this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
818 points (99.0% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

13270 readers
2018 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Now I need to do the math on space karen/ henery ford 2.0 aka Mr my autism makes me prone to outbursts of fascist apologia.

I did the math recently and if you took the assets of the wealthiest 1% and divided only half of it amongst the remaining 336.3 million Americans it would be a check of approximately 68,000 for every man woman and child and those bloated blood sucking leaches would still have an average remainder of just under 6 million dollars each.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] splonglo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

Some people who don't know any better would say that poor Jeff innovated the world into a better place by inventing Amazon, that he's being justly rewarded by the free market.

But Amazon became so successful because it killed off all of it's competitors - not through a better service, but using investor capital to artifically lower it's prices, systematically targeting it's rivals and taking them over.

Amazon is so profitable because it has killed the market and replaced it with itself, and the tech giants and uber and so on are doing exactly the same thing.

So turn it into a co-op, let it's workers decide if they can piss on the clock or not. Give it's sellers a say in whether they want to pay 40% markup and hidden fees to get pushed to the top of front page. Amazon abuses workers, businesses and the market - this is a great solution to a problem that everyone ought to have, regardless of politics.

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

That's impossible. Because a bonus that much would mean there would be a lot of taxes paid, and that goes against Bezos his principles.

[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 16 points 9 hours ago

The Behind the Bastards episode about him is really mind blowing. Like, he sucks way more than you could ever imagine. When I was in college, Amazon was the company that you could get used textbooks from. Now they're the default web shopping platform.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com -1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

I did the math recently and if you took the assets of the wealthiest 1% and divided only half of it amongst the remaining 336.3 million Americans it would be a check of approximately 68,000 for every man woman and child and those bloated blood sucking leaches would still have an average remainder of just under 6 million dollars each.

I think you're math lost an order of magnitude somewhere in there. Quite a few billionaires increased their wealth by 10s of billions of dollars in 2024 alone. 336 million is a bit less than 1/3 of a billion. If you just took 1 billion dollars from Bezos for example, and distributed that to all Americans you'd have an economic disaster from the sudden shock of every single American becoming a multi-millionaire overnight and Bezos would still be wealthy as fuck and making more money in a day than anyone could dream of

Tax. the. rich. When billionaires can increase their wealth by hundreds of billions of dollars per year, there is no reason for anyone to be poor. Hell, lets imagine a conservative 30% tax on wealth gains over a billion dollars. That's hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into the government every single year. Universal healthcare, free university tuition, and UBI all paid for with plenty leftover for ambitious megaprojects like reconnecting the entire country to passenger rail services. Anyone who says the government can't pay for shit that will help the 99% is ignoring the amount of wealth that exists.

[–] Bubs12@lemmy.cafe 6 points 3 hours ago

I don’t follow. $1B/336M people is about $3/each.

[–] ExploitedAmerican@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

I think you have misread what I said.

The richest 1% (3.4 million people) own 44.6 trillion. Half of that is 22.3 trillion so 22,300,000,000,000 divided by 336.6 million (336,600,000) and you're left with $66,646.74 now take the other half and divide it up amongst the 3.4 million richest 1% of Americans and they are left with $6,558,823.53 each

[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 21 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Anybody saying that co-ops don't work or whatever should check Mondragon which thrives in thoroughly capitalist Spain.

[–] cute_noker@feddit.dk 6 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

The consumers have to use their brain when they use their money. Cooperatives are very big in Denmark.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 54 points 20 hours ago

I got into an argument years ago with someone who appeared to start on the conclusion that co-operatives must be bad and tried to work backwards from there.

There was this notion that it was somehow unfair for one delivery driver to earn $1,000,000 and another to earn $10,000 just because they worked for different companies, since it was mostly the efforts of other people in the company that gave it its value. He wasn't able to then take the tiny extra step required to apply the same logic to CEOs and shareholders.

I realized there's a kind of proximity bias; billionaires are so far removed from our lives that we just accept their existence as part of how the world works, whereas if a regular employee like us is getting something we're not then the jealousy becomes palpable. It's the same thing that drives hatred towards minorities and immigrants.

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 67 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

He’d have to give them this as equity in the company, he’s not liquid for that amount. None of the “richest Americans” have near the amount of wealth they appear to have.

This is what people mean when they say workers should own the means of production tho

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 54 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

Musk paid $44 billion in cash for Twitter. Billionaires only have wealth on paper until they want to buy a company, then magically they have the cash.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 hours ago

Yeah and a lot of that came from other investors

Other investors that will be coming to look for their investment money

[–] DogWater@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

https://youtube.com/shorts/J3UVMlDUFkc

https://youtu.be/J3UVMlDUFkc

https://youtu.be/LpgNHaCuu44

You need this guy on YouTube. He's excellent at shedding light on this stuff. He has stuff for lobbying, aipac, billionaires, rfk, private equity, and more

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 25 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It’s my understanding that Musk borrowed heavily from investors for that cash.

