• 0 Posts
  • 99 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 27th, 2025

help-circle






  • I would contend that the rich have access to more resources precisely because the poor have little to no access to resources

    That makes sense in the old market before the assembly line (and now AI), but it doesn’t make sense in the post-scarcity world we live in today.

    If the poor were to have access to more resources, it would then be because the rich have less access than they did prior.

    Not necessarily. The poor having access to resources would actually increase the wealth at the top because then there would be more customers that can pay their bills.

    because that wealth is directly the same wealth . . . that the poor do not have.

    Sort of. Some resources are scarce (take uranium as an example in a situation where people bid on uranium to build a nuclear plan). However, some are not (like medicine and health insurance or housing (we can easily build more condos) or transportation (we could build metros for transit to work, but we can’t have that because the car industry bought our politicians)).

    *Edit: Here’s a simplified way to think of it. Pushing down on the ceiling of the house could potentially cause it to sink into the mud. However, if we raise the foundation by putting it on stilts, it would raise up the ceiling (we even have skyscrapers in cities).



  • I think its more a “we shouldn’t have billionaires right now” rather than a blanket prevention of billionaires. They are being a cancer on our politics in the bribery scheme we have from Citizens United in that they are paying politicians to prevent the American people from getting their basic needs met. The existence of billionaires isn’t inherently wrong. Hell, if we ever figure out asteroid mining, there’d be quadrillionaires. But, its the psychotic system we have of having billionaires is by them bribe the politicians to deny the people their basic needs. At this point, such behavior is parasitic.