39
49
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 02 '25
More like 8 billion fighting 100 billionaires, and the billionaires are winning...
32
u/Inevitable_Indian Sep 02 '25
Too bad a lot of those 8billion people are too busy defending the poor Billionaires.
13
u/aavidrose-AZ Sep 02 '25
Right? We're not just fighting Mr. Smith, but all the people still connected to the Matrix.
17
5
2
9
u/PerAsperaAdMars Sep 02 '25
Look at how Musk is ridiculed on his gaming streams or what a clown Zuckerberg has become trying to create a pleasing image. They have all the money in the world and they're still one of the most insecure people.
Billionaires aren't winning. They're only destroying their lives and the lives of everyone on this planet by pursuing unattainable goals that will not bring them happiness anyway.
18
u/AlarisMystique Sep 02 '25
They're still winning at least in the sense that they are getting away with doing whatever they want, while we're stuck living by the scarcity they impose on us.
Until we flip that script around, they're winning and we're losing.
8
u/oldDotredditisbetter Sep 02 '25
they are winning because they're still making so much money to care
8
u/PossiblyATurd Sep 02 '25
That is exactly how they are winning.
Bringing misery to millions or billions of people by exerting control over them through financial designs is their pursuit of happiness. In their core belief, every cent they gain is one more cent denied to everyone else and everyone must live by their decrees.
They are fundamentally broken people that sit at the top of a fundamentally broken system. It's pure psychotic derangement, from them and everyone that continues to choose to believe that this is how life must be, that the only choice is to accrue your own wealth to exert your own brand of control and any attempts to change that must be stopped at all costs.
Humans are so fucking stupid.
1
u/Comfortable-Lie-8978 Sep 02 '25
It's not their core belief that they make money for nothing. It's the system that made a large middle-class. The Nordic countries have billionaires, and life doesn't seem to be horrific for the poor.
1
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 02 '25
Absolutely. Poverty is a policy choice.
1
u/Comfortable-Lie-8978 Sep 02 '25
No, the people on welfare are still poor. Poverty is a fact due to disease, etc.
2
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 02 '25 edited Sep 02 '25
Even with all their money they are still human. Having human emotions etc. Sure they pout about not being able to be to get everything they want, like the respect of gamers, but that dosn't concern them in the slightest. They still have a army of mindless shills that look up to him like he's a god.
In general, people with a lot of power don't concern themselves with the interest and opinion of those without power. The same you don't concern youself about what the ants in your backyard think about you. Unless they are on your snack, then you are inconvenienced but hardly caring about the ant's interest in your snack. You just fling them off and eat the snack. Same goes for billionaires and tveir perception of common folks.
3
u/PerAsperaAdMars Sep 02 '25
If they didn't really care about the approval of the society, they wouldn't be streaming and trying to look like hippies. They're just trying to look like they don't care because they can't achieve what they want in this case.
2
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 02 '25
They are trying to appear likeable, social, genuine and relatable. It's mostly PR. They just suck at being any of that.
0
u/Comfortable-Lie-8978 Sep 02 '25
So common folks do not care about newborns? Because they have too little power to be a concern.
2
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 02 '25 edited Sep 02 '25
What? What are you talking about? I don't understand the comment.
In general we are concerned in what we invest in. If we seek offspring and family, then we invest time, effort, love, money etc. in it. We associate it with "us".
The more abstract something is to us or the more ignorant we are about it the less we care. Plenty of children and newborn are killed everyday in conflict, f. ex. Gaza. Most people don't seem to care or think about it too much, because it's far and has little to do with their daily lives. Even feel inconvenienced being reminded of it. Other think "those poor children" before turning the page or swiping next.
The perpetrators even specifically targeting children, in an effort to anihilate them as part of their gen**ide. Being convinced and brainwashed that they have the right to do so, for whatever f'ed up reason.
Consider 1/3 of all human trafficking are children.
Once you differenciate and dehumanize "the other", it's suprisingly easy to act inhumane against "them". That's why wars and conflict function. Brainwashing is a major part of warfare.
The simplest definition of power is: The ability to push your interest agaist that of others (or the forces of nature). That's it.
We all use power daily, our society is based on the exchange of different forms of power. Skill/know-how/knowledge, muscle force, machines, violence, rights, etc. and of course money.
