292
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

The five wealthiest people who show up on the lists.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 points 4 hours ago

If we all just collectively decided to eat the top one every week, the problem would just sort itself out after a month or so.

[-] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 37 minutes ago

It would take more than 4-5 occurrences. Inheritance is a thing.

[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Where’s that worthless piece of dickskin Larry Ellison?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 7 hours ago
[-] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago

It’s ridiculous that they could give away $1bn/yr in charity projects and they’d still be billionaires when they’ll finally die

[-] philipp_@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago

Not really because this isn't real money. Especially in Elons case it's all in pumped up stocks that he could never sell without crashing the price. Not that this is making anything better and the current stock market is just another symptom of the death spiral we are currently in.

[-] rafoix@lemmy.zip 97 points 12 hours ago

It’s hilarious how Musk is the wealthiest with multiple businesses that are actively failing and cannot make a solid case for their valuation without going into fantasy scenarios.

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 hours ago

Be careful though, suggesting that Starship might never fly, or Full Self Driving might never drive, or that data centers in orbit are unlikely to scale is dangerous on the Internet.

[-] rafoix@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 hours ago

Starship flying means nothing when nobody is using Grok which wastes more money than Starship capsule make.

Full self driving is only 1 decade late. Tesla is already behind technologically and their quality is still pathetic.

Data centers in orbit will be orders of magnitude more expensive and complex than data centers on earth. Data centers on earth are having tons of trouble being built because the costs and materials needed are extreme.

Also, Elon Musk is a Nazi that really wanted to be invited to the Epstein pedophile parties.

[-] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 33 points 10 hours ago

Which also means that his wealth valuation is a house of cards, he cant collect on the fake value without crashing it

[-] chaogomu@lemmy.world 27 points 9 hours ago

But he can take out massive loans on that valuation.

And that money can be used however he wants.

Also, the recent IPO was him collecting money from a lot of people, and since he got exempted into a few indexes, people's retirement money is now tied to Musky scams.

This means that if Musky does decide to cash out and crash the economy, he'll have an instant bailout.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 13 points 9 hours ago

people's retirement money is now tied to Musky scams.

Now where have I seen this before...? Gosh, if only history had some warnings...

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 67 points 12 hours ago

So now Musk is richer than the next four richest combined?

I think this is getting a little out of control.

[-] 9point6@lemmy.world 40 points 11 hours ago

He makes about $150,000,000 a day, passively from his assets.

Wealth tax now.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 25 points 12 hours ago

The one percenters of the one percenters just got one percented.

(Actually it’s even worse than that I think.)

[-] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 hours ago

No its fine. No worse than having a single billionaire, really.

[-] Jackusflackus@lemmy.world 36 points 12 hours ago

All billionaires should be stripped of their wealth over 999 million and given to the rest of the world

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

$999m is still an obscene amount of money, and they'd just start finding ways to amass it again

[-] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 12 hours ago
[-] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 hours ago

Impossible to do both. If you kill them somebody just inherits.

And or course the concepts of money and ownership must be preserved.

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 2 points 7 hours ago

Keep killing till desired wealth distribution.

[-] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 hours ago

But make sure there's still money, and other fungible transferrable wealth!

[-] msage@programming.dev 1 points 6 hours ago

Invest in NFTs?

[-] Dumhuvud@programming.dev 2 points 7 hours ago

999M USD is still way too much wealth for a single person.

[-] Digit@lemmy.wtf 3 points 9 hours ago

Ever played around with the maths of that?

If seeking a Robin Hood style remedy, may need tackle all the dormant pools of hoarded wealth, and all the squander.

It's fun maths to play with. If one is aware of at least a few of those pools. Especially banking, and suppressed access to resources (primary, technological, and more).

[-] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I don't even care what happens to the confiscated money; it could just *poof* out of existence and that'd be fine. What matters is that massive wealth inequality is objectively bad for society and must be reduced.

[-] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 4 hours ago

Great point.

[-] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 13 points 12 hours ago

I love how Musks conpanies keep losing money yet somehow the stupid fake value just keeps growing.

I hate speculative capitalism so much

[-] Digit@lemmy.wtf 9 points 11 hours ago

Yup. Ben Norton did a good piece on this topic a few days ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj-hd3l4dSo

The graph (iirc about half way through maybe), with his added coloured blocks for the different eras lends some superb clarity to what's going on, the political philosophy shifting phases of accelerated worsening, and how bad it is, as in how much worse it is contrast to the worst time in history...

What we have now, makes the guilded age look like some kind of egalitarian paradi~~ well, maybe not paradise, but more egalitarian... much less egregious than would have been seen in the keynesian phase. How little they knew, of how much worse it could get, and was going to get. Pesky marketing, in rebranding same old corporate fascism as "neo-liberalism". Many likely not bothering with the term neo-feudalism, preferring the delusion there's anything "liberal" still going on. As if that limp thing were even enough to do any more than pretence on slowing down the consolidation of wealth and power even if it were what it's best definitions and ideals pronounce.

[-] sobchak@programming.dev 12 points 12 hours ago

It's going to continue to accelerate to a kind of feudalism where they own everything. Democracy or even capitalism itself can't survive this.

[-] Zorque@lemmy.world 21 points 12 hours ago

Capitalism is this. This was always the logical conclusion when wealth and success were so intrinsically linked.

[-] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 hours ago

It is called capitalism because those with the most capital get to make all the decisions

[-] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 10 points 11 hours ago

lmao glad someone said it.

here's hoping capitalism doesn't survive this.

[-] AnchoriteMagus@sh.itjust.works 15 points 13 hours ago
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Mac@mander.xyz 6 points 12 hours ago

So did Musk win? Is he done now?

[-] BoxedFenders@hexbear.net 4 points 10 hours ago

There is no greater indictment on capitalism than having its biggest winner be the world's most embarrassing man.

[-] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 13 hours ago

This is a disaster awaiting to happen. We should prepare our communities for when SHTF

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/71026299

[-] gratux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 12 hours ago

And the average person is not even a pixel.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
292 points (98.7% liked)

Anarchism

3121 readers
518 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.


Other anarchist comms


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS