Elaborate and explain
You must log in or # to comment.
8 billion temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
The billionaires have already won.
Billionaires only have power because people do things for them in exchange for money
I belive the billionaires is currently winning
But only because the other 8 billion let them
Yeah, and?
REVOLT!
The billionaires are already winning, with no signs of that changing.
With pessimism like that, we won’t get far.
That’s because—for many reasons—there are way too many non-billionaires on team billionaire.
I worked with a guy that proudly proclaimed that he voted for the right because they looked after the rich.
He was not rich, but he purchased lottery tickets weekly and stated he’d rather get screwed while poor than pay more tax if he, some day, became rich.
And that was the day I realised that we’re fucked.
What an absolute moron.
I don’t, I feel like moron / stupid just doesn’t cut it for idiots like this. I honestly don’t know of an adjective the fully encapsulates the stupidty, childishness, and naivite of a regular person aligning with the super rich.
Republican?
Corporate brainwashed, delusional, desperate, uneducated, lazy, close-minded, coping human?
The media is pushing “answer a few questions, or spin a wheel, and get rich”, and “sing in your car, then get famous on Idol” and getting huge ratings. Same way we got this fucking President. Corporate brainwashing.
Just remember, when we go vote, his is worth just as much as yours.
Ah, see, what you should have done was…stabbed him in the eye.
Hey, don’t look at me. I’m on team “unexpected astroid hitting the earth to end it all”.
I was devastated when my candidate never showed up again and again…
They think they’re on team billionaire but are willful idiots.
They will just cook the planet killing us all
3000 multibillionaires and the trillionaires would win.
Elaborate and explain
I am not an LLM AI.
It is getting ridiculous how the kids aren’t satisfied with just an answer, they want us to guess what their questions may be and pre-emptively explain all of it.
They put zero effort into forming questions, and just expect everyone to give indepth answers they’re not gonna read anyways.
The problem with your comment is that it is boring. It provides no insight, proposes no causitive mechanisms. Of course, we could follow up and ask you “why?”, in order to understand your reasoning, and therefore have an interesting discussion. And in fact, we are so certain that what we actually care about is the reasoning behind the answer, that we may as well ask why in advance.
Almost as if we would like you to… hmm… there are two words…
The problem with your comment is that it is boring.
Your problem with my comment is that you find or boring.
It provides no insight
Your problem is that you can’t find any insight.
Of course, we could follow up and ask you “why?”, in order to understand your reasoning
No, because my answer would be “because”.
And in fact, we are so certain that what we actually care about is the reasoning behind the answer, that we may as well ask why in advance.
First off, what are you even trying say? Secondly, who are “we”? You and every single Lemmy user? You and the rest of the world?
Almost as if we would like you to… hmm… there are two words…
Lol, let me help you out since you are seemingly in a tough position. I’ll block you and you’ll experience the same effect as if I “hmm… there are two words…”
Elaborate and explain
See what is happening in the world right now.
If we decide money no longer matters it’d be petty easy to eliminate them all. If we continue to let money run our lives then it’ll continue to be pretty easy for the people with money to keep all their power.
If we decide money no longer matters it’d be petty easy to eliminate them all
Okay, but then where will I get my passive income? I worked 40 years in the shit and rusty needles mine to build up a big enough nest egg to get passive income. Now I’m too full of staff infections and lacerated limbs and shit lung to work anymore.
I can’t afford not to make the next guy work himself to death in the shit rust needle mine.
No one needs to work in a shit rust needle mine. Without money you would have community helping & taking care of you based on your needs & listening to your ideas. You would take as much as you need but as little as you can to live happily & work to contribute back.
It doesn’t take long for that system to collapse.
*Staph.
His people are infected. I think he might be a billionaire in disguise.
I mean… money does matter. It matters to the individual because it is how they pay their bills, and it matters to all of humanity because it is how we are able to take coordinated action despite the lack of any central organizer.
Taking money out of the picture would also take bills out of the picture. And humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now, the only difference is it would be harder for individuals to be the sole coordinator. Money, and who has it, is our current central organizer and will continue to burn the planet if we fail to take away its power.
humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now
That’s a huge claim, you need to support that.
Not that huge of a claim, especially when now is so chaotic and dysfunctional. Here’s a nonexhaustive list of moneyless economies (obviously with varying degrees of feasibility)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monetary_economy
~edit: wording~
The huge claim is the present tense, “has the ability”. It’s not a huge claim to say that humanity has the potential to one day transcend money, but that wasn’t the claim. Humanity has a long road before that’s possible, it does not presently have the ability to continue to function if we just snapped our fingers tomorrow and eliminated money.
An “ability” is not a vague notion bolstered by historical curiosities. An “ability” involves a detailed, immediately actionable plan that can be implemented in the modern economic landscape without destroying crucial productivity.
Resources have to be allocated. People need to accept the resource allocation method in order to contribute their labor to do things that must be done. Money is an imperfect solution. Eliminating money leads to reinventing it (e.g. “energy credits”), reverting to less efficient models (e.g. barter), developing a central planning body that replaces wealth corruption with administrative corruption, or widespread social loafing where nothing gets done.
Without an actual plan of implementation that gains the trust of the workers, there is no “ability”, merely aspiration.
I disagree with a few points you bring up, but beyond those, it sounds like your biggest problem with my statement is in the semantics. I don’t find that to be very useful when obviously the logistics of such a system are complicated enough to warrant a whole doctorate degree. Comments on social media between strangers with no verifiable education isn’t really the place to harp on precise wording and definitions. I think it’s possible for humanity to coordinate without money. Is that better? Or do you still disagree?