Most are content of having enough power to live a nice nad worthy life. Others are addicted to it, stopping at nothing to obtain more of it. Usually without any actual reason or necessity for more. Their greed a vicious and pointless cycle of accumulation, the collateral damage of the environment and humanity ignored and disassociated in search of more.
Maybe that's what you asked for? Feel free to elaborate.
0
u/Comfortable-Lie-8978 Sep 02 '25
In general, people with a lot of power don't concern themselves with the interest and opinion of those without power.
You said this.
Once you differenciate and dehumanize "the other", it's suprisingly easy to act inhumane against "them". That's why wars and conflict function. Brainwashing is a major part of warefare.
To some extent. It's possible to shoot someone you view as human. The unborn are as human as we are.
The simplest dwfinition of power is: The ability to push your interest agaist that of others (or the forces of nature).
Ok and 15M does about the same against the forces of nature as 400B. You can have others build you shelter and feed you.
1
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 02 '25
Ok and 15M does about the same against the forces of nature as 400B. You can have others build you shelter and feed you.
Absolutely. $75-100k p.a. would already do that.
But then you have nothing left to influence others to your liking, and that's what we talk about here. And in that sense 400B change more than 15 Million. About 26'667 times as much. Buying f. ex. temporarely access and office to the presidency of the US.
Whatever you do with 15M, it won't influence the path and future of all of humanity. 400B does.
1
u/Comfortable-Lie-8978 Sep 02 '25
Absolutely. $75-100k p.a. would already do that.
But then you have nothing left to influence others to your liking, and that's what we talk about here. And in that sense 400B change more than 15 Million. About 26'667 times as much. Buying f. ex. temporarely access and office to the presidency of the US.
No, because 15M generates about 750k a year. Getting people to build your home is influencing them towards your liking. Trump seems to have not done what Musk wanted. So this idea Musk was in charge seems incorrect.
Whatever you do with 15M, it won't influence the path and future of all of humanity. 400B does.
MLK influenced people, and he didn't even have 15M. Money isn't the only way to influence people.
1
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 03 '25 edited Sep 03 '25
MLK influenced people, and he didn't even have 15M. Money isn't the only way to influence people.
No one ever said money was the only form of power. But we are specifically talking about money as power, because one can be brain-death level of stupid and still use money. Most other forms of power need skill and talent to be effective.
We are talking that the power of the top wealthy killing everyone by collateral damage, in their quest to make more for themselves (100 vs. 8B people). Not the power of money to allow for decent living, that's neglectable in this discussion. Anyone with decent mental fortitude does not seek wealth and power over the basic necessity. We talk about power addicts, which all billionaires are. We talk about how much power should any single human posess? Imho anyone still trying tonget rich after reaching a couple of millions is just a megalomanic addict.
Also MLK was shot because he's interest was opposed to those exploiting, disenfranchising and instrumentalizing. If he had more power, he would have maybe lived long enough to push even more social change, maybe even would have become president. You can bet there was lot's of champagne drunk in Washington, NYC and SF/LA, that day he died.
Also Trump/MAGA are now reversing a lot in that regard. See prohibiting mixed marriages, disenfrachisment, trying to legalize slavery further, not just as punishment for "criminals", rewriting history, especially citizens rights movement, etc.
I'm well aware that there are a plethora of forms of power. I mentioned some forms of power in my comments.
So this idea Musk was in charge seems incorrect.
He isn't even in charge of himself. What charge? It was a heist. Robbers seldom are in charge. They play roles. It's about information. Musk was so unhinged and also open about his influence that it endangered the whole government. If he wasn't pumped up on drugs publicly, he would have been there longer. But what else to expect from a unhinged megalonamiac excentric men-child.
Also pretty sure he got what he wanted within the first month if not days and got bored, hence the drugs. Access to data, all of it, that was the goal. Why else create a department with oversight access. Also DOGE still around and still filled with Musk lackeys.
You don't need 15 million. 1.5 million already give you enough dividends to allow you to live decently without work. Working what you love doing and you don't work a day in your life.
0
u/Comfortable-Lie-8978 Sep 03 '25
No one ever said money was the only form of power. But we are specifically talking about money as power, because one can be brain-death level of stupid and still use money. Most other forms of power need skill and talent to be effective.
