They’re basically saying, “group X shouldn’t exist because they have influence on how the world works, and I want the world to work my way.” Basically, if they had the influence they’d use it to control things in the way they want. They don’t have that influence and it pisses them off. They’re jealous.
I’m also not naive enough to think that my life would change at all if all the billionaires were gone tomorrow. People who want billionaires to have less seem to think it will mean they will have more… which is again, jealous.
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.
Comparing someone buying some clothes from H&M to a slave seems a bit dramatic. I’ll focus on the less cynical part of the post.
The number of vacant homes was higher than I expected, and the number of homeless was lower than I expected… both by a significant margin. From what I could find, about 1/3 of vacant homes are vacation homes. I assume this is the rich problem being eluded to? If these are vacation homes they are likely not in areas where the homeless would need them, like near places to find work or public transit.
I’d be curious what the average vacant home is like. I live near a city with a lot of vacant homes (over 100,000 of them from what I can find with 2020 data). I assume some might have some homeless people breaking in to get a roof over their head, but they would need a lot of work to be called homes. Most of them were once beautiful homes, but now they are in disrepair, many have extensive fire damage, and are not safe as-is. They can be bought for a couple thousand dollars, but the city has started to rip them down, as they are dangerous and beyond repair in many cases. The city is spending $3m to mow the lawns and board up the vacant homes, but it’s not enough. Residents are having to pick up the slack if their want their neighborhood to look semi-decent. I’m sure the city, all the businesses in the city, and the existing residents would all love have those houses with families in them. Making them safe enough for the homeless would be very expensive and then there is the question of if they can keep it up. It also will keep other people away from the city instead of trying to win them back. There have to be better options than telling a homeless person to stay in an old burned out mansion with a collapsing floor and roof. They can’t afford to fix it, and the people who can don’t want to be there, hence the current conditions.
On the food issue, horrible nutrition guidance from the government, along with misguided incentives from the government for business, have been largely responsible for the current issues. The food has no nutritional value, so people are never satisfied and keep eating more. It’s great for profits I guess, as long as they don’t care about killing their customers. This isn’t an idea that should be exported.
The world is provably (*) broken. Economically, environmentally. You name it. The system we have is unsustainable, and unsustainable means that it will be eventually unable to sustain itself and inevitably collapse. It is causing suffering to billions of humans and uncountable living beings.
And given what we know about most billionaires’ personal lives, it takes a certain kind personality to be jealous of their miserable lives.
What you call jealousy has nothing to do with wanting things to change. Try compassion and empathy, tinged by fear.
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.
They’re basically saying, “group X shouldn’t exist because they have influence on how the world works, and I want the world to work my way.” Basically, if they had the influence they’d use it to control things in the way they want. They don’t have that influence and it pisses them off. They’re jealous.
I’m also not naive enough to think that my life would change at all if all the billionaires were gone tomorrow. People who want billionaires to have less seem to think it will mean they will have more… which is again, jealous.
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.
Comparing someone buying some clothes from H&M to a slave seems a bit dramatic. I’ll focus on the less cynical part of the post.
The number of vacant homes was higher than I expected, and the number of homeless was lower than I expected… both by a significant margin. From what I could find, about 1/3 of vacant homes are vacation homes. I assume this is the rich problem being eluded to? If these are vacation homes they are likely not in areas where the homeless would need them, like near places to find work or public transit.
I’d be curious what the average vacant home is like. I live near a city with a lot of vacant homes (over 100,000 of them from what I can find with 2020 data). I assume some might have some homeless people breaking in to get a roof over their head, but they would need a lot of work to be called homes. Most of them were once beautiful homes, but now they are in disrepair, many have extensive fire damage, and are not safe as-is. They can be bought for a couple thousand dollars, but the city has started to rip them down, as they are dangerous and beyond repair in many cases. The city is spending $3m to mow the lawns and board up the vacant homes, but it’s not enough. Residents are having to pick up the slack if their want their neighborhood to look semi-decent. I’m sure the city, all the businesses in the city, and the existing residents would all love have those houses with families in them. Making them safe enough for the homeless would be very expensive and then there is the question of if they can keep it up. It also will keep other people away from the city instead of trying to win them back. There have to be better options than telling a homeless person to stay in an old burned out mansion with a collapsing floor and roof. They can’t afford to fix it, and the people who can don’t want to be there, hence the current conditions.
On the food issue, horrible nutrition guidance from the government, along with misguided incentives from the government for business, have been largely responsible for the current issues. The food has no nutritional value, so people are never satisfied and keep eating more. It’s great for profits I guess, as long as they don’t care about killing their customers. This isn’t an idea that should be exported.
That’s not the point he was raising at all.
The world is provably (*) broken. Economically, environmentally. You name it. The system we have is unsustainable, and unsustainable means that it will be eventually unable to sustain itself and inevitably collapse. It is causing suffering to billions of humans and uncountable living beings.
And given what we know about most billionaires’ personal lives, it takes a certain kind personality to be jealous of their miserable lives.
What you call jealousy has nothing to do with wanting things to change. Try compassion and empathy, tinged by fear.
(*) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Living up to your name. Keep it up, friend!