this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
840 points (97.1% liked)

Progressive Politics

4619 readers
1115 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

100 million is a bit low. There are privately held companies worth more than that because of infrustructure cost alone.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To bad to goddamn bad 100 million is being generous.

[–] Poppa_Mo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I love that you're just standing on this number staunchly lol.

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

100 million is already an absurd amount of money that allows one to live out their entire life throwing money at all their whims without ever worrying about running out. The only way to go broke is by seeking out ways to spend it all.

The fact that billionaires exist is insane.

[–] suxen_tsihcrana@anarchist.nexus 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I feel like we're conflating individual, personal wealth with corporate valuations in this thread. Yeah, 100 million is way more than enough for a single person obviously, but for a corporation it's tough to even say what that amount means.

If we're still even doing corporations, I feel they should be evaluated and tracked by the proper authorities (aka, we the people) and given the appropriate treatment based on what that entity existing even entails.

If we decide your corporation is a net benefit to society, maybe we'll relax things a bit. If you give up top-down hierarchy, turn your org over to the workers, and provide something that enhances the public good, maybe we let you cook, ya know? But know that the people are always watching and reporting in.

Conversely, if we decide your little corporate fiefdom is a leech, yeah, we're going to keep you on a short fuckin leash, you'll be under the microscope and progressively taxed and picked apart until that entity dies, unless and until you clean up your act and keep it clean long enough - then you get to play with the big dogs that are doing it right and allowed to exist and even thrive.

I'd rather see no corporations at all, at least not in their current form, but this doesn't seem too bad as an intermediate step on the way there.

[–] despoticruin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Then it needs to be run as a public service since it relies on the public infrastructure, run and provided at cost just like the rest of the government runs.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago

If you want communism then just say that instead you of playing number games.

The issue with the 100 million figure is that it's not a large amount of capital. It's sounds like a lot because we're all wage slaves.

Thinking our problems are solved by outlawing our master's ownership of the castle is how we expose ourselves as fools.

The castle isn't the problem, it's that average wages should be far far greater. A six figure income should be the minimum wage of the educated.