This is why billionaires shouldn't exist they are treasonous
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
7 points (88.9% liked)
World News
32219 readers
375 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
They should exist, but we are not utilizing them correctly. Once someone has reached a billion dollar networth then they are thrown a big party and then sacrificed to a valcono. I believe this would curb emissions and fix climate change.
Maybe we just seize all their assets, nationalize them and make them start over with nothing. Call it new game +.
They just need to make a point system. The incredibly wealthy don't care about money itself, those are already just points to them. So once you get to say 100 M, you get a trophy saying you won capitalism. After that amount 99% is taxed, you get a penny on the dollar. But all of that taxed money gets you Capitalism points. Capitalism points have no real value and can only be exchanged/traded/gambled with other winners of capitalism. Those with most points will be published each month in the top 100. And the top 10 each year get the prestigous title if honorary economic leader. They can get a medal and a pat on the back by the president.
You can also donate extra money for more capitalism points at a 10:1 exchange rate to get people to play the game even harder and further drive down wealth.
(I believe there are slightly less than 10,000 people in the US who would currently get their capitalism trophy. There are >140,000 people worth more than $50M, is 100 to high?)
Oh and the 100M amount is pegged to minimum wage. Any increase to the capitalism cap has to be matched to the same percent increase to minimum wage.
Just too much power for one person. Even if they're not in charge of a global internet provider, your average billionaire can singlehandedly affect the lives of millions of people (employees, customers, bystanders) with no democratic oversight at all. It's just not something that should exist.
You: Want to abolish billionaires because they do not support the war enough.
Me: Want to abolish billionaires because they exploit and oppress the working class.
We are not the same.
I want to abolish them because of both - checkmate
Patsoc detected.
Please enlighten me what a Patsoc is - I am really curious.
"Patriotic socialist", someone who claims to be a champion of the working class, but is actually more of nationalist. They only care about the working class of a certain nationality or racial group, and are generally bigoted in their view towards marginalized groups. Real socialists are internationalist. You wanting to get rid of Musk, because he's not sufficiently gung-ho about a war fought between capitalists on the back of workers, implies you consider the national interest more important than the lives of workers. This is anti-worker class collaborator shit, which is what patsocs are really.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Russia is throwing thousands of „working class“ lives away, since it wants to expand its territory in aggressive moves since decades. They are forcing Ukraine to defend itself and yes, those are also working class people.
So you, as a good socialist, are probably on the barricades because of this unprovoked attack on the Ukrainian working class. How are you fighting to defend them from getting killed? Please don’t answer something in the likes of „Ukraine should give up“ because then everyone would only see that you are actually advocating the Murder of the Ukrainian people.
Apt username
load more comments
(15 replies)
He posted the other day about being proud American etc. and yet he's actively giving comfort to hostile adversaries like Russia and screwing US allies. I think if I were the US federal government I wouldn't touch SpaceX or Starlink with a shitty stick given the mercurial, manchild in charge of them with his own agenda.
Remember folks, the rich only care about one thing and one thing only, getting richer. A bunch of these shit heads got together and started actively planning on overthrowing the US government because the election of FDR was going to affect their interests.
I'd argue Musk cared more about being able to bloviate on Twitter than he did about getting richer from that transaction.
Of course there's the very real possibility that he was foolish enough to believe he could make money on the deal.
What the hell? Look, man, I hate the guy but he's remarkably consistent: he works for his interests. Even when he does dumbshit things like buy Twitter, the thinks he's operating in his interests.
He's not complicated. He's a self absorbed piece of shit. That's really all you ever need to know about the fucker.
You're mad at Musk for this???
Musk has done so many terrible things. Treats his workers like shit, destroys the environment, platforms racists (he's a racist pos himself), false advertising, siphons government subsidies, scams investors (including pension funds, I don't particularly care about scamming venture capitalist and the like), lobbies against public transport and god knows what I forgot right now.
But oh no! He only supports the war effort up to a point, and he doesn't want to have a cold war with China. For once he's kinda reasonable, and for that the libs are calling him a traitor.