[–] David_Eight@lemmy.world 15 points 15 hours ago

Buy, Borrow, Die strategy.

  1. Buy something that potentially increases in value (real estate, companies, stock etc)

  2. Borrow money against the appreciated value of step 1, this borrowing in not taxable.

  3. Die and leave assets to whoever and never pay tax on the assets.

[–] oppy1984@lemdro.id 11 points 18 hours ago

It's called leveraged borrowing, it's how the billionaire class pays for things. The banks typically give them super low rates and generous terms on these types of loans.

So what Elon did was took a loan against his assets, Tesla stock, at a low APR with very loose repayment terms, then paired that with money pledged by a few other minority investors and that's how he was able to quickly come up with 44 billion to buy Twitter.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

That's not really how that works. Sure, it isn't liquid, but you can still borrow against it, and you don't pay tax in this like you would if you sell. That's how the wealthy can still buy things without having to pay any reasonable amount of tax.

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 15 hours ago

And if amazon gave their employees stock options (like they did at one point) the employees could also borrow against it. But amazon stopped doing that once they reached a point where their employees were impacting their bottom line. They now rob their employees of that option to entrench wealth amongst the elite

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 18 hours ago (5 children)

he’s not liquid

Who gives a fuck? Wealth is wealth and his equity is his security for the low to zero interest loans from where all his spending money comes.

None of the “richest Americans” have near the amount of wealth they appear to have

Again, yes they do. Illiquid wealth is still wealth and is the basis of rich people getting to spend as much as they want with little to no risk compared to people who DON'T have a dragon's hoard in stock for the above infinite money exploit to work.

This is what people mean when they say workers should own the means of production tho

Nah, when people say that workers should own the means of production, they're talking about ACTUAL ownership, not bonuses from the owner.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 24 points 23 hours ago

You could just use the top .1% and not drop that figure much. The differences as you go up are huge.

[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago
[–] ThrowawayInTheYear23@lemmy.world 16 points 22 hours ago

Going by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the 1% are valued at ~49 Trillion works out to be ~$145k per person. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLT01026

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 15 points 22 hours ago

So that was 5 years ago. Which means he could give them all a $20,000 annual raise and still be making money.

[–] unrealizedrealities@kbin.melroy.org 11 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

What was that thing about the band in 'Restaurant at the End of the Universe' being so so unbelievably wealthy that the accountants prove that space/time is not just curved, it is warped, please internet tell me i'm not insane?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago

Will that keep them from parking like assholes?

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

I like the energy, but you're not going to sell 92 Billion dollars worth of stocks for 92 Billion dollars.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Then the stocks shouldn't be worth that much and the man shouldn't be able to spend like he has $92 billion

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Stocks aren't the exception, if a massive amount of USD holdings were sold off it would also plummet in value.

Its basic Supply and Demand.

[–] ExploitedAmerican@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Usd has plummeted in value though and those in control of the economic system have manipulated it to hide this reality. For instance Inflation statistics are calculated by the world bank and IMF using Consumer price index which is extremely flawed mostly because CPI does not account for the 2 primary driving forces of inflation… the increase in circulating currency supply and leveraged national debt. So they are feeding us highly skewed inflation numbers to prevent the workers from rioting/ fomenting a revolution so their passive income faucet keeps flowing.

Saying that “It Doesn’t Work that way” is just highlighting the reality that the entire system is rigged and set up to benefit those in control over those doing the actual labor and creating the profit

[–] DarylDutch@lemmy.world 14 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

He could just hand over the stocks.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

though they would drop in value very fast thereafter, no? My naive understanding is that a good share of people would sell them immediately, causing a price crash.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Around 25% would have to sell over 50% of their stocks for it to maybe start having an effect.

It could also raise the value of the stock to free up so much stock from a single person to many, as selling it would mean stronger belief in the stock going up.

Stock market is part math, part religion really.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That level of sales sounds really realistic to me, most employees are not doing well and experiments in employee ownership generally see people selling that ownership fast without training (at least I'm told). I don't follow your bit about sales -> stock go up, my best guess is you're saying that this will crash the price artificially causing people to think now is a good time to buy?

But if you buy too much you'll be in a position like bezos, likely to get redistributed? I think we'd need a lot of different people with the liquidity?

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Yeah, it could end up in the hands of a couple rich again.

But it could also send up like the GameStop situation.

It could also increase demand by wealthy investors to buy they stock which would also raise the price.

Whenever you think the stock market follows logic, just remember how much Tesla is worth despite not selling nearly enough for that valuation.

[–] DarylDutch@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Also companies do "stock options with limitations on selling for a certain period" all the time.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

This is a good point. Ty

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

That’s a specious argument. It might be technically true, but not by nearly a big enough margin for it to make any difference to the underlying point. It’s not like you’d have to unload them all in one month.

load more comments
view more: next ›