• AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        65
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t fathom having the power to save our at least change millions of lives…but instead choose to leech more wealth from the people that need it most. And systematically make the world worse. It’s a sickness.

        There are no good billionaires.

        • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would build SO much low income, homeless, and transition housing. I would also start my own line of bamboo products and packaging to replace plastic.

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Then you’d go bankrupt and stop supporting your “so much” housing, unless you’d gift it to those people, not give as a temporary service.

            Bamboo - a nice idea. Actually I’m not sure it’s that hard for you to do even now. I’m serious, if you know the pipeline, then try to evaluate how much a start would cost (for it to be barely profitable). You need, well, bamboo itself (grows like a virus, shouldn’t be a problem), and on the process of making stuff from bamboo I’m not sure (I think it involves making some kind of pulp and then pressure?..), but humans do this kind of thing. Should probably start with dishes and cups.

          • kklusz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            The most important part of what you said is that you’d build “SO much” housing. If we’d just let the free market build all the housing it wants without letting NIMBYs get in the way, we’d have largely solved the housing crisis.

            • ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              29
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Except we already have more houses than there are homeless people. The problem is the empty houses have ridiculous price tags due to corporate landlords and landlords refusing the sell and only rent (also at ridiculous prices)

              • kklusz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                Vacancy rates in the places where people actually want to live are really low. Besides, are people not allowed to have vacation homes?

                Market price is a function of supply and demand. We’ve been under building housing for years.

                • Sanctus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Alright but life never promised anyone these luxuries. I don’t give a fuck if someone can’t have a vacation home because it means more people without one can have one. People act like freedom to do whatever the hell they want no matter how negatively it effects everyone else is their universal right. The Universe doesn’t give a fuck about your summer home, nature doesn’t give a fuck that you worked hard to get it. It will all be swallowed all the same if our main goal still is not perpetual survival. That may be authoritarian, but it is also the truth. We never left the game of survival we just plastered concrete and asphalt on top of it and pretended we were removed.

                  • kklusz@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    14
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The Universe doesn’t give a fuck about your summer home, nature doesn’t give a fuck that you worked hard to get it.

                    Nor does the universe care about your sense of fairness or lack of understanding of econ 101. Keep restricting supply while demand increases, and watch what happens. Oh wait, we’ve already seen what happens, and yet we refuse to acknowledge it.

                    So be it. A population deserves the problems it gets.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, one can build it NITBY, just with functioning public transport to TBY, so that it could function. There’s plenty of available space on the planet.

        • PrimalAnimist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Modern billionaires are the manifestation of the rampant consumerism of the masses. Want to do your part against the billionaires? Start with consuming less. Buy less. Move toward minimal.

        • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Being a billionaire means having the means to help millions of people, and deciding to instead keep all that money for yourself.

          • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Being a billionaire means using it to acquire more money which provides more power which provides more control. Shit floats to the top.

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not necessarily. It may be optimization between what you give now and what you keep for later to make more, with the total effect on others’ well-being being the criterion. I mean, theoretically.

            If you make a dime and immediately give it away randomly, you are making a worse decision than keeping it by this criterion. If you immediately give it away not randomly, but to somebody you think needs it, still possibly worse because you could try and make much more and then, say, open a pharmaceutical company.

            Say, with cattle you’d use some for meat and some to make more cattle to feed more people. You wouldn’t just slaughter the whole herd for meat. It’s worse.

      • Yendor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t be sociopathic and psychopathic - they’re different points on the same (ASPD) spectrum. Please learn what words mean before throwing them around.