• NotASharkInAManSuit
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    We just made a trillionaire. You’re fucking joking, right? Is it really more important to you for one person to have more than they can even comprehend than for basic human needs to be met in a world where we have everything required to support the needs of everyone across the board and still have excess? Because if so, that’s as pathetic as it is stupid and heartless.

    • Hueristic_Autistic
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      Whatever we save for the future for this population size will not cover the future population. So no matter what you will never have enough to feed, house and provide medical care for everyone.

      • NotASharkInAManSuit
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        We do, though, we currently have that capacity. It’s just barred by capitalism, ego, and crippling stupidity.

        • Hueristic_Autistic
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          So relative to this population size is what saving for the future using the previously given equation would give. Meaning you could save more in less time but that’s more taxes. Then you’d have inflationary rates making it so paychecks only match the rising cost of goods…

          We don’t have the ability to do it for everyone.

        • Hueristic_Autistic
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Do you mean redistribute wealth from billionaires? I think it’s been pretty well established, that will never happen.