Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No?
leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 hours agoThere is a finite amount of money in this world.
Not really… that’s kind of the whole point of fiat currencies, you can always mint more.
Most billionaires don’t even have any money. At that level they don’t need it. They don’t pay for things. They just get loans they’ll never pay back, with older loans as collateral.
The problem with billionaires isn’t money (though billionaires are one of the main problems with money). The problem with billionaires is that their fiat, virtual, wealth gives them an unfair amount of influence over everyone else’s lives, and that they alone get to enjoy a living standard (being able to get all your necessities and live a fulfilling life essentially for free) that should (and could, with an adequate distribution of resources) be available to everyone.
Vetis@sh.itjust.works 7 hours ago
Let’s say there are 100 tables in the world. If one person has 50 tables then it means everyone else has less. If mister tables aquires an additional table, can we agree it is coming from someone else ? Someone poorer. Even if the governement can make a new table to replace it, the fact that mr table is sucking up all tables on the market is still a problem for every one else.
You say they don’t have money, but if they live well, buy everything they want and influence the world as they see fit, I feel it’s disingenuous to say they don’t actually have money. They’re certainly sucking up your tables.
I’m going on a tangeant here, but it’s exactly why you don’t want your government to be cash positive. A government in the green is taking that money from someplace. A government in the red is actually helping everyone else not drown. It’s all a matter of where that money is going. That explains why the vast majority of countries run in the red. A government paying it’s own debt is the same as deleting money from the economy.
I do agree with your general sentiment though.