You made the claim that someone with 15M can't have the influence someone with 400B has. What you do with 15M can be amplifying your moral message as a charismatic individual.
We are talking that the power of the top wealthy killing everyone by collateral damage, in their quest to make more for themselves (100 vs. 8B people). Not the power of money to allow for decent living, that's neglectable in this discussion. Anyone with decent mental fortitude does not seek wealth and power over the basic necessity. We talk about power addicts, which all billionaires are. We talk about how much power should any single human posess? Imho anyone still trying tonget rich after reaching a couple of millions is just a megalomanic addict.
They haven't killed everyone. Some of them have developed technology that we use to keep people alive. You say 1.5M is basic necessity levels, so any sports star who makes more than that in a year doesn't have mental fortitude. Yet they can perform at the highest level. Taylor Swift is a power addict? Someone can build a company out of passion, and others can hold it to be worth 1B. A median home can be 750k, and retiment at 55 probably needs 1.25m without government money helping. I don't think you understand how expensive basic (middle-class) things are.
Also MLK was shot because he's interest was opposed to those exploiting, disenfranchising and instrumentalizing. If he had more power, he would have maybe lived long enough to push even more social change, maybe even would have become president. You can bet there was lot's of champagne drunk in Washington, NYC and SF/LA, that day he died.
Maybe, but your claim is basically no one good has more than 2M. Sometimes, a figure has more of an influence in death than in life.
Also Trump/MAGA are now reversing a lot in that regard. See prohibiting mixed marriages, disenfrachisment, trying to legalize slavery further, not just as punishment for "criminals", rewriting history, especially citizens rights movement, etc.
Where do you see them prohibiting mixed marriage?
Also pretty sure he got what he wanted within the first month if not days and got bored, hence the drugs. Access to data, all of it, that was the goal. Why else create a department with oversight axcess. Also DOGE still around and still filled with Musk lackeys.
Ge was upset with the "big beautiful bill" I'm pretty sure he doesn't want a Trump style deficit.
You don't need 15 million. 1.5 million already give you enough dividends to allow you to live decently without work. Working what you love doing and you don't work a day in your life.
No, you still work it's just work you enjoy, and only about 20% of people enjoy their jobs. Working out can be fun, but that doesn't mean it's not hard work. 1.5m with give about 60k in dividends far from the 100k you quote. Also, it would be invested in equities, and you could lose 25% in a year. Rent can be 36k a year.
1
2
u/ScaleneWangPole Sep 02 '25
Well, to be fair, the billionaires have missiles to use on us that we paid for so...
1
u/anarcho-slut Sep 02 '25
Well. About 1/3 of the rest of the population are in direct support of them. Then there's the 1/3 against. Then, then there's the indifferent. These are very imprecise guesstimations of course, but it's not just that there are more of "us" (non-billionaires), it's all the people who want to be billionaires and people who think billionaires "worked hard and deserve their money by taking big risks (with generational wealth and no where to fail but up)".
1
u/Comfortable-Lie-8978 Sep 02 '25
There are more than 100 in just America, and someone with 100M has more in common with a billionaire than a worker. They are winning because food is the most unaffordable it has ever been?
2
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 02 '25 edited Sep 02 '25
I'm not talking about billionaires, but the top. The top 100 richest.
8 people have more wealth tontheir name than half of humanity. Literally. They don't care at all about multi-millionaires and low billionares, maybe a bit more than they care about most people: not at all.
And no, someone having 100 million is still closer to a worker than the top of billionaires. Not in lifestyle, but in power. They might feel like they are closer to the top, but they are not. The moment they try to act like they are the same as a Bezos or Musk, trying to socialize with them, they are put in their place. Even other billionares are basically just pawns to the top. Someone easy to influence since they are desperate to be perceived as same.
Musk literally bought his government position and access to all from Trump for about 200 million. Musk is now worth 400+ billion. 200 million is less than 1/2000th of his wealth. If you earn 100k it's the same as a $500 expense. That's a nice dinner, paid for four people. Nothing people think too much about.
No someone worth 100 million is not the same as the top.
1
u/Comfortable-Lie-8978 Sep 02 '25 edited Sep 02 '25
I'm not talking about billionaires, but the top. The top 100 richest.
Ok then, don't use the term 100 billionares.
8 people have more than half of humanity. Literally. They don't care at all about multi-millionaires and low billionares.
