this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
1685 points (99.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
9898 readers
2377 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Depends. I actually fully support putting a ceiling on wealth.
The analogy I always come back to is nuclear weapons. We don't let private individuals own them. We don't make you get an atomic bomb license. We don't tax nukes heavily. We don't make sure that only the kindest and most ethical people are allowed to own nukes. We simply say, this is too much power to be trusted to one individual. No one should have that level of power.
And yet, would anyone doubt that someone like Bezos, all on his own, can cause an amount of damage comparable to a nuclear bomb? If Bezos had it in for an entire city, could he not destroy it? Could he not buy up the major employers and shut them down? Could he not buy up all the housing and force the citizens into penury? Could he not buy up and shut down the hospitals? I have no doubt that, if he wanted to, Bezos could single handedly destroy a city. And how many lives would that take? How many would drink themselves to death or die by their own hand after Bezos came in and destroyed their entire lives? How many would die from lack of resources and medical care, etc?
Bezos could absolutely, if he wanted to, single-handedly cause a level of destruction and human misery comparable to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
And that is a power no one should have. The only way anyone should have that level of power is through democratic elections.
This is why I support wealth caps. I would personally set the maximum allowable wealth at 1000x the median household income. In the US, this would be about $80 million USD. That's about the maximum fortune a person that actually works for wages can amass in a lifetime, if they're a very high earner, live very frugally, and marry someone of similar status. 1000x median household income is the limit of what I consider to be an honest fortune - one made primarily through your own work, rather than sponging off the labor of others.
Excellent points. I like your analogy of economic power to nuclear power.
We've already seen Musk throwing his economic weight around like a nation, threatening to turn Starlink on and off over war zones based on his own needs, and not the national security of any of the nations involved.
When Sociopathic Oligarchs with Hoarding OCD, start accumulating such economic power that they can compete with nations, then they have reached their limit. It will only get worse, as more and more of them start negotiating their own deals, possibly to the detriment of the very nation of which they are a citizen.
Then it's only a matter of time before these Oligarchs start building private Armies, and then form alliances that can really throw their weight around. Or worse, start wars with each other over private beefs, that catch innocent citizens in their crossfire.
These things are easily predictable, if something isn't done to blunt the power of these out-of-control fortunes. Otherwise, we will be sitting here in the not-so-distant future, wondering why we didn't do something about these psychopaths when we had the chance.
To be more succinct, the way I always describe it is wealth is not just money, money is too abstract. Wealth is power and that degree of power should not be so concentrated in so few private individuals.
Also the power to launch a nuclear strike is shockingly consolidated. The president can if they decide to, and they'd likely get positive support from military command.
Anyways, I'm in full agreement even if I'm poking at your examples and metaphors.
Last i heard military murican command on the news, the vibe was "That's not quite true."
There's a whole bunch of steps for that to happen and no guarantees the chain of command would acquiesce, given the orange clown is in the white house.
I get your point but that's insulting the victims of the most heinous act against humanity ever committed. Those people, mostly civilians, died that day.
What you describe would definitely drive people into poverty, and maybe death, but it wouldn't instantly kill them.
what is the insult?