8 billion people vs. 3000 billionaires: Who would win?
-
they win because they throw money at enough ppl to build a wall of ppl to protect them
wrote last edited by [email protected]well I think by definition of the quesiton, if it's "billionaires vs non-billionaires" then their security team are probably non-billionaires and therefore have resigned to join the fight. So they're just left with whatever non-human secutiry they already have - walls, guns, drones, cameras, etc, but not staff, and they can't buy anything more bc no non-billionaires will sell anything to them. Actually, using that logic, we don't really have to do anything and we can starve them out by simply ignoring them and refusing to sell them any food, lol. The idea of a "homeless" billionaire running around the streets begging passers-by for food is somehow quite amusing.
-
I worked with a guy that proudly proclaimed that he voted for the right because they looked after the rich.
He was not rich, but he purchased lottery tickets weekly and stated he'd rather get screwed while poor than pay more tax if he, some day, became rich.
And that was the day I realised that we're fucked.
Just remember, when we go vote, his is worth just as much as yours.
-
Not that huge of a claim, especially when now is so chaotic and dysfunctional. Here's a nonexhaustive list of moneyless economies (obviously with varying degrees of feasibility)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monetary_economy
~edit: wording~
The huge claim is the present tense, "has the ability". It's not a huge claim to say that humanity has the potential to one day transcend money, but that wasn't the claim. Humanity has a long road before that's possible, it does not presently have the ability to continue to function if we just snapped our fingers tomorrow and eliminated money.
An "ability" is not a vague notion bolstered by historical curiosities. An "ability" involves a detailed, immediately actionable plan that can be implemented in the modern economic landscape without destroying crucial productivity.
Resources have to be allocated. People need to accept the resource allocation method in order to contribute their labor to do things that must be done. Money is an imperfect solution. Eliminating money leads to reinventing it (e.g. "energy credits"), reverting to less efficient models (e.g. barter), developing a central planning body that replaces wealth corruption with administrative corruption, or widespread social loafing where nothing gets done.
Without an actual plan of implementation that gains the trust of the workers, there is no "ability", merely aspiration.
-
Is it, though? Because if the billionaires had all that money but only themselves and their billionaire friends on team billionaire, how powerful would they actually be (in comparison to, say, now) if they didn't have any non billionaires on their side?
I think they're this powerful right now because there are a lot of non-billionaires who are dumb enough to do whatever they're told by them even if it's not in their own best interest (or the rest of the world's) at all.
I think they’re this powerful right now because there are a lot of non-billionaires who are dumb enough to do whatever they’re told by them even if it’s not in their own best interest (or the rest of the world’s) at all.
And they always will be. The thing about one's own best interest is that it's self-interest, always at least parochial, if not outright selfish (as in the US). If the people comprising a billionaire's private security force can obtain a better standard of living, more power, more perks, for themselves and their families than they could by cooperating with the rest of the proles in a (let's be honest) speculative venture, even if it did pay off? Well, some people will take the billionaire's offer, at least enough people to comprise a private security force.
-
well I think by definition of the quesiton, if it's "billionaires vs non-billionaires" then their security team are probably non-billionaires and therefore have resigned to join the fight. So they're just left with whatever non-human secutiry they already have - walls, guns, drones, cameras, etc, but not staff, and they can't buy anything more bc no non-billionaires will sell anything to them. Actually, using that logic, we don't really have to do anything and we can starve them out by simply ignoring them and refusing to sell them any food, lol. The idea of a "homeless" billionaire running around the streets begging passers-by for food is somehow quite amusing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]And yet, the poor and stupid people queue up to join the ICE and MAGA organisations.
They would be as upset as they should be, if they were smarter. They wouldn't be "poor and stupid" if they were smarter.
That's not a koinkidoink. USA has spent a very long time deliberately creating this situation. And by USA I mean those in power.
-
Elaborate and explain
Have the billionaires for lunch.
-
The huge claim is the present tense, "has the ability". It's not a huge claim to say that humanity has the potential to one day transcend money, but that wasn't the claim. Humanity has a long road before that's possible, it does not presently have the ability to continue to function if we just snapped our fingers tomorrow and eliminated money.
An "ability" is not a vague notion bolstered by historical curiosities. An "ability" involves a detailed, immediately actionable plan that can be implemented in the modern economic landscape without destroying crucial productivity.
Resources have to be allocated. People need to accept the resource allocation method in order to contribute their labor to do things that must be done. Money is an imperfect solution. Eliminating money leads to reinventing it (e.g. "energy credits"), reverting to less efficient models (e.g. barter), developing a central planning body that replaces wealth corruption with administrative corruption, or widespread social loafing where nothing gets done.
Without an actual plan of implementation that gains the trust of the workers, there is no "ability", merely aspiration.
I disagree with a few points you bring up, but beyond those, it sounds like your biggest problem with my statement is in the semantics. I don't find that to be very useful when obviously the logistics of such a system are complicated enough to warrant a whole doctorate degree. Comments on social media between strangers with no verifiable education isn't really the place to harp on precise wording and definitions. I think it's possible for humanity to coordinate without money. Is that better? Or do you still disagree?
