cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/57305272

Total billionaire wealth in the EU reached €2.4 trillion by late November, exceeding Italy's entire GDP of €2.2 trillion and approaching France's €2.9 trillion economy, a new Oxfam report found.

Archived version: https://archive.is/20260118190308/https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ara3abf5ee

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 74 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 40 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    Most of the words ultra-wealthy are verifiably sociopathic. Capitalism literally rewards those who posses the least empathy, the most.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    It's more than that. It's a feedback loop. Having distance from the consequences of your actions encourages sociopathic behavior. Power such as wealth is the easiest way to create that distance, even if you don't want to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 69 points 9 months ago (2 children)
    [–] 66 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I believe Plato pointed this out in The Republic.

    He thought the richest citizen needed to have no more then 5x the wealth of the poorest citizen or you would inevitably slide into oligarchy.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    We crossed that threshold so long ago that you can make 5x the poverty level and still not be able to afford a house.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • 0 isn't real, it is a social construct created by big math.

    You add by 0 and its still the same... what?

    You subtract by 0 and its still the same... why?

    You multiply by 0 and you BECOME 0, the heck?

    You divide by 0 and its... big not even a number just a concept.... sure buddy!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 9 months ago

    Recent high-profile acquisitions include Jeff Bezos purchasing the Washington Post, Elon Musk buying Twitter (now X), and Patrick Soon-Shiong acquiring the Los Angeles Times. A billionaire consortium also bought significant stakes in The Economist.

    In France, far-right billionaire Vincent Bolloré has transformed CNews into what critics call the French equivalent of Fox News. In the United Kingdom, three-quarters of newspaper circulation is controlled by just four wealthy families.

    This is amazing. News and communication in the internet age was supposed to be democratised publication and agency to the voice of the average person, and it is to a small extent, but for the most part society was just like

  • source
  • [–] 51 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Capitalism is a threat to democracy.

    But thanks for getting on nearly the same page, Oxfam.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Most -ism's are the problem, every hericarical civilization throughout all of sapien time has collapsed, destroyed the local enviorment etc. Inequality is the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    That's like saying "He didn't die from getting his head blown off he died because his blood circulation was interrupted for too long".

    Capitalism leads directly to inequality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    True but inequality wasn't invented by or during capitalism, it existed in every heirarchy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    Sort of., but not really.

    Capitalism was invented by feudalists after the French Revolution, when they saw their grip over the people slipping and their fortunes (and heads) were threatened, so they needed a way to carry their wealth and influence into the new era where people were becoming enlightened and wouldn’t accept divine rule anymore.

    Most of the same moneyed families weathered that period by embracing capitalism. It’s the same system, but instead of divine right, they lie and say anyone can attain it, if you work hard enough. But nearly all of them inherited their wealth, same as always.

    It’s literally the same system and the same people wearing a different mask.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    So tired of this tbh - I just don't understand how anyone thinks wealth consolidation to few could be a good thing.

    Even if you ignore ethics and assume the billionaires are benevolent - it's just a bad investment to invest majority of resources to a small number of investments. Does any successful large project hold 99% of their investments in few projects? It's absurd.

    It makes absolutely zero sense no matter how you look at it unless you're truly full in on delusion that benevolent dictators exist and are impossible to corrupt or overtake.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    “But what if it is me someday!!!???” - some guy with 5 kids making $30k/year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I have seen comments like this thousands of times, but I've never seen a single example of anyone genuinely expressing this sentiment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I don’t think they verbalize it in the same way. But you will hear them saying they don’t want to raise taxes, thinking it will affect them with their low income. Taxes can be targeted at the ultra-wealthy, but low-information people have been made to believe they will be taxed.

    The ultra-wealthy have made a significant investment into making the sentiment that taxes are bad be overinflated. They also have successfully invested to make a lot of taxes specifically target the middle and lower classes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    But you will hear them saying they don’t want to raise taxes, thinking it will affect them with their low income.

    You presume to know what they're thinking, you mean. Have you never considered the possibility that they're simply adhering to the point of view that you shouldn't have to pay over and over for the 'privilege' of continuing to own what you own?

    Taxes can be targeted at the ultra-wealthy, but low-information people have been made to believe they will be taxed.

    You assume they believe that because they're ignorant. But what if they just know their history? The income tax started with the exact same promise, a tax targeting only the wealthy, but somehow, we all have to pay it now, too.

    The populace has every reason to be skeptical of taxes 'targeting' only the wealthiest among us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    You assume they believe that because they're ignorant. But what if they just know their history? The income tax started with [the exact same promise](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/the-income-tax-in-1913-a-way-to-soak-the-rich), a tax targeting only the wealthy, but *somehow*, we all have to pay it now, too.

    I addressed that as well. The wealthy have invested a lot in pushing taxes down to the lower and middle classes. They also have invested a lot to push their agenda.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Even if you ignore ethics and assume the billionaires are benevolent - it’s just a bad investment to invest majority of resources to a small number of investments. Does any successful large project hold 99% of their investments in few projects? It’s absurd.