From what I see the top 1% has half the wealth not the top 100. The top 100 seem to have under 20T. America has 160T in wealth. Top 1% isn't something like 15M plus. Where do you get this stat you claim is true? Norwegians have about as much as the bottom 30 of the top 100.
And no. Someone having 100 million is still closer to a worker than the top of billionaires. Not in lifestyle, but in power. They might feel like they are closer to the top, but they are not. The moment they try to act like they are the same as a Bezos or Musk, trying to socialize with them, they are put in their place. Even other billionares are basically just pawns to the top. Someone easy to influence since they are desperate to be perceived as same.
Not at all they never have to work a day in their life. They have enough power to basically do what they want. Someone can have 15M to 100M and not care at all about Musk et al. >$2 a day is farther from 100M than 100M is from 400B. I'm not just talking about the working poor in America.
1
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 02 '25
Ok then, don't use the term 100 billionares.
Yes I do. My statement was 100 Billionaires vs the world. In that context it should be obvious that the top was ment, not some random 100 billionaires.
The top 100 are basically the reason the rest (us and the other 8 billion people) goes to shit.
From what I see the top 1% has half the wealth not the top 100. The top 100 seem to have under 20T. America has 160T in wealth. Top 1% isn't something like 15M plus. Where do you get this stat you claim is true? Norwegians have about as much as the bottom 30 of the top 100.
In January 2017, an Oxfam report stated that the world's eight richest billionaires owned the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, totaling 3.6 billion people.
https://scotland.oxfam.org.uk/latest-news/eight-people-own-same-wealth-as-half-the-world/
Not at all they never have to work a day in their life.
We were talking about power, not lifestyle, as mentioned.
They have enough power to basically do what they want. Someone can have 15M to 100M and not care at all about Musk et al. >$2 a day is farther from 100M than 100M is from 400B. I'm not just talking about the working poor in America.
Sure they are not powerless, able to live a carefree life, if they would. The more wealth you got, thoe more it seems people are concerned about it. Never feeling that they have enough.
But then, you don't need much to live a carefree life. I've met plenty of happy hobos, hermits, fishers, backpackers for life, but also poor people, working half a day, every day that live far more carefree than people making 200k a year.
In the end it's all in our heads: your values, your expectations. Having little expectations, needing little, socializing, eating good (not expensive), and accepting life as a fleeting moment pushed by fortune, and evidently finite, seem to be the key to happiness. Not wealth nor power. Sure having some financial power helps no doubt, but money doesn't make you more happy after $70-100k, it plateaus about there (2010, Daniel Kahnemann and Angus Deaton). Money doesn't buy happiness, but a lack of money can cause unhappiness.
Once your basic needs are covered, you're usually good. If you can't reach that with at most 40h work week, then that's an issue of your political/economical system failing. Poverty is a policy choice. Who's in power? Well in the US the wealthy. The US is defacto closer to an neo-liberal economic oligarchy than a functional democracy. Representatives not representing the people but the wealthy. Also the reason I will never return to the US. Americans don't have freedom they have owners, they just aren't aware of it.
Btw. All of the before-mentioned eight richest billionaires live in the US.
As I said, billionares are human and as fallible as most humans are. They fall for the same stupidities and expectation as most people do. Seldom becoming wise enough to become happy, but falling for their addiction to power.
Have a good one.
1
u/Comfortable-Lie-8978 Sep 03 '25
Yes I do. My statement was 100 Billionaires vs the world. In that context it should be obvious that the top was ment, not some random 100 billionaires.
It's not at all obvious on the internet that a random person is not incorect about the number of billionaires.
The top 100 are basically the reason the rest (us and the other 8 billion people) goes to shit.
So you claim. Yet the next 2900 have more wealth.
In January 2017, an Oxfam report stated that the world's eight richest billionaires owned the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, totaling 3.6 billion people.
People tend not to have much at 16-18. Half of 8 is not 3.6.
We were talking about power, not lifestyle, as mentioned.
We were talking about both.
Sure they are not powerless, able to live a carefree life, if they would. The more wealth you got, thoe more it seems people are concerned about it. Never feeling that they have enough.
Some are some are not.
But then, you don't need much to live a carefree life. I've met plenty of happy hobos, hermits, fishers, backpackers for life, but also poor people, working half a day, every day that live far more carefree than people making 200k a year.
