• @Dmian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    152
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    The only acceptable number, but not only in Europe, everywhere, is “0”.

    And if you already don’t know why: a billionaire has way too much money and power, and can influence governments in their favor, creating unsurmountable inequality and subverting the system’s rules. Billionaires are the cause why capitalism is failing (and since no one can stop them now, it will completely fail, and will drag the environment, and human survival, with it).

    • @occhineri
      link
      fedilink
      English
      339 months ago

      Yes, but capitalism isn’t failing: billionaires ARE capitalism

      • @Dmian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        79 months ago

        When I say capitalism is failing is because for it to work, it need rules (offer/demand, competition without monopolies, etc), that these billionaires have eliminated or subverted. They changed the game rules in their favor, and are now so powerful it’s impossible to stop them (non violently, I mean). I honestly think we just entered a dark era of humanity, one in which its existence is in question. And yes, I’m a pessimist, but I try to be optimistic with all my might, but everything I see or read prevents me from being optimistic.

        • @occhineri
          link
          fedilink
          English
          79 months ago

          When I say capitalism is failing is because for it to work, it need rules

          Because it is unstable. It is much easier to disrupt the system than to balance it in a stable-like state against it’s nature. Capitalism has gotten out of hand and will collapse sooner or later. And no: I am not a pessimist

    • @severien@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -159 months ago

      It’s quite easy to get rid of billionaires (raise taxes, they will move away), but it’s a question whether it is really beneficial for the country.

      • @Dmian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        79 months ago

        Easy? Who’s going to raise taxes for them, politicians? The same politicians whose campaigns are financed by these billionaires? Whose reputation can be tainted by the media conglomerates owned by these same billionaires?

        There’s no stopping them now, and I have no idea how this is going to end. Things happen too fast now. I fear for the future.

      • AggressivelyPassive
        link
        fedilink
        English
        609 months ago

        You sound like you’re one of the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” who doesn’t understand that he’s being defrauded.

        You’re a hooker thinking she’s actually the pimp.

          • AggressivelyPassive
            link
            fedilink
            English
            89 months ago

            Sure, we (that includes you!) are extorted into giving wealth to people who contribute nothing to society, but criticizing this is jealousy.

            Just like slaves were just jealous of their masters, right?

            To be slightly less cynical: look up how many empty houses/apartments there are in your country and then look how many homeless people there are. Chances are, the first number is larger. And now ask yourself: is that sane?

            Or even more basic: why are we Westerners fattening, while other people are starving? Because there are some very rich people who profit from that situation.

            BTW: you’re oversimplifying the solution, to just “removing” billionaires. I assume, you’re doing that out of mental laziness, and not stupidity. That interpretation, while being very literal, is an attempt to divert the discussion, a straw man. What is meant here is, changing the economic situation in such a way, that billionaires can’t even exist. No one should be able to accumulate that much wealth, especially not if that wealth is purely extractive.

      • @Dmian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        79 months ago

        Not at all, you’re just projecting. And also not understanding what I’m saying or why. I know it’s useless, but find out what the New Deal was, when and why it ended, and what happened since. You won’t do it, but nobody can say I didn’t try to explain it to you. Cheers.

          • @Dmian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Dude, please…

            What you should be looking in the New Deal is the Revenue Act of 1935: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1935. That kind of taxation was ended by Ronald Reagan, and since then, economy has shifted to the commoditization of everything that you can speculate with (housing, food, medicine, etc). Without limits, there’s been a polarization of wealth and a growth of inequality (see the Gini index, or even, the disparity in salaries).

            It’s not about the rich. Nobody is against the rich, but the rich (and the system) need rules and limits, without it, you allow some people to amass so much wealth that the system starts to collapse.

            See that I’m only talking about billionaires, not millionaires or wealthy people. These billionaires are the most powerful people in human history, and we don’t have a way to deal with them. We got rid of kings, and powerful individuals in the past when they tried to exploit populations, but we never faced people as powerful as these billionaires, so maybe we can’t put a leash on them. It’s a difficult challenge.

            It’s funny you mention the Bible. If you are a religious person, I guess, by you attitude here, that you’d say to Moses “Oh! Stop bitching about the pharaoh! Just do your job and don’t complain!” Right?

            Whatever…

  • @rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    559 months ago

    I think the better comparison would be the number of billionaires per capita. Say, per million people. Not that this isn’t a good infographic - keep the overall count. But include the per capita as a frequency-of-occurrence stat.

  • @MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    539 months ago

    We need an EU wide 100% wealth tay for any wealth over say 15million€. I am willing to negotiate about the second number.

    • xigoi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      49 months ago

      So anyone who gets a certain amount of money might as well close all the companies they own?

      • @Kiliyukuxima@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        179 months ago

        Or give them to the employees or something. Probably 15M is a too low threshold to enforce that but it would work. It would basically distribute the wealth amongst the people who produce it

      • @storcholus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        159 months ago

        Maybe not 15 million, but let’s say at 100 million you get a dog park named after you with a statue that says you won at capitalism

    • @root_beer@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      There’s some bookkeeping sorcery going on there, gotta be

      Also: why’s it yellow? It’s got 3, so it should be green

    • @freebee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      49 months ago

      The other 2000 billionaires have their residence in Panama, their 5 parent companies in Seychelles and 10 others in Cayman Islands, which in turn own 100 subsidiary companies in Ireland and the Bahamas which in turn own 1000 subsidiary companies in the Netherlands and Delaware, which own and pay their butlers, cars, yachts and jets and on paper they themselves barely earn enough monthly themselves to afford 1 public toilet visit.

    • @zcd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      139 months ago

      Even if we had to use a private submarine for each one it would still be worth it

    • Quokka
      link
      fedilink
      English
      49 months ago

      Be environmentally minded please and follow the three R’s. In this case we simply reuse the same guilotine.

  • @taladar
    link
    fedilink
    English
    299 months ago

    It would make more sense to use per capita numbers.

  • @nodimetotie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    229 months ago

    Am I the only one who finds the color scheme unintuitive? (a comment more suitable for DataIsBeautiful, probably)

    • @corship
      link
      fedilink
      English
      119 months ago

      It’s a barrier free color scheme. I like it tbh

        • @Don_alForno
          link
          fedilink
          English
          69 months ago

          No barriers for handicapped people. In this case it means that people who can’t tell e.g. red from green can still see the differences in this scheme.

        • @wldmr
          link
          fedilink
          English
          59 months ago

          It’s a false friend/too literal translation from the German term “barrierefrei”. The more common word in English would be “accessible”.

  • @captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    189 months ago

    It’s important to remember that while all billionaires are bastards, some are just evil because they take value they neither earned nor need, meanwhile others got rich off being the family whose spat between cousins was WWI and are actively working to undermine left wing and pro equality movements literally today including conspiring to push bigotry towards lgbt people to distract from the class war

  • @Blaubarschmann
    link
    fedilink
    English
    149 months ago

    Is this based on nationality (defined as: has that nations passport) or billionaires actually living in that country? Because probably many billionaires don’t live in their home country or pay taxes there

  • @lou_profile@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    129 months ago

    Portugal’s only billionaire might be Abramovich, who gained PT nationality through a very dubious program