• UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 days ago

    Actually for a very good reason. The entire government is designed for the wealthy to keep getting richer. Everything since Reagan has been a crafted plan to benefit the wealthy and fuck over the lower classes.

    • Apocalypteroid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s so strange that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Like, where could the rich people’s money be coming from? I hAvE nO iDeA.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s the thing. Even if you don’t give your money to rich people, you will still become poor because the rich assholes keep writing more zeros to their imaginary investments so that your actual money becomes worth less

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    The wealthiest 0.00001%, about 20 individuals, hold wealth equal to 12% of the US’s gross domestic output, according to data compiled by the French economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, about four times greater than levels seen during the gilded age.

    We are at unprecedented levels of fucked.

    Note that while a billionaire can buy elections and control governments, a trillionaire can buy all the elections and control all the governments.

    Our first trillionaire, even if temporary, is an apocalyptic sign, the breaking of a seal.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    Organize a general strike. It doesn’t even necessarily need to be a large scale workers strike, a consumer strike would do it.

    Not that a workers strike wouldn’t be good too, but I know a lot of working class people are reluctant to strike because they can’t afford to lose any pay (that being said, a consumer strike that went on long enough would likely cause layoffs so some people would lose their jobs regardless, but unfortunately that’s just unavoidable if you want to cause the kind of economic pain necessary to send an effective enough message).

    And a consumer strike wouldn’t even need to be that widespread. Just get enough people to reduce their discretionary spending enough to cause overall consumer spending to decline even just a few percent and panic would set in. The stock market would plummet. Billions in net worth would be lost.