Brent Eubanks
Joanne Fisher
JD@Jedigirl amen
Adhc&Adlb 
@Jedigirl Ocalan actually identifies that the dragon myth came about to represent hoarders like this in prehistoric times, I think.
Kirils Solovjovs@Jedigirl While I agree it’s not a qualification, I think a billion is *easily* spendable in half a year or less. Have you looked at the inflation numbers lately!?!
Just *buying* a nice yacht will set one back 10% of a billion. Not even talking about the upkeep and running costs.
A jet — another 5%.
Those things add up quick you know.
Before one knows it, one will be looking for loans to take social media companies private and aspiring to build a mansion on Mars.
Paul Wilde 
:dontpanic_nobg:@Jedigirl Bloomberg's _people who horde more resources that they could use in 100 lifetimes while other people are starving_ Index
Catweazle@Jedigirl , I call them Velociraptors
DW
snowchyld@Jedigirl we should be slaying dragons
ClawedQuinna 
@snowchyld @Jedigirl I like dragons. They are cool. Do not slay them.
Billionaires are not cool and are harmful. People shouldn't be billionaires.
Billionaires are not cool and are harmful. People shouldn't be billionaires.
ChristopherWe treat "billionaires" as if they are a monolithic category. The list below is of the 10 richest people in the world with a paragraph or so on how they made their money and what they're currently invested in. Some of them have cash, like less than 10%, but the majority is in shares in companies providing services we all consider necessities. With little bits of money funnelled from each of us to companies they own chunks of. Their existence is structural.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/012715/5-richest-people-world.asp
TonyK@Jedigirl A tiny minority of relatively useless people who are seen as essential and valuable by politicians, another minority who's contribution to society is questionable at best.
atom.ai@Jedigirl Dragons are fucking cool though..
ArneBab@Jedigirl I think that makes billionaires appear more harmless than they are.
They do not hoard those resources. They control them.
Many of them put them to use to reshape society according to their wishes — which often are not democracy, because only rare people will become billionaires while believing in distributing power as it is done in democracy.
The extreme right cries about the rare exceptions, but we should worry about the common case: billionaires working to expand their power.
Francesco Orsenigo (he/him)@xarvh see other answers … there are people who want to spend all their wealth (some of it on useful things) before they die to avoid starting a dynasty. That’s at least a start.
And some want all rich people to actually pay their taxes. Though I’m not sure whether those breached the millionaire—billionaire barrier.
@Jedigirl
@ArneBab @Jedigirl Thing is, I don't think you don't get to be a billionaire without being greedy as fuck.
This is why I asked for specific examples.
The problem is that when you have that kind of money 1) there is no way you can spend it before you die without 2) using that money to shape the world the way YOU want and 3) buy some very good propaganda to legitimize that kind of obscene wealth ("I earned it!", "I'm a genius!", "I'm a philanthropist!")
This is why I asked for specific examples.
The problem is that when you have that kind of money 1) there is no way you can spend it before you die without 2) using that money to shape the world the way YOU want and 3) buy some very good propaganda to legitimize that kind of obscene wealth ("I earned it!", "I'm a genius!", "I'm a philanthropist!")
Or you could convince the majority that the world they want is the one YOU want.
Thing is, if you are a billionaire, you think you understand everything (how else could you have made so much money!?) so you don't need the unwashed rabble to tell you what they want, because **YOU KNOW BETTER WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM**.
Also, if you give it away you are not a billionaire any more.
@xarvh If you try to make the world think they want what you want, then you are not shaping the world for their benefit.
I don’t know how all billionaires think, so I don’t want to claim something.
And yes, not being a billionaire after giving away the money is the point. It’s what society needs to stay stable.
@Jedigirl
It is more subtle than that.
Imagine you are wildly "successful": you have this Great Understanding Of The World, which only coincidentally is self-serving, and the masses don't understand it, but wait! You also happen to have the means to push your ideas on a lot of people!
So that's what you do, by pushing these ideas you make the world a better place!
This is exactly what for example, Musk and Gates are doing BTW.
1/2
You don't need to know how billionaires think, you just need to know how humans think.