Semantics are how we communicate ideas. If you change the semantic content, you change the idea.
I think it’s possible for humanity to coordinate without money.
Depends on what you mean by possible. At some point in the remote future? Sure, I agree. At the present time? I disagree. We’re not there yet, and you can’t just snap your fingers and change the fundamental beliefs, and logistics administration, of 8 billion people overnight. Best case scenario that’s a multi-generational endeavor.
We can get there one day, we can’t outlaw money tomorrow.
And humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money
Please provide a non-authoritatian answer that has scaled and has produced advanced technology like modern medical devices and telecommunications devices.
While you’re correct that there are no examples of such a society*, that isn’t because money is crucial to development. It’s because the time of technological breakthroughs happened in a global capitalist economy. Just because that’s the way history played out doesn’t mean that was the only way it could’ve. Money didn’t invent those things, people did. They had the time and resources to make that stuff happen. And yes, they got those resources via a moneyed economy, but that doesn’t mean those same people couldn’t have gotten the same time and resources had they existed within say a library economy.
*
Not exactly a perfect society (what is) but the Incas developed cutting edge technology for the time within a moneyless society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_technology
I apologize for not being clear in what I was asking for. I didnt mean that I wanted an example of a society that, say, developed MRI technology outside the capitalist framework. I simply wanted an example of a society which could produce and use an MRI without the use of money or authoritatian force. They can have access to all the underlying science and technological know-how. But they need to get someone to mine the iron ore that will be smelted to be turned into streel which will become a tool which will be used in the manufacture of an MRI machine… without paying them.
Problem being - no one wants to mine iron ore. There are limits on how much prestige a society can distribute, and little will go to iron ore miners. The actual benefit of the labor is so far removed that the likelihood for personal gratitude from a beneficiary is vanishingly small - for example, someone who has a torn meniscus diagnosed with an MRI is unlikely to send the iron ore miner a personal thank you card. Of course, we could pay our miner in clothes and food and housing - but then we’ve just reinvented money but less efficient. Seeing no personal benefit to breaking his back every day in a dark hole, out miner would want to find something else to do with his time, resilting in no iron ore, and thus, no MRIs.
But I mean, prove me wrong.
I would again point to the Incas as a decent example. Though I kind of want to pick at your use of “money or authoritarian forces”.
Money is currently used as an authoritarian force. It’s given those with money restrictive control over our daily lives. Look at all the censorship by those who control the major websites and payment processors on the internet. Look at the who lobbied the creation of infrastructure that forces most every person in the states to own and maintain a car. Look at how they’re working on dismantling our public education system. Our police and military exist to protect those with money. This is how capitalism works. Despite some lofty ideas of peace liberty and democracy for all, when the system is based around money everything else will get compromised.
I read up on the Inca. Interesting. But I’m still doubtful they could build an MRI - I want a modern example.
And I’m certainly no fan of the current system - it sounds like you’re describing America, and yes, America is a bit of a shit show at the moment. But we should also remember that Sweden’s strong social safety nets, Finland’s excellent education system, and the Netherlands’ transportation infrastructure all exist in societies which use money.
Meanwhile, I don’t think eliminating money would really solve the problems you are looking to solve. Power-hungry people will seek power regardless of the system they find themselves in. If they don’t become capitalists, they become high-ranking bureaucrats and politicians.
Why you think they’re tossing so much money to develope ai and humanoid robots?
When shit will hit the fan they want their own private army to watch their ass, but at the same time they don’t want highly trained human mercenary inside their golden castel getting strange ideas.
Omg you are right on this. They see most of as disposable once they’re able to consistently get away with it.
Which is now. They just need something safe to keep “that” up in the eventuality that civilization/economy collapse.
If the people were all invested in taking out the billionaires, then the people would win, hands down.
But if, as in the current situation, the people have higher priorities, in which 50% do not find billionaires to be an existential threat, at least 300 million think there are simply temporarily embarrassed billionaires, then the billionaires win, that is, until the Earth inevitably cannot support them any longer.
and at least 300 million think there are simply temporarily embarrassed billionaires
Technically that should drop down to ~150 million
No, no, you don’t understand. See, the thing is, America Bad.
I would expect this comment to come from a lemmy.ml account
Jokes
While arriving for the competition, all 8 billion got wedged into the doors of the arena Three Stooges style and were unable to compete.
If organized, the billionaires lose. It’s really that simple and that difficult.
Okay, then go start organizing?
Don’t tell me what to do!
Depends on the situation.
If we were all put into an arena with zero weaponry, the 8 billion. Under no circumstances would the 3000 win because the 8 billion would most likely end up murdering them, even if by accident.
Under the current world conditions, not looking good.
The billionaires spend a small fraction to some idiots to betray their fellow non-billionaires. It’s probably about a million people versus the masses.
The billionaires. People dumb AF. Billionaires have money to manipulate people to think they are doing good while they are fucking humanity.
This is happening right now and the billionaires are winning.
Is it, though? Because if the billionaires had all that money but only themselves and their billionaire friends on team billionaire, how powerful would they actually be (in comparison to, say, now) if they didn’t have any non billionaires on their side?
I think they’re this powerful right now because there are a lot of non-billionaires who are dumb enough to do whatever they’re told by them even if it’s not in their own best interest (or the rest of the world’s) at all.
