That's an interesting observation.
Given the 3,028 billionaires among the 8 billion people on Earth, that's the definition of extreme.
Those 3,028 people, or 0.000036% of the global population, hold more than 99% of all wealth.
That's an interesting observation.
Given the 3,028 billionaires among the 8 billion people on Earth, that's the definition of extreme.
Those 3,028 people, or 0.000036% of the global population, hold more than 99% of all wealth.
Billionaires are humanity's cancer.
And since they run or influence our lives in so many ways, does that mean that humanity has cancer?
Indeed, I believe we are seeing the simptoms.
Won't you say humanity is sick right now?
To expand on my previous point: A cáncer cell (billionaire) is one that forgot its original purpose (being a productive member of society) and instead grows indiscriminately, eventually killing its host (Everyone else and the planet).
Honestly I don't see any difference at all between the two.
And another follow-up thought:
If cancer cells are at their most dangerous when infecting an unhealthy host, does that imply that the ultra-wealthy are currently at their most dangerous, given how fragmented and non-united the human host is with respect to fighting them off?
Ooh, nice.
Indeed, I've sometimes wondered just how much humanity, from a wide view, behaves like many a micro-organism that's too successful for their own good, eventually exhausting the local resources, drowning in their own waste, and causing their own extinction. Not exactly a nice, cheery "Hallmark card" thought(!)
Nah, they're a side effect. It's people with Cluster B personality disorders that are the cancer. You can't be a billionaire without having one.
They're the reason that true communism and socialism will never happen. They will corrupt any system.
Wealth radicalizes people.
Look at what it did to Osama bin Laden. And that was just a $100 million.
Well yeah, they exist at the extremes of society and push almost exclusively for their own further empowerment.
Do you want to elaborate why that is so obvious to you?
Because they thought it was a rational goal when they turned millionaire (might have been born millionaire), and Elmo wants to be the first trillionaire
Ah ok, so you're just using the word "extremists" to mean someone that does something extreme. That makes more sense.
You also have to take rather extreme measures in order to become a billionaire.
Sure, like on the business side and stuff.
But wanting more money isn't really a religious or political position and you don't really need hold an extremist position to be able to become one, as the main stream political system already allows that.
Withholding that amount of resources from others when you have no need for them yourself is a political position.
certainly extreme to delude yourself it's rightfully yours
while least effectively of anyone alive making good use of that money
I don't see how it would be.
Really? You don't see how wealth distribution relates to politics?
Of course I do, but that is not at all the question here.
The question is whether or not individual billionaires are political extremists. And I don't see why they would need to be. I'm sure a lot are, but that's just a correlation.
Well, no, the comment I replied to was you saying how you don't see how a billionaire withholding resources they don't need from society is a political position. Which I found surprising, since distribution of resources is one of the primary concerns of politics.
Well, no, the comment I replied to
Ok ... but there is more context on the comments preceding that one.
billionaire withholding resources they don’t need from society is a political position
Well, they don't think they are withholding resources, probably think they are helping with investments, trickledown and bullshit. So it's literally not a political position they hold. It doesn't even make sense as one as all it does would paint yourself as the problem.
Ok … but there is more context on the comments preceding that one.
I'm not responsible for the comments of others. I replied to something you stated directly where the previous context really doesn't make a difference. Particularly considering you are doubling down on that comment with
Well, they don’t think they are withholding resources, probably think they are helping with investments, trickledown and bullshit. So it’s literally not a political position they hold. It doesn’t even make sense as one as all it does would paint yourself as the problem.
Except if they believe more wealth should be distributed to them because they believe in trickle down economics... Uh, that's political.
I’m not responsible for the comments of others.
Well, if you are unwilling or unable to have conversations that are more than one comment deep, I guess ... bye.
believe in trickle down economics… Uh, that’s political.
Yes. But not extremist. It's been the main talking point of republicans for years ...
I never talked about political extremism. The entire breadth of our conversation was limited to how you didn't see how a billionaire thinking more wealth ought to be distributed to them was political. But that's a silly position and I think you see that in hindsight, so you are trying to widen the conversation to include the extremism angle, which I never commented on.
No, nothing to do with business
You have to be willing to make decisions to very deliberately fuck people over. To rapaciously take more than you could possibly justify with anything other than "I want to have more, when I already have plenty"
That's not a healthy mind. It's someone driven, and totally comfortable with doing harm to get what they want
Sounds pretty fucked to me.
Yes, a lot of them are terrible are probably psychopaths or narcissists.
But you can be all of that and not be an extremists.
You don't think psychopaths are extreme?
extremist
a person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action.
It doesn't matter if they are "extreme" or "rad" in some random aspect of their live. But they are not necessarily extremist.
If you believe 10% of people should hold 90% of wealth, you have an extremist political position. Therefore all billionaires are political extremists.
That sure would be nice if it was true, but it isn't. The political views that enables this kind of wealth inequality is the main stream status-quo, so literally the opposite of political extremism.
I dont agree, most people when asked would say that it is unfair and undesirable for such wealth inequality to exist.
I'd guess, yes. But most people will still vote for the political parties that will enable more wealth inequality. It might be extremely stupid, but politically the policies are everything but extreme. They are the broad consensus that people still vote for.
Eh, semantics I guess, but eg. Trump was elected and I think most would agree he's extreme.
Well yes, depending on semantics it's a very different question, so that's kind of important.
And while certainly is an extremists, I don't think he his because of his fiscal policy or because he's rich. Except for him going crazy with the tariffs, it's mostly in line with what the republican party always did.
I'd say he's a political extremist when it comes to ignoring the law, immigration/deportation and the use of the ICE/military (both inside the country and against random boats now).
So yes, he is. But not because he's a billionaire (or rather millionaire).
You accept that being able to con people into gaining their support doesn't make someone not extremist, and that supporting income inequality is extremist. Ergo billionaires are extremists.
top 46 comments