The only good billionaire (or millionaire) is the one that is not a billionaire any more.
Is the one that has refused to have so much power, so much influence, so much control on their fellow humans.
A society that allows such insane concentration of power has given up on being a democracy.
2/2
@xarvh @Jedigirl I have a somewhat longer and more indepth text about that topic (sorry for the Google translate link, it’s in German): https://www-draketo-de.translate.goog/die-erste-million-ist-die-schwerste?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Die erste Million ist die schwerste: Der strukturelle Fehler unseres Wirtschaftssystems | Zwillingssterns Weltenwald | 1w6
Do, 06/30/2011 - 00:44 — Draketo Unter Reichen Leuten geht der Spruch um „die erste Million ist die schwerste“. Dieser Spruch zeigt deutlich wie kein weiterer den zentralen strukturellen Fehler unseres aktuellen Wirtschaftssystems, führt aber auch zu möglichen Lösungen. Unser Wirtschaftssystem erzeugt und steigert Ungleichheit zwischen Leuten mit gleicher Lei... 1w6
Nice!
I do agree 100% with your analysis, you are basically describing the Yard Sale Model https://pudding.cool/2022/12/yard-sale/ and following with the concentration of (economical) power being incompatible with democracy.
I add another step: concentration of ANY kind of power is incompatible with a free society (pretty much by definition) and if a free society is to be achieved we need to foster a **culture** that can recognize power in whatever form, and see it as a threat.
@xarvh That article is great — thank you! I now linked to it in mine.
Though keep in mind that we actually have measures for this redistribution — we just gutted them (and guess what’s in the interests of those who win at the market …).
I think we need to remind ourselves of how radical democracy really is: it is the concept with the least amount of concentration of power. Any deviation from democracy leads to more concentration of power. And our economy is not democratic.
@xarvh The article I linked is part of a three-part series I wrote over the years (not planned, but they fit together). I summarized the results in an English article: The Three Fallacies of Markets - the assumption that markets can work without regulation is built on illusions.
https://www.draketo.de/politik/market-fallacies
(though I’m no economist but a physicist, so take this with a grain of salt)
@Jedigirl
I'm also not-an-economist-but-a-physicist-turned-to-it. XD
I red your article, but I don't understand enough of economy discourse to make any informed comment.
"well working democracy is the system where people have the least power over others"
That's the definition of an anarchist society, in the sense of "rules without rulers".
Are you familiar with the Rojava model? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDnenjIdnnE
The Communes of Rojava: A Model In Societal Self Direction
@xarvh "that’s the definition of an anarchist society" — if you scale up structures and also take care to avoid information overload and minimize the required constant information upkeep, you reach a well-working democracy (via representative democracy and subsidiarity and written laws that must apply to everyone).
I only skimmed the video but what I saw looks pretty good. Though I am wary when a community creates its own police and when specialization is limited.
The video explains how they solve exactly the problems you mention for an area with about 2 000 000 people.
TL;DW: decentralization and delegates with very narrow mandates instead of representatives.
What they have is not really police, in that it does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
This is the same solution independently developed in autonomous Chiapas, they build schools and hospitals where they had none.
@ArneBab @Jedigirl
Thought experiment: what would I do if I suddenly found myself with an obscene amount of money?
1) I'd probably buy a home and a good retirement insurance for me & my family. It's tricky not to get greedy here.
2) I'd try to talk with the communities in Chiapas and Rojava to see how the rest of the money can be used to help them & make their projects known and appreciated by the rest of the world, spreading the money so that it's not concentrated in any single entity.
@xarvh I’m not sure what I would do. Only supporting my close community doesn’t sound right to me.
After securing a life without being forced to work for me and my family and close friends (something like a perpetual income for 10 people) I would likely search for ways to limit wealth of everyone, including me.
That would change the problem I would be embodying at its root.
@Jedigirl
Kevin Karhan 
@Jedigirl true, true...
William Hamilton
Lonewolf@Jedigirl money doesn't equal intelligence
Just means your cool with exploiting everyone else
Just means your cool with exploiting everyone else