• @LovableSidekick
    link
    English
    43
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    My OCD wonders if they factored in having to assassinate the heirs of the CEOs who immediately become billionaires, recursively until every fortune has been divvied up so many ways nobody has a billion anymore. Cuz that would be necessary if you really want to “run out” of billionaires, and would also mean you advocate executing children for inheriting a lot of money. This does require thinking beyond the simple meme, but go ahead - you can do it!

    • @varjen
      link
      195 days ago

      Unlike royalty the transfer of wealth isn’t instant so if you work fast enough you can achieve a brief window when there are no billionaires.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        115 days ago

        Wealthy people likely have a living trust and the next trustee picks up immediately without needing time-consuming procedures like probate.

        • @ZoopZeZoop
          link
          155 days ago

          People might be reluctant to assume possession of billions if people were murdering/ systematically killing billionaires. So, it might be achieved relatively quickly.

          • @FordBeeblebrox
            link
            75 days ago

            Sure you can have the infinite money stone. All you have to do is make it past everyone who will suffer to power it, there’s a lot more of them than you and they are hungry

      • @LovableSidekick
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        I get the impression a brief window isn’t the goal, but in this thread rationalization might be.

    • baltakatei
      link
      fedilink
      55 days ago

      I wonder what that particular scenario’s Gini coëfficient versus Cumulative Assassinations plot looks like. Sounds like the plot for a new season of Death Note.

    • @FordBeeblebrox
      link
      35 days ago

      Compare the number of size S body bags used every time the cops gather to watch another “mentally troubled loner” to the average number of immediate family over 18 size of each billionaire, kids would have a trust fund guardian you’d rather capture than kill. All in all you’d probably expend a lot less ammo for more benefit going top down. Hypothetically of course.

      • @LovableSidekick
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Any reason to prefer capturing trust fund guardians rather than killing them? I mean, the base plan doesn’t call for checking how the original billionaire got their money or assessing them personally. We’re operating strictly at meme level - controlling enormous wealth is evil. “Kill them! Kill them all!” Anybody who decides to wuss out and start adding constraints could be a shill or an apologist - at any rate it doesn’t show full commitment to Sparkle Motion.

        • @FordBeeblebrox
          link
          1
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Ironically, moreso for legal reasons than anything else. If Jeeves becomes the sole guardian of the kids’ inheritance, offing him means you lose the passwords to the offshore accounts and control of the trust goes to some extended family member or the bank itself. If he can be coerced or turned, you’ve a much easier route to accessing the funds, buying the company that makes school lunches and telling them to knock it the fuck off charging children for food.

          We don’t need to kill them all, just enough to make the rest realize that “number go up” doesn’t mean much when you see a torch and pitchfork every time you look out a window.

          E) This is assuming all banks and lawyers follow legal procedure, which may go out the window along with the first publicly defenestrated billionaire so…I’m not sure how we go about getting all the digital bank notes but I’m just a grunt who exits the plane early, that’s a question for someone smarter