It's societal cancer, imagine an organism that allows a few cells to monopolize most of the nutrients. You'd cut it out to save the host, but this has metastasized. The immune system has been reprogrammed to defend the cancer.
To keep within biology: the host dies and others with the same vulnerability. The ones immune to this survive and gobble up what remains of the previous hosts. Everybody stands around wondering how this could've happened.
This is not like when ordinary people double their money. They already have an unimaginable amount of wealth, so doubling it is adding another unimaginable quantity. This is a good illustration:
Should classify people who hoard wealth mentally unstable. What’s the difference between hoarding fake little pieces of green paper and shoes? Evidently hoarding shoes won’t make you a powerful demigod.
There’s very little actual paper. It’s just numbers on a computer screen. They’re hoarding numbers made of light. Resulting in the rest of us getting screwed.
It they were just meaningless numbers with no real link back to things which are scarce, it would be absolutelly fine (unhealthy for them but fine for everybody else).
They are not hoarding anything at all, the actual economic system it's sustained in nothing else than zeros into an electronic bank account, so basically all their wealth didn't physically exist, the modern economic system it's just a well made fallacy to keep all the shit working together cos probably no one knows what will happen when everything goes to the fuck.
IDK why people still believe wealth it's equal to physical shit like we was still in the XV century, nowdays wealth it's equal to a bunch of zeros in an electronic bank account which aren't real, they are just real at the level of keeping the wheel spinning and nothing else.
Fake or real, the mental urge for them to harm environment and society just to get a few more tick marks on that spreadsheet makes them mentally unstable.
No, we really shouldn't, not everything you don't like is a "mental illness" and using it in this way just makes light of real mental illness and deepens the existing stigma against those who actually have it.
Being a selfish and privileged fuck is not a mental illness, it is the product of a system deliberately designed to enable their existence and behaviour.
I think being selfish is a fucking mental illness, it hurts the person and society in the long run.
This is not meant in jest, and it’s not just because I don’t like it, there is really something wrong with someone who could buy the world multiple times over and still feel like they need more money. They are mentally unstable to want all of something. You don’t need all of something.
So again, what is the difference between someone who needs all the bottle caps in the world and someone who needs all the money?
This is getting out of hands, economy and society are crumbling and everyone can see it with their own eyes. At this point is in the interest of any political party to stop billionares amassing wealth.
Personal upside maximization for professional sellers of ideas (aka politicians) is in using the power they attain through selling ideas to do favours for people who can pay them back the most.
Guess who can, in a money-centric society, be the most generous to friendly politicians...
I'll give you a hint: it's not the poor, the working class or even the middle class.
It's a system fault. Nobody earns a billion. No matter how willing you are to screw over other people, a billion can not be earned. Even if you were stealing every cent from your dying grandmother and all the ophans in the world, you'd still have to actually do it. Nobody lives long enough to have time to steal all that money.
It's also meaningless to try to spend that amount of money. It makes no sense to even try.
The money is multiplying by itself due to some error.
I suppose we found out what happens when dividing by zero.
It's an error in the evaluation of companies. The comparison to div/0 is a humouristic explanation of what happens. The worth is never divided. Even the owners are only capable in a lifetime to pull out enough money for themselves to use even a tiny fraction of the worth, close to zero percent of the totals. The money is simply multiplying faster than it can be divided. That's the error.
Ordinary people can't survive by using only 0.00000001% of their income.
No, the more likely scenario is that one group of them convinces a bunch of useful idiots to kill their peers that make slightly more creating a brain drain and destroying the host country while the actual billionaires jump ship like rats.
They actually lost a lot of wealth at the start of the pandemic, which coincidentally is where this report starts... cant imagine why they would cherypick their dates.
EDIT: for people unclear of the context, as the bot account user has deleted the comment, they were saying that the information and sources were all there and that they didn't think any of it was incorrect. As if they completely didn't understand the /s sarcasm notation of my comment.
Imagine thinking a natural biological expression of sadness and grief is an insult. Masculinity so fragile you can almost taste it right through the internet!
Highlighting a dramatic increase in inequality since the Covid pandemic, Oxfam said the world’s billionaires were $3.3tn (£2.6tn) richer than in 2020, and their wealth had grown three times faster than the rate of inflation.
Mirroring the fortunes of the super rich, it also says business profits have risen sharply despite pressure on households amid the cost of living crisis.
The world’s richest 1% own 59% of all global financial assets – including stocks, shares and bonds, plus stakes in privately held business.
Aleema Shivji, Oxfam’s interim chief executive, said: “These extremes cannot be accepted as the new norm, the world can’t afford another decade of division.
Extreme poverty in the poorest countries is still higher than it was pre-pandemic, yet a small number of super-rich men are racing to become the world’s first trillionaire within the next 10 years.
Governments worldwide are making deliberate political choices that enable and encourage this distorted concentration of wealth, while hundreds of millions of people live in poverty.
The original article contains 698 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Dang, I wonder if that money will ever come back into circulation with former taxation on their wealth. No? Okay just increase that money copier and keep inflation going BABAY!
Important to point out that their wealth is largely unrealized gains, that is, only exists in theory. If the stock market / bond market / whatever market crashed, this wealth would largely vaporize. Stock prices are essentially a mass agreed-upon hallucination, as they can be extremely divorced from real assets like industrial machines. It does mean that by controlling these stock etc assets, other people have a harder time getting into this slice of pie and they can do dumb shit like buying Twitter and summarily running it into the ground.
Why is this important to point out? Are you saying if they collectively decided to spend 10% of it to solve most of the country’s problems, they’d be “declined” at the bank? Because unless it somehow means they couldn’t do unimaginable good for fucking everyone and still only suffer 10% of a loss, why is this important to point out?