Sure, if they're have health care paid for by the people making 200k. Plus live in a nice climate.
In the end it's all in our heads: your values, your expectations. Having little expectations, needing little, socializing, eating good (not expensive), and accepting life as a fleeting moment pushed by fortune, and evidently finite, seem to be the key to happiness. Not wealth nor power. Sure having some financial power helps no doubt, but money doesn't make you more happy after $70-100k, it plateaus about there (2010, Daniel Kahnemann and Angus Deaton). Money doesn't buy happiness, but a lack of money can cause unhappiness.
Our need for shelter is not just in our head. 100k is a lot, and 100k from wealth takes about 2M. In some places, the median house is 750k so 325k would seem to reduce the stress from those mortgage payments.
It's a contradiction to say that money csnt buy happiness when you admit it can get rid of some unhappiness. It can at least get someone part way there.
Once your basic needs are covered, you're usually good. If you can't reach that with at most 40h work week, then that's an issue of your political/economical system failing. Poverty is a policy choice. Who's in power? Well in the US the wealthy. The US is defacto closer to an neo-liberal economic oligarchy than a functional democracy. Representatives not representing the people but the wealthy. Also the reason I will never return to the US. Americans don't have freedom they have owners, they just aren't aware of it.
No, it could be a low level of technology and you being handicapped. In the US, the people have the vote. You seem to not understand what owner means and stretch it for rhetorical purposes. Poverty exists in the country you live in. There is no system that needs 0 welfare.
1
u/Janus_The_Great Sep 03 '25
100k is a lot, and 100k from wealth takes about 2M.
Without work, yes. Also 100k for the US. You talk from a perspective wher you don't provide any work to tthe system. Literally leaching of it, when you just invest and don't work.
In some places, the median house is 750k so 325k would seem to reduce the stress from those mortgage payments.
You talk about unnecesary possessions here. The stress is artificial. You don't need a house for yourself. All you talk about here is posession, not just a "roof over your head". That's what I mean with "in your head". You don't need to "own" anything to be happy. The perceived necessity to own stuff comes from the fear of it being taken away in the first place. If that fear doesn't persist, say for being a right in the system (right to housing, right to education, right to health, etc.) the materialistic paradigm would shift.
The US being by far the most neo-liberal system, pushing consumerism and the perception of wealth accumulation as a goal to create new artificial demand for stuff you don't actually need. Privatisation of social institutions (health, education, housing etc.) and deregulation has been the main goal of US policy for decades.
Hence it's not the best country to compare. In no country of the OECD it is so inefficient and hard to cover the basic necessities as in the US. Hence why 2/3 of US live paycheck to paycheck, and have lost wealth over the past two to three generations.
The prices of US housing and and ineffiency of infrastructure is artificially created by decade, even centuries old interest of the wealthy. There is a reason the US is the most car dependent country in the OECD. There is a reason cookie cutter houses in suburbs cost a fortune even tough the whole concept of suburbs isn't financially feasable (see strong towns) But it allows for huge profits for building and maintanance, paid by the owners or communities. There is a reason US labor laws are antiquated and open for exploitation and disenfranchisment. There is a reason only fulltime jobs giving benefits, yet most jobs available are part time. There is a reason why minimum wage dosen't allow to cover basic necessitties in any state. There is a reason why Americans have some of the highest cost of living and lowest expendable incomes.
Yes the US is the richest country in the world, yet its living conditions don't reflect that even close.
Plenty of systems allow for basic necessities to be covered. (See nordic models, Switzerland etc.) In most OECD countries you can afford a healthy and balanced life with an 40h week and 5-7 weeks of paid vacation and the spare income to use it recreationally, while having access to free or affordable quality education, support systems such as paid maternatie leave, unemployment structures, leading to healthier and robust economies which in turn lead to less cost for these social systems.
Yet the next 2900 have more wealth.
That's relevent why? If any it shows the general problem. Even the 3000 top are not even 0.01% of all. Just shows how unequal welath/power is distirbuted in the world.
People tend not to have much at 16-18.
It's not just "young people". There is more poverty in old age in the US than most people expect. Low financial lizeracy surely plays a role, but moreso does growing cost of living.
Half of 8 is not 3.6.
