.
Had this argument a few days ago. Someone said ‘kill all billionaires’ as a low-effort comment, and I noted that whilst that makes a good protest sign slogan, I wouldn’t want to whip up a mob trained solely on that heuristic - I asked them to get specific in what they want to lynch this billionaire for. Not because I want to defend billionaires, but Lemmy is a discussion platform, and “kill all billionaires” is a thought stopper.
Doesn’t work like that. It’s more like fighting a Hydra. If a Billionaire worth $50B dies, like 10 Children are gonna inherit $5B each. So we would have even more Billionaires afterwards.
How about “the current billionaire class” instead?
Because you’re right, but the initial comparison is still something worth saying and I don’t mind getting pedantic.
They said “2 months”. So you keep doing the work within that time, until the fortune is diluted enough to drop below 1B per person
Sounds like an ever evolving target practice to me.
From my experience playing Crusader Kings 2 and 3, gavelkind’s a bitch.
Splitting your enemy’s demesne amongst their successors gives you more but weaker enemies (and sometimes some friends), and leads to infighting and chaos amongst them.
Nine times out of ten murdering an enemy with lots of children leaves you better off than not murdering them.
(Of course, though, this scales inversely to the number of successors, so if there’s only one or two proceed only if their stats are lower than your enemy’s, or if it’ll still be a few years before they come of age.)
In theory though impossible in practice:
If we halved the wealth of the current richest person.
Equally divided that wealth to the 50% poorest household.
And repeated from their till there are no more Billionaires.
Musk would end up at 800 mil after having his wealth divided 10 times. While people who had no money to start now have around 50K
(Broad numbers, Not an accurate calculation)
That’s still good, though.
If the richest people were only 1000x wealthier than the poorest… wow.
Currently, the richest people could spend the entirety of every penny an average person would make from the day that person was born to the day that person died every single day and still not run out of money before that person died. That’s an entire person’s fiscal existence spent every day for their entire life and it wouldn’t even make a dent.
So, yeah, I’d take 1000:1
This is why I think we need to start talking about wealth caps. I don’t understand why the left hasn’t jumped on that.
I’d hate to break this to you, but…
500,000,000
÷50,000
= 10,000
$800 million is over 10,000× wealthier than $50k, not 1000×…
Thats what i mean, we theoretically can redistribute the majority of wealth to end all poverty and there would still be enough centralised wealth for the current rich to still live in royal luxury and feel special about.
Of course there would be massive opposition unless we figure what that does to inflation. So I don’t think it’ll ever happen but its a point that we absolutely could redistribute wealth without eradicating the upper class.
Instead as an actual solution i think we should count differently and consider all wealth to be a personal cost of a human taking resources from the shared planet. What you consume and possess is what you cost to others. Life is inherently a destructive action.
By measuring the cost and aiming to keep it low we can allow free access to groups (elderly for example) to a share of industrial output.
They don’t need to pay with money, society just needs to count the cost of their transaction. Invite for a welfare talk if there is a problem with overconsumption.
This project is a wip but i imagine that using what is called fountain pen money now could be used to pay classical industry with classical money. The fountain pen money is technically a debt but its the natural debt of human life with no expectation to ever close it.
It’s like money is a cursed artefact.
Also, there’s like 1000 billionaires. 500 kids a month aren’t getting shot.
Beg to differ: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/guns-remain-leading-cause-of-death-for-children-and-teens
7 a day, works out to about 200 a month
Sickening figure that in my opinion, doesn’t change at all when moving between 200 and 500. One is too fucking many
Your own link shows that you’re wrong…
Had this argument a few days ago. Someone said ‘kill all billionaires’ as a low-effort comment, and I noted that whilst that makes a good protest sign slogan, I wouldn’t want to whip up a mob trained solely on that heuristic - I asked them to get specific in what they want to lynch this billionaire for. Not because I want to defend billionaires, but Lemmy is a discussion platform, and “kill all billionaires” is a thought stopper.
Idk what’s with all the billionaire hate. Killing individuals doesn’t change systems.