World News

That's 80'000 people vs. how much?

Does that mean, in a theoretical world where wealth is by all means easily distributed, you’ve got a mere 0.001% that could triple the per-individual wealth of half of the worlds population—if we just took theirs and passed it out?

I’ve heard philosophers say, it’s a figure of authority’s continuous responsibility to justify its existence. Given, wealth is influence and influence is authority, should we not audit cases where wealth is so concentrated and ask ourselves question like ”how is this contributing to the benefit of all?”

I’d.argue, we shouldn’t allow such concentration of wealth in the first place—meaning there should be a preventative plan that Just Works. This can be compatible with whatever else you want, free markets or not. Be it a stronger progressive tax or a cultural change toward worker collectives owning the means to production, there just shouldn’t be such wealthy entities.

The concentration on wealth leads to concentration of influence, meaning politics and media. We’ve had a shrinking number of independent major news organizations since the 1980s. A 1983 analysis showed that about 50 companies “controlled more than half” of U.S. media. Today, there are estimates of a handful of people owning the vast majority. Not to mention, they can apparently choose to purchase massive Social Media platforms (like Twitter) immediately before an election.

Right now, though, we have this problem where such silos already exist. They use their influence, vast as it is, to protect and enrich themselves—PACs, Super PACs, gratuities, lobbying firms, and more recently meme coins. All acting as a conduit to influence politics and legislation. We can’t make progress while these issues continue to stand in our way, can we? So, what do you do?

Is there a digital collection that hosts propaganda images that are against the thieving wealthy?

And now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator Bernie Sanders

according to a report that argues global inequality has reached such extremes that ugrgent action ha.cms become essential.

I guarantee you that that 0.001% agrees, there are too many of them, that should be 0.00001% instead

Fuck the rich!

I call for hard limits on personal networth and the worth of companies

No single person should be able to control more than 10M, companies shouldn't be worth over 1 billion

Anything over that, goes to taxes.

It's a single basic rule that requires more rules below for sure to ensure it works well, but this should be codified in a world wide constitution.

This way, nobody gets crazy amounts of money, nobody will have to be poor because the government will have a huge income that it can use for universal healthcare, education, universal basic income, etc...

Crime would go down the drain because nobody NEEDS to be a criminal anymore. There will still be a few anti social elements but good luck finding people wanting that life if they can just have a good, safe, and happy life.

Bribery and corruption? How even, and why take the risk?

There is no logical reason why anyone should have to be allowed to control this much wealth.

Investment companies must all be dismantled and all their funds transferred to independent non profit organisations that, again, won't be able to control more than over a billion. Government can transfer money to these foundations so that loads of people can have investments for startups or whatnot

We'd need similar simple rules for governments too. All governments must be democracies, and all should follow a world constitution where we have a few basic rules that make sure nobody will ever get too much power.

It doesn't require a lot of changes at the top. Basically these three rules, all the rest flows out of those rules. We can keep capitalism and use it's raw power to generate resources for everyone.

What this needs is political will, this needs people to want this, need this.

One of these 0.001% is valve ceo that many here on lemmy praise.