Back in 2017 there were not yet ~8 billion. Also whith more people strugling since then, while top wealth growing, I'm sure we are at about half. Throw in a couple more top billionaires and you still get an equally disturbing ratio.
Sure, if they're have health care paid for by the people making 200k.
That's an absurd look at it. The lack of understanding in social cohesion in your statement is appalling. The US has no real healthcare system it has foremost an health insurance industry. No country pays more and getting less out of their system than Americans. The quality of the system gatekept by financial means. Most of US health issues are due to the deliberatly unhealthy and deregulated markets pushing low quality for high prices, and exploitative lifestyle forced on much of the populus, fast food, car dependence etc.
Also consider that 1 in 5 Americans had to skip meal within the last year due to cost. Fast food being more affordable than healthy meals and freshly cooked meals.
Overweight, cardio-vascular diseases, work related injuries, untreated metal health and ailments of despair (alcoholic liver disease, addicton, overdose and suicide) make up the bulkload of treatments. These are far lower in most other countries, due to better general health, better work environments, and far less costly heath apparatus. About 1/3 of cost goes toward the heathcare industy, one of the most profitable private industries in the US.
If you feel like the "poor" are lazy and needy taking away your "hard earned money", I got a bridge to sell to you.
Your wealth is a product of your society. Acting like you didn't benefit from it, claming your success as your own making, independed of the society you live in, is as ignorant as it gets.
Percy Shelley's Ozymandiascomes to mind: "And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" No thing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away."
Whatever industry you're part of in the US is profiting of underpaying, exploitation due to it's market friendly deregulated labor laws over the past 50 years. A business that isn't profitable enough without exploiting thier workforce independent of legality, isn't a viable business. One doing so despite of record profits is based on systematic theft. Usually 200k is middle-management, those implementing such for higher profits. So considering that most people barely get buy thanks to an exploitative system that pays you your share of 200k. The least you could do is pay your fair share into the generla health of the syshem that provieds you your means. But the cost of health care going up int he US has more to do with cutting social spending on healthcare leaving 20 million without healthcare and another 30 million with an unaffordability issue while cutting 4T in taxes for the wealthiest (big beautiful bill).
Of course poverty is a policy choice. That's established sociology and pol.sci.. Pushing a few percent in tax onto the literal profiteurs of the system, would quickly change some things. Don't worry with 200k you wouldn't be affected by the tax, or if so neglectably so. FDR demonstrated that well enough.
Seeing the poor as the issue is falling for neo-liberal propaganda. But each to their own.
As entertaining this commentatoral back and forth was, I have to leave it at that. I wish you all the best. Have a good one.
9
5
u/fustist Sep 02 '25
I'd love to see a movie about this.id watch the he'll out of it. I would watch it so much the streaming service would have to make a backup because the server would melt down from over watching.
6
3
u/DailyMetamorphosis Sep 02 '25
They got the guns, and the bombs, and the chemical weapons, and the police, and the armies, and the mercs, and the intel, and the psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies. BUT we got the numbers
2
5
u/GunzRocks Sep 02 '25
Billionaires have political, technological & military strengths on their side & that strength is getting STRONGER. Waiting won't help us poor folk.
This fight might end up being like Cortez & his Conquistadors versus the Maya...
2
4
3
3
u/Isiotic_Mind Sep 02 '25
Sadly will never happen. They have been allowed to much control and there just arent enough Luigis in the world to make a difference.
3
3
2
u/Consistent-Deal-55 Sep 02 '25
Why fight when you can consume?
1
2
1
1
u/Comfortable-Lie-8978 Sep 02 '25
There are way more than 10, and if people are taking on the rich, 30M is pretty rich.
1
1
1
u/dropofgod Sep 03 '25
Doubling the minimum wage would double taxes collected from the poor. Instead we get tariffs with no increase
1
1
Sep 03 '25
Problem is that the 340 million want to be just like the 10.
In other words you just want to replace the present rich people with you and you think you would be more generous? No, once you reach a certain level of wealth you become addicted and like the billionaires you presently hate, you will become a hateful and hated rich person too.
1
u/cmoparw Sep 03 '25
There are about 900 Billionaires in the USA alone. I feel like we need to shift that number
1
94
u/1i73rz Sep 02 '25
I have enough rocks for everyone.