929
submitted 9 months ago by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 247 points 9 months ago

Warren Buffett is like Bill Gates. He's an evil billionaire (all billionaires are evil) who keeps pretending to be a good guy so people won't despise him.

Nobody earns a billion dollars, we've decided as a society that even global leaders, scientists and life saving doctors who do the most important work don't earn that much. It's impossible for a human to be valuable enough to earn a billion dollars. Therefore every billionaire is where he is, because he stole the wealth of the people below him who did the actual work. Every billionaire is a wage thief.

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 90 points 9 months ago

, we’ve decided as a society that even global leaders, scientists and life saving doctors who do the most important work don’t earn that much.

The US doesn't even pay the President $1 million a year salary. Arguably the most powerful person in the world isn't even considered a millionaire status job. And yet we allow shitfuckers like Elon to scam their way into hundreds of billions. It really says that the majority of Americans are A-OK with scams and cutthroat tactics representing them.

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 82 points 9 months ago

We're at the point where the Pentagon needs to check with Elon Musk before making decisions because he personally controls 50% of the satellites in orbit and if he feels offended he can prevent the US, and anyone else, from using them. He can single handedly turn the tides of war. He's undoubtedly more powerful than the US president. He's unelected and has zero accountability. Why are we all ok with this??

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 39 points 9 months ago

Because these ~~oil~~ ~~railroad~~ tech barons have been good for the economy and therefore the growth of the United States, and no one wanted to stop one while there was still more money to be made and now it's late and gonna be an uphill battle to undo.

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 28 points 9 months ago

The fact that the DoD hasn't seized control of Starlink as a national security asset is insane. They could even pay him a fair market price for the company and keep all the employees on. Just appoint government personnel at the highest levels to ensure it stays online.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

That's not a good solution either. The government seizing assets from private citizens isn't cool. That's oppressive. But the government should have built that network with our tax dollars, not given our tax dollars to a private citizen to build and keep all the profits from. I'm not saying he should retain control, but I am saying he should have never been given control.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The government seizing assets from private citizens isn’t cool.

It’s very good and cool.

[-] Saurok@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

It would be very good and cool under a socialist state, but not in the US currently and I'll explain my reasoning. In the US, nationalization represents the transfer of an enterprise from a single capitalist firm to the capitalist class as a whole via the state. Nationalization can bring benefits to both the working and capitalist classes, but ultimately the workers are still being exploited by the state for private profits instead of social ends. When an enterprise is nationalized by a capitalist state, the former owners are usually generously compensated with state bonds bearing a fixed rate of interest; this enables them to continue to exploit the workers involved at a rate of profit now guaranteed by the state. The class struggle continues, but but it is now necessary for the workers to struggle not against a single private management but against the capitalist state in its entirety. This is one of the reasons why Mussolini and Hitler heaped praise on FDR for his New Deal policies. They did a lot of good for people during the depression, but they also were market interventionist in a way that put a lot of corporate control in the hands of the capitalist state.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I won’t nitpick and just say that you’re mostly right. Nationalization within the imperial core has only ever provided small, temporary relief for a labor aristocracy that benefits from imperial super-profits.

Nationalizations outside of the imperial core is a move toward independence from the imperialist states, so it’s much more significant. So significant that the imperial core may try for regime change to claw those resources back.

[-] Saurok@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

Yes, 100% agree. Thanks for the additional insight.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

Why are we all ok with this??

I am not okay with it. I am extra special not okay with it because Musk is a shit heel.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

You don't need to earn a million dollars per year to be a millionaire. The president gets a salary of $400k per year and has literally all of their expenses paid for, including room, board, maid service, butlers, cars, airfare, clothing, medical care, etc. They serve for 4-8 years, and they receive compensation for life. It doesn't take long to become a millionaire in that scenario. There are no US presidents that aren't millionaires.

[-] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 9 months ago

The context of that quote is a little lost, because these days with inflation and housing prices, just owning your own home probably makes you a millionaire.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I think you meant to reply to my other response where I quoted William Jennings Bryan. If so, you're right, the number has changed. $1M in 1896 is the equivalent of $36.5M today. But it certainly applies to billionaires, and we were talking about them, so I felt that it was relevant.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

William Jennings Bryan, who was a three-time Democratic presidential nominee and served as Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson, said "No man can earn a million dollars honestly". He campaigned under the idea that all of the wealthy are corrupt, and the United States needed reform. It's a sad state of affairs that the majority of our citizens won't vote for politicians that represent the interests of the working class. Almost all of our politicians support and assist the wealthy, and refuse to acknowledge the issues facing the working class, yet people keep putting them in office.

[-] cornshark@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago

Historical note: $1million in his time is $36.5m today

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Wow, that really put it in perspective. How far we have let greed get the better of ourselves. Where are the guardrails to prevent this?

[-] msage@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago

Inflationary currency needs and expects this. Just how it works.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 16 points 9 months ago

lol nowadays a million dollars is like, the bare minimum you need for a comfortable retirement that doesn’t include “dying before 70” as part of the plan.

Inflations a son of a bitch.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Part of it is that people have been sold on the idea that they could be rich one day too.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago

Every billionaire is a wage thief.

What makes Buffet exceptional is that he agrees with you. He has said our system is perverse in that it rewards him more than teachers who actually work for a living.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

But he won't give the money to the people so... Still evil. He's just giving it to his kids and calling it charity

[-] keefshape@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago

I have screenshotted and quoted you to a half dozen people now. Well said.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Buffet and Gates are just playing from The Gospel of Wealth, by A. Carnegie.

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

What a read. He really just...up and says it all, doesn't he.

[-] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

Bill Gates: No u

load more comments (30 replies)
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
929 points (94.4% liked)

Memes

45584 readers
1296 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS