• thefartographer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    That 229 figure is bullshit. Either all the impoverished will perish, be killed, or move underground into a less opulent/more satisfying culture where rat burgers reign supreme well before then or the real number is “fuck off you poor piece of trash.”

  • n2burns@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    NOTE This is from Oxfam, a British charity. That means when they say “trillionaire”, they don’t mean $1,000,000,000, they mean $1,000,000,000,000, or what North Americans would call a quadrillionaire!

    • LostXOR@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      As a North American, I don’t think $1,000,000,000,000 is a quadrillion. It’s 1x10^12, which is 1 trillion. 1 quadrillion is 1x10^15, or $1,000,000,000,000,000.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Thanks for the correction, I deleted my original comment because it was incorrect and misleading.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          No it isn’t. There’s nothing stopping us from, for example, growing our own crops and trading them to each other. And we can do that whether or not it’s legal.

          Point in fact, triggering them into outlawing something so harmless would kind of be the point. Then it would force a confrontation they would lose because so many people would be negatively affected – especially the right wing which already does this in their rural communities.

          🤔 Come to think of it, it might be one of the better ways to solve the problem than any other idea anyone has come up with…

  • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Sweet, I could be a trillonaire by the time poverty will be eradicated. All I have to do is save $498,500 every single hour until then.

          • jballs@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s ok. Just keep working hard at pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and I’m sure you’ll get there eventually. Since you’re so close, you should probably start voting against taxes on the rich now. That way you won’t have to worry about the damn greedy welfare queens taking your hard earned money once you’ve made it.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    If a dollar was deposited into you account every SECOND, it would take approximately 32 years to get to just one billion dollars.

    Elon Musk has 180! And he’s the SECOND richest guy on Earth. The richest being Bernard Arnault at 211!!!

    It’s absolutely grotesque to be this filthy rich.

    Also, inb4 “It’S pApEr VaLuE, nOt ReAl MoNeY iN tHe BaNk”. Who cares? You could sell it all and become an international hero by ending all famine, bringing healthcare to everyone and giving shelter to everyone who needs it.

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I just had to do the math. If Jesus rose from the dead but then continued living as an immortal zombie, and he managed to squirrel away $250,000 a day, every day without spending a dime, he would just about have as much money as Elon Musk by now.

  • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The kicker is this:

    We use World Bank data27 to calculate the time needed to reduce (to below 1%) poverty at $6.85 a day. This is the higher of the three global poverty lines used by the World Bank; it is used because we believe it gives the most accurate picture of the numbers of people globally living in poverty.

    I sure as hell could not survive on $6 a day - and we can talk about purchasing power, but resources have international trade prices and you’re priced out of those resources if you’re poor because of pecuniary externalities. At the current rate of wealth inequality growth, it will probably take so many years it might as well be “forever” to eradicate actual poverty and not the “at least you’re not a slave” poverty definition they’re using.

    (note: I skimmed through it, so I could have missed something crucial)

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Hehe capitalism am I right guys?

    Step 1: eat the rich

    Step 2: ???

    Step 3: I didn’t think this far ahead

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There are literal stacks of left wing literature about steps 2 and 3. Our problem is debating which of the five hundred paths to take is best, not finding just one.

  • JCreazy@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Speaking hypothetically here, what if millions of people just decided that they weren’t to go going to give money to rich people and then those people decided to go to that rich person’s house. Could the problem be fixed quickly this way?

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Right, I’m sure there’s actually plans to eradicate poverty… more likely there’s plans to eradicate the impoverished.