    Small number of investments? Billionaires have shitloads of investments, what are you talking about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I think they are saying that we, as a society, are investing into a small number of investments: billionaires. This is a bad tactic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago*

    Exactly what I meant - each billionaire is our collective investment. We invest 99% of our wealth into a few billionaire projects which might trickle down to other smaller projects but trickle down is mostly a myth we can't accurately represent and control with our current tooling.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I think they are referring to the fact that, ignoring the personalities who hold this kind of wealth, it's just not a viable investment strategy for a project/organization as large as society to have all that wealth tied up with only a few assets (the billionaires).

    Economics tells us that diversifying the investments (equality, if you will) is a safer bet for society in the long run.

    I probably misread GP but hey, at least I tried!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Consolidation of wealth could be a good thing, but the people consolidating it are never good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Yes. But it's the same logic in different spheres. Just as you wouldn't concentrate resources in one industry, because it amplifies your exposure to market fluctuations and creates greater uncertainty. So too, you wouldn't concentrate resources in one person, because it amplifies fluctuations in their decision-making policy and... Creates greater uncertainty.

    I love putting the eggs in one basket.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Same way a single benevolent godlike dictator could be incredibly efficient and good thing but completely unrealistic and would never happen and whenever we attempt this we get millions of people killed and set humanity back by decades. It would be such an easy fix though - we all low key want it.

    Some strategies simply don't work due to lack of self correcting and self correcting a few keys that control the world is very hard. This is exactly what's happening today - social media gave us the power to express the need for self correcting some aspects of our society and people holding the keys have decided to not allow this. Yet again leading to conflicts that have millions of people killed and set us back by decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 9 months ago
    [–] 33 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    We’ve been pointing this out ever since the concept of currency became a thing, but I’m sure we will learn our lesson this time and stop doing it. This can’t just be how it will always be until we drive ourselves to extinction stuck on this miserable rock, Right?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Structural issues make egalitarian economic systems difficult. Wealth and social influence compound once another in a virtuous cycle. Wealth has a strong hereditary bias, even in socialist economic models. And violence is historically a powerful tool for accruing wealth. Very difficult to establish universal deterrence against violence.

    This isn't a question of people being smart or stupid. It's an elaborate balancing act that becomes exponentially more difficult as population size expands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    We’ve been pointing this out ever since the concept of currency became a thing, but I’m sure we will learn our lesson this time and stop doing it.

    I think that this became an issue even before currency. It happened as soon as agriculture allowed for accumulation of resources, power, and wealth. I sometimes think that that was really the point when humanity took the wrong turn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    So when are we going tondo what about this?

    This. Has. To. Stop.

    We cannot allow a single person or family to control a single news organization, let alone multiple. Anyone who thought that was a good or even okay idea has been, and continues to be, delusional.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago

    They own so much more than the news organizations. They own the special interest groups, the lobbyists, the elected officials, the land and natural resources, every single company we buy goods and services from, the banks, the hospitals, everything. Slavery didn't end, it just changed its business model.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 24 points 9 months ago

    Well let's get on it folks

  • source
  • [–] 45 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    The sky also happens to be blue. That gotta be news too.

    Edit: Okay, having read the summary, it seems like they have proved causality between growing economic inequality and democratic backsliding. Which yeah, most people could have guessed, but now we have a fancy bunch of paper that says so.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago
    [–] 19 points 9 months ago

    No fucking shit.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago

    Great to see the workings of those keen minds. Rich people a threat to liberal democracy, who knew? I mean except everyone that lives outside billionaires colon.

  • source
  • [+] 108 points 9 months ago (31 children)
  • [–] 165 points 9 months ago* (7 children)

    The stupidity is happening because it benefits rich people to fill the world with stupid people. Stupid, gullible people are the key to their endlessly growing profits and wealth extraction.

    We already know how to solve stupidity. We have always known it. Education has been one of the core pillars of human civilization since antiquity. It wasn't the first man to discover fire who changed everything, it was the person who discovered how to teach the next generation to control fire at least as well if not better than they originally did.

    Education has not failed us. Education has been sabotaged and dismantled. By rich and powerful people, for their own purposes.

    First we get rid of those rich and powerful people who have set themselves against us, then we rebuild everyone's education and if we're lucky, we might get to move on with our civilization eventually. Nobody promised it's going to be easy. But it is necessary, if we wish the human race to continue, and traditionally we've been pretty stubbornly invested in that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -42 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago

    I know people who have intellectual disabilities who are some of the loveliest and most caring people I’ve ever met. Intelligence does not dictate a person’s capacity to be a productive and caring member of society. Empathy, however, is a skill that can be taught to all but a few who are clinically psychopathic. Intelligence is not a marker of a valuable member of society - empathy and compassion are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Get that Nazi shit out of your brain. We all have reactionary ideas like this imbedded in us from growing up in western society. So, please, I beg you, purge that "it's in their genes (blood)" and "iq" shit from your brain. It's just a modern version of "blood and soil" even if you didn't mean it that way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    One reason that people are stupid is because rich people need slave labor, so they set up a system where people don't learn to think for themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 9 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    This makes me think, there is some kind of "system creationism" philosophy in the far left that is not unlike the Christian one. Thinking that some all powerfull entity (or group) created/designed the situation by itself rather than thinking it is the result of extremely complex historical chain of events and balance between groups and environments. By extension it leads to thinking that somehow removing the powerful entity magically solves the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    What does destroyed mean to you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Razed to the ground and the ashes salted, to then be rebuilt better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

    Why would you salt the ashes if you intend to rebuild? You're aware that that makes land inarable for generations, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    You're suggesting we burn our respective countries to the ground, full on civil war and complete destruction, fracture of civil society, starvation and economic collapse, with no guarantees about who, when or what will step into that maelstrom of human suffering, other than your assurances that it will be better than what we have now.

    Sorry, but I'm skeptical that you have a reasonable way forward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago

    The rich are the root of stupidity weaponized against liberal democracy, working people, and the common good.

    Fixed by organization, innumerable groups federated on a main forum outside silicon valley's control cooperating on what we agree on in public and private ways as we see fit. With clear moderation rules appealed to a jury of peers to prevent govt, bus groups getting their hooks in and ratfucking it all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

    Rich people are a very solvable problem, so let's focus on problems we can solve first okay

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    ALL the rich people, right? Including pootin and Pooh bear?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    What makes you think that Pooh is rich?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Racists like to compare President Xi to a yellow animal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I was just playing along with their use of language. Irregardless, it doesn't strike me as Xi would be among billionaires.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Actually Xi is probably the richest person on earth.

    Why? Because China is the world's 2.5th biggest economy (2nd only to the US when counting countries, but the EU is richer than China and is often counted), and it's the biggest dictatorship (for now, since the US is at risk of dictatorship). Being a dictator, he COULD just sell parts of the country and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be stopped if he tried. And when something can be sold and thus converted to money, it counts as wealth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago*

    Again, let's focus on problems we can solve first. That means taking the beam out of our own eye before we go around criticizing the motes in others, or however that parable goes. We have far worse problems in our own home.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It's not that they are rich, we've always had rich people. The problem is that we now have rich people with enough wealth to compete with nations, and they are getting even stronger. They are now starting to cut their own deals with nations that benefit them personally, with no regard to the nations, and millions of people that could be harmed by that policy. We've already seen Musk manipulate Starlink to steer a war in his direction, and unleash his hacking squad to rig an American election, just so he could use the opportunity to cripple all the government agencies that were investigating his crimes.

    And it will only get worse. They are approaching Trillionaire status, and will be even more powerful. How long before multiple trillionaires form an alliance, and build their own personal military?

    Eventually we will reach a point where it will become impossible to reign them in, and then we will all wonder why someone didn't do something about them when it was still possible, like NOW.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    There already are private military. Black Water and alike are absolutely private armies. But that could be expensive, even for trillionaires. It's a much better strategy to privatize the existing military and get it paid by the government. Watch it, it's going to happen!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    And it will only get worse. They are approaching Trillionaire status, and will be even more powerful. How long before multiple trillionaires form an alliance, and build their own personal military?

    Doesn't Amazon or someshit literally already employ a PMC as their "loss protection" unit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago
    [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    No shit bro for real? 

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago

    In other news: water is wet.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    Who would be surprised that concentrating most resources in a few is the opposite of the common good...

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    Yeah, this isn’t anything new. Literally centuries old analysis here. I guess it’s nice they updated it for the contemporary society, though.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    I suspect the only time the US got close to representative government was the New Deal era. Most people just live their lives and don't think in ideological terms. The ones that do are considered "too into politics" and usually believe in reform because it requires less of them than the alternative. Anyways, how about that bread and circuses?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    He also assumed automation would be helpful for the working class because he thought it would mean we wouldn't have to work to survive. I don't think he saw billionaires just breeding the working class for wars or organ harvesting and completely replacing their labor with robots. I guess he didn't really think about how low they will always stoop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I would say that between the concepts of reserve army of labor and the global proliferation of fictitious capital he kind of had an idea of it but yea, maybe he couldn't have imagined how depraved wealth would make them (what you mentioned + Epstein's island).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • You just made me imagine Karl Marx emerging from a frozen time capsule ready to do battle against greedy capitalists in 2026, like "Ok what are we fighting against now? Aristocracy in government, labor exploitation, and wage theft?"

    Then somebody "Yes, ands" him before letting him scroll through a news feed, and he promptly vomits and just shuts himself off back in his time capsule.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Screw Idiocracy. People reference it not understanding there were positives in the negatives. This is "Don't Look Up", that nailed our current corrupt leadership and techno-corporate lunacy, as well as ignoring what is right in front of us because shiny things are more interesting.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    18 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    10 comments in c/europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post