-
It’s funny cause no one seems to realize that the billionaires are human beings. They have a house, they shit, they piss, they bleed, etc. And yet, everyone is somehow convinced that becoming a billionaire makes you somehow invulnerable.
they shit, they piss, they bleed
Sometimes more than one of those things simultaneously!
-
I disagree with a few points you bring up, but beyond those, it sounds like your biggest problem with my statement is in the semantics. I don't find that to be very useful when obviously the logistics of such a system are complicated enough to warrant a whole doctorate degree. Comments on social media between strangers with no verifiable education isn't really the place to harp on precise wording and definitions. I think it's possible for humanity to coordinate without money. Is that better? Or do you still disagree?
Semantics are how we communicate ideas. If you change the semantic content, you change the idea.
I think it's possible for humanity to coordinate without money.
Depends on what you mean by possible. At some point in the remote future? Sure, I agree. At the present time? I disagree. We're not there yet, and you can't just snap your fingers and change the fundamental beliefs, and logistics administration, of 8 billion people overnight. Best case scenario that's a multi-generational endeavor.
We can get there one day, we can't outlaw money tomorrow.
-
While you're correct that there are no examples of such a society*, that isn't because money is crucial to development. It's because the time of technological breakthroughs happened in a global capitalist economy. Just because that's the way history played out doesn't mean that was the only way it could've. Money didn't invent those things, people did. They had the time and resources to make that stuff happen. And yes, they got those resources via a moneyed economy, but that doesn't mean those same people couldn't have gotten the same time and resources had they existed within say a library economy.
::: spoiler *
Not exactly a perfect society (what is) but the Incas developed cutting edge technology for the time within a moneyless society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_technology
:::I apologize for not being clear in what I was asking for. I didnt mean that I wanted an example of a society that, say, developed MRI technology outside the capitalist framework. I simply wanted an example of a society which could produce and use an MRI without the use of money or authoritatian force. They can have access to all the underlying science and technological know-how. But they need to get someone to mine the iron ore that will be smelted to be turned into streel which will become a tool which will be used in the manufacture of an MRI machine... without paying them.
Problem being - no one wants to mine iron ore. There are limits on how much prestige a society can distribute, and little will go to iron ore miners. The actual benefit of the labor is so far removed that the likelihood for personal gratitude from a beneficiary is vanishingly small - for example, someone who has a torn meniscus diagnosed with an MRI is unlikely to send the iron ore miner a personal thank you card. Of course, we could pay our miner in clothes and food and housing - but then we've just reinvented money but less efficient. Seeing no personal benefit to breaking his back every day in a dark hole, out miner would want to find something else to do with his time, resilting in no iron ore, and thus, no MRIs.
But I mean, prove me wrong.
-
Elaborate and explain
It's not the billionaires but the antisocial, amoral whores who will sell their souls for money and do their bidding that are the problem (police, army, etc.), and those who would quietly acquiesce. And of those there are way too many in some societies for change to be easy/possible.
-
All evidence points to a regime change (in the physics sense, not the political) being the necessary condition for things to go from our current state to something new.
We currently have people paying poorer people a very small amount of their own net worth to protect the wealthy person's status and position. This is similar to how kings and queens paid the army and policing forces to control the peasants.
Before the French Revolution I am sure it seemed impossible that the peasants would revolt, but the years leading up to the revolution things were getting worse and worse for the average peasant. There is a tipping point where the average person does not think the current system is delivering on the promise that of you do what you are told you can have a good life. I think we are approaching that point now.
If the rich try to hire someone and underpay them for security, stiff contractors for services, flaunt laws and generally behave obnoxiously at some point people will have had enough. Whether that ends with guillotine action or people just divesting from those systems depends on how much freedom people think they have.
If people thought they could go and homestead, live off the land, and get by without the massive companies these billionaires own then they would have that outlet and choose that peaceful option. The fact that we have taxation creates a pressure to pay in currency which demands earning in that currency. Same with paying rent, you have to earn money simply to live. No amount of growing all of your food gets rid of your financial obligations, so there is no out from the system. If that system is unreasonable it begins to feel less like participation and more like coercive control. Wage slavery is not the same as slavery, but both involve coercion and require the legal system to support them. Both lead to revolutions. Both lead to violence.
I guess the billionaires have to decide if they really want to paint that big a target on their backs by flaunting their wealth. At this point I think they feel untouchable.
Mostly all agreed, but the populace isn't starving, not even close. I'm not arguing that we're not suffering, only that we're nowhere near suffering enough for a revolt. But damned do I like what you've written!
-
I chose to believe that the working class will eventuall prevail, that people will no longer have nationalism, and work together towards a common future.
It may take years, it may take decades, perhaps even a century, but we will get there. We must get there. Life is too short, life is too miserable. We cannot give up on trying to build a better future.