We are calling him a traitor for having Starlink turned off in Ukraine to protect Russia from a counter attack.
That's because you identify with the US empire, which is not, and never was, on your team. And neither was Musk.
Musk isn't even against the US empire, he just didn't want to escalate. The White House regularly does (not) do a thing because they don't want to escalate. They're all traitors to the US too, are they?
Treason is not wanting total war, got it.
traitor to whom?
The country he lives in, and the military that paid to have the service of his business to be used ... by the military.
At most that is breach of contract. Definitely not traitorous.
Civilian space assets cannot be used for warfare or they become legitimate targets in a war. When the US commits to defending and replenishing starlink satellites lost in conflict I'll blame Musk for not enabling his network to be used for warfare.
The Ukraine military was already using starlink. Starlink agreed to provide their service to the Ukraine military as a US military contractor with the US paying the bill.
So they can do that because they have already done that.
The US has committed to defending and replenishing Starlink because they’ve been doing that by protecting the antennas and replacing them as they get attacked.
Again. Starlink already agreed to be used in Ukraine and at the time that Musk interrupted service to the Ukrainian military it had been in use for a long time.
Musk only interrupted service long enough to prevent the counter attack on Russia. Then agreed to turn it back on after the opportunity for a counter attack had passed.
Seems pretty obvious that Musk stepped in to help Russia as a traitor to the US.
Last I heard, he simply didn't turn it on when Ukraine asked him to, before the DoD had explicitly contracted him to support Ukraine's military. The narrative of him throwing a switch mid-attack and laughing maniacally as Ukrainian drones drifted helplessly to shore has been spreading like wildfire but that seems to be based on a quote from one guy who has since walked it back.
Is there some Fediverse equivalent to /r/enoughmuskspam? My feed is starting to get flooded with these five-minute-hates of Elon Musk and it's wearying.
Nope, Starlink was already in use. Musk used his position as CEO of Starlink to cut off service to Ukraine. But only long enough to interrupt a counter attack on the Russian fleet. Once the opportunity had passed he had it turned back on.
His intentions are obvious.
Truly, the pinnacle of modern journalism: YouTube.
If Rachel Maddow says it, then it must be true.
If you’re skeptical, here’s the article the interview was about.
I know redditors and lemmies are eager to fight to the last Ukrainian, but atleast half the country wants to stop unlimited Ukrainian funding. So Musk prohibiting Ukrainians to use his tech for offensive warfare against another country, is him saving the world from nuclear war.
In his own words, "The United States Congress has not declared war on Russia". And that is 100% true.
I know many of you guys had your bunkers ready for the nuclear fallout. But understand that many others want to live normally.
Here is Walter Isaacson (on whose book this story is based) himself saying,
To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a major war.
https://twitter.com/WalterIsaacson/status/1700342242290901361
Can someone double check the content of the quote? I'd need documents to believe this because that's a big claim.
What claim?
Yeah - Isaacson walked back on the initial story. we will probably never find out which version is true … but you can be sure that the last published version of any story is not necessarily the truth.
And that you are insinuating that the Ukrainian people are being used „to the last Ukrainian“ is in itself a sickening twist of the truth. This is Russian Propaganda language.
Is this Russian Propaganda language too?
Mitt Romney - We (Americans) are losing no lives in Ukraine...
Richard Blumenthal - We’ve helped restore faith and confidence in American leadership — moral and military. All without a single American service woman or man injured or lost...
WaPo: Paywall
FT: Paywall
Romney Tweet „The single most important thing we can do to strengthen America relative to China is to see Russia defeated in Ukraine. A weakened Russia deters the CCP's territorial ambition, and halts Putin's vision of reestablishing the old Soviet Union. Supporting Ukraine is in our interest.“
Romney CNN: „“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.“
Blumenthal: Zelenskiy doesn’t want or need „our“ (probably the US is meant) troops.
Where exactly is this „gotcha“ moment that you are trying to push?