this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
565 points (98.3% liked)

World News

38977 readers
3475 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg increased their net worth by $96.6 billion and $58.9 billion, respectively, thanks to rising share prices on the Nasdaq

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I have mixed feelings about measuring their wealth based on share prices because they couldn't sell their shares without tanking the price, right? Elon didn't actually increase his wealth; just the value of something that he has a shitton of went up.

We could also tank the value of his stocks by not buying or using his stupid shit!. For example, anyone angry that he is rich should definitely not be using Twitter.

"Eat the rich"... blah blah blah. Much easier to just protest the rich and take our money back by not giving it or our time to the rich in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Much easier to just protest the rich and take our money back

That's pretty much what eat the rich means lol

Difference is you think it can be done simply by not spending our money with them, when in reality, like others have pointed out, they've not only made that not matter (because they can get more money anyway), and left us no choice (we can't all run off and live in the woods, and if we're not spending our money on one billionaire's products, we're spending it on another's), but they also have the police as their guard dogs, as well as governments who control militaries under their thumb, not to mention their own private militias and defences and bunkers and all that jazz.

So the only way it actually can be done (protesting the rich and getting our money back, that is), because they have left us no choice, is by force - 'When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich'

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They don’t need to sell to realize gains - they take out loans against the stock value from banks for almost no interest. If they choose to, they could get large amounts of that paper gain in liquid cash through just a handful of steps.

[–] givesomefucks 5 points 1 year ago

they take out loans against the stock value from banks for almost no interest. If they choose to,

Those days are coming to an end though...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, someone else mentioned that. That's bullshit.

[–] internetofsomethings 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have mixed feelings about measuring their wealth based on share prices because they couldn’t sell their shares without tanking the price, right?

Technically this is true, but remember that the wealthy can borrow money backed up by their stocks, so no: they couldn't sell those stocks without tanking the price, but yes: they have access to even more money because of this.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Ohhh!! That makes sense. Goddamn the wealthy, lol

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're exactly right. Social media is just the first thing we should be federating. Next should be farming, manufacturing, timber, construction, shipping, sales, and energy. If we crowdsource our solutions while using logic and algorithms to enforce quality control, we can exceed efficiency of the greedy ruling class and share profits among everyone who contributes so contributor ever faces starvation or living on the streets.

The billionaires can hoarde all the resources they want. If the masses stop contributing to their system, they will find that endless consumption is not as competitive as true justice and fairness.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

You should check out the book "Daemon" by Daniel Suarez (if you haven't already). Based on your post, you'd probably like it a lot. There's a sequel, too: "Freedom".

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Shhh… this is Lemmy