Because the moment I lose that last bit of hope, I will literally kill myself. So I cannt give up on humanity. I have to have faith that there are good people out there trying to fix problems, because that's what gives me he motivation to live.
Humans have been living under absolute monarchies, communities have been destroyed by imperialism and colonialism, slavery was rampart, the concept of human rights didnt even exist. But we have come so far, humanity have come so far, a lot of the problems we faced in the past had been fixed or at leased inproved. And yes we eill face a lot more problems in the future, and eventually we will find those solutions just as we did for the past problems; we cannot give up now.
Yes, climate change will destroy so many thing, lives and livelihood, but we must find the strength to perservere. Because life is a miracle, Earth even being capable of sustaining life is a miracle.
I remember there was a kid in class that asked: "If humans mess up the Earth, why don't we just move to Mars?", the teacher who's field is related to environment (can't remember the exact subject), told the class that, humans can use up all the fossil fuels and melt all polar ice caps, and Earth would still be 100 times more habitable than Mars.
Because no matter how bad it gets, its still still the most habitable planet that we know of.
Do not give up. (I know I'm being a hypocrite since I subconsciously always tell myself to give up, but don't do that, fight those thoughts)
Right on! Humans have lived through horrors that make 2025 a cakewalk. We'll hang in, we'll survive. We're the toughest multipurpose animals this planet has ever produced, the AR-15s and Toyota Hiluxes and Swiss army knives of mammals. Not the best at any one thing, but we can do it all well enough.
Things are bad now, maybe especially for us Americans. Who among us thought we'd see fascism taking root?! Maybe I'm old and idealistic, but I didn't see Trump 2.0 coming, not again. But we'll survive, we'll live on. History is always two steps forward, one step back. We Americans are seeing the "one step back" for the first time.
-
And yet, the poor and stupid people queue up to join the ICE and MAGA organisations.
They would be as upset as they should be, if they were smarter. They wouldn't be "poor and stupid" if they were smarter.
That's not a koinkidoink. USA has spent a very long time deliberately creating this situation. And by USA I mean those in power.
The people joining ICE may not be who you think they are. No journalism has scared me quite so much as this article:
-
The people joining ICE may not be who you think they are. No journalism has scared me quite so much as this article:
my uncle knows im looking for work and hella enthused was like why dont you just work for ice they have a great signing bonus, like bro im gonna send you to el salvador first if I somehow decide thats what I want to do with my life
-
What an absolute moron.
I don't, I feel like moron / stupid just doesn't cut it for idiots like this. I honestly don't know of an adjective the fully encapsulates the stupidty, childishness, and naivite of a regular person aligning with the super rich.
-
Elaborate and explain
Billionaires, because we are too dumb to not fall for their tricks
-
Elaborate and explain
Unfortunately that is not how the figures really are. Way too many of those 8 billions will willingly simp and fight the rest of us in the name of those billionaires.
-
All evidence points to a regime change (in the physics sense, not the political) being the necessary condition for things to go from our current state to something new.
We currently have people paying poorer people a very small amount of their own net worth to protect the wealthy person's status and position. This is similar to how kings and queens paid the army and policing forces to control the peasants.
Before the French Revolution I am sure it seemed impossible that the peasants would revolt, but the years leading up to the revolution things were getting worse and worse for the average peasant. There is a tipping point where the average person does not think the current system is delivering on the promise that of you do what you are told you can have a good life. I think we are approaching that point now.
If the rich try to hire someone and underpay them for security, stiff contractors for services, flaunt laws and generally behave obnoxiously at some point people will have had enough. Whether that ends with guillotine action or people just divesting from those systems depends on how much freedom people think they have.
If people thought they could go and homestead, live off the land, and get by without the massive companies these billionaires own then they would have that outlet and choose that peaceful option. The fact that we have taxation creates a pressure to pay in currency which demands earning in that currency. Same with paying rent, you have to earn money simply to live. No amount of growing all of your food gets rid of your financial obligations, so there is no out from the system. If that system is unreasonable it begins to feel less like participation and more like coercive control. Wage slavery is not the same as slavery, but both involve coercion and require the legal system to support them. Both lead to revolutions. Both lead to violence.
I guess the billionaires have to decide if they really want to paint that big a target on their backs by flaunting their wealth. At this point I think they feel untouchable.
The biggest ruse in American history is the modern billionaire convincing the working class Americans that the immigrants, homeless, people of color, and LGBT+ people are the real enemy and the reason you're unhappy. Capitalism is the only functioning system of government, don't pay attention to the fact that almost every other developed country has universal healthcare.
-
I don't, I feel like moron / stupid just doesn't cut it for idiots like this. I honestly don't know of an adjective the fully encapsulates the stupidty, childishness, and naivite of a regular person aligning with the super rich.
Corporate brainwashed, delusional, desperate, uneducated, lazy, close-minded, coping human?
The media is pushing “answer a few questions, or spin a wheel, and get rich”, and “sing in your car, then get famous on Idol” and getting huge ratings. Same way we got this fucking President. Corporate brainwashing.
