this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
1681 points (99.2% liked)

Microblog Memes

9884 readers
1755 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

We are a plutocracy, our government sold out long ago and is the most corrupt country of all time.

I know that they say it's actually pretty good and we are a rule of law country without a corruption problem, but unfortunately, that's because we've made corruption and bribery perfectly legal.

If you haven't done this yet, check out Super PACs, long story short it's a cash pipeline with laughably weak oversight, and everybody in government knows exactly why it legal.

In 1970s FBI did a bribery catfish of reps, mayors, and more, and almost half of them took the bait and many were convicted of bribery (ABSCAM).

Starting in 2000s, Super PACs allow unlimited funding and they don't have to declare who gave it to them. The FBI is now investigating furries instead of congress.

It's a madhouse.

[–] bytesonbike@discuss.online 25 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

And this is America right now:

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 6 points 8 hours ago

Housing and food - yes, be angry that there's no money for that.

But healthcare? Money is not the issue - US healthcare, yes the precious private healthcare, is already getting a ridiculous 16% of the federal budget. For context - their military gets around 4%!

The money is already in the system, it's the system itself that must be changed and made to work for the general public instead of shareholders.

[–] moopet@sh.itjust.works 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

To be fair, it helps that Norway suddenly got rich by selling ecologically disasterous products to the rest of the world while avoiding them itself.

[–] JSD@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

are you serious?

[–] Sharlot@lemmy.world 14 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

That last line nails it: it doesn’t cap success, it just makes sure failure isn’t catastrophic.

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

It does cap the wildest, antisocial forms of success that are insane excess.

Progressive taxation should mean you can never gain enough power, which capital is, to warp your society with power beyond your single vote, whether that power is expressed through direct bribery, lobbying, or mass media propaganda to try to trick your fellow citizens into voting and advocating against their own interests with your booming, capital powered voice that drowns out those you disagree with merely because you've exploited more capital into your private account than others.

I don't see any shame, horror, or problem with putting a hard cap on how much an individual can accumulate, as other people live here too.

Despite what Elon Musk believes, this whole planet shouldn't be his personal playground, but that's what it means to become a trillionaire, entire governments will bow at your feet. That's perverse. No unelected, unaccountable individual should hold so much power, unless humanity wants to live in a hell of its own making.

[–] moopet@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

lobbying is direct bribery, isn't it?

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Shhh, that's a secret, those are "campaign contributions" and nothing is expected in return! Mercy me, I have the vapors...

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago

But that's one of the primary tenants of conservatism! What will conservatives do if people are allowed to continue living after they fail?

[–] febra@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

It also contributes to the climate catastrophe by providing copious amounts of oil. It also enjoys the fruits of the exploitation in the Global South, hence it can redistribute said fruits of imperialism to its people, which is indeed better than the US oligarchs hoarding it all, but not by a lot.

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

Great. Now do both.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago

3 people in America each have several times as much wealth as the entire bottom half of America. It's ok to have a ceiling nobody contributes 400B to society. For reference that is more than every teach and every doctor make in America. Does anyone believe that Elon is individually more valuable than the either profession?

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago (17 children)

"doesn't put a ceiling on wealth"

eeeeehh. maybe we fucking should?

increased privatisation is happening all over the Nordics. I don't know how much in Norway compared to here in Finland, but being in my fourth decade I can definitely see it happening and intensely. I can't get a fucking public dentist anymore. Hell, children aren't given free dental care anymore.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If no one were living in poverty I would be more accepting of the ultra-rich's existence.

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 3 points 14 hours ago

Except that that's hard to happen.
The very existence of an ultra-rich means that there was someone who managed to get extraordinarily high amounts of extra value from someone as compared to what they paid that 'one' for it and then did it over and over again, essentially leeching value out of the system, making it a -ive sum game for anyone inside it.
So when you take more than you give, you end up breaking the original meaning of money (that was "proof of work/goodwill") and when you do that enough, the worth of work gets warped and those who do similar work, end up indirectly losing more than what they give.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 70 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I honestly don't think the problem is that Capitalist's don't understand that concept; they very much do.

They also understand that the money for raising that floor would likely come from taxes on them; and so keeping the floor low means that they can keep even more profit.

It's not a lack of understanding. It's pure unadulterated evil.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

I think its more than that, they already have all the money, but wealth is relative so if they can make everyone else twice as poor then their wealth relative to everyone else just doubled.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] seriousslayerguy@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It's not as perfect as this screenshot portrays though:)

[–] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good

[–] gigastasio@sh.itjust.works 166 points 1 day ago (7 children)

US billionaires:

“Wait, you mean to say that we can keep our current quality of life, dabble in our little space projects, and that those we employ won’t suffer???”

“Lol naw fuck that.”

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm of the opinion that that doesn't go far enough

We need to put hard limits on personal wealth (and the wealth of companies too). After 10 million networth in wealth, all your income should go to taxes 100% until you're below that limit.. something similar should exist for companies

Same goes for power and fame. I don't want or need a president, or a CEO that directs billions of dollars

Keep everything small, keep everyone small. Mega projects can still be done by multiple companies together, for example

End the rich!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 0 points 12 hours ago

If they don't put a ceiling on it too that floor is going to fall out from under them eventually like it did in the US.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 66 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Depends. I actually fully support putting a ceiling on wealth.

The analogy I always come back to is nuclear weapons. We don't let private individuals own them. We don't make you get an atomic bomb license. We don't tax nukes heavily. We don't make sure that only the kindest and most ethical people are allowed to own nukes. We simply say, this is too much power to be trusted to one individual. No one should have that level of power.

And yet, would anyone doubt that someone like Bezos, all on his own, can cause an amount of damage comparable to a nuclear bomb? If Bezos had it in for an entire city, could he not destroy it? Could he not buy up the major employers and shut them down? Could he not buy up all the housing and force the citizens into penury? Could he not buy up and shut down the hospitals? I have no doubt that, if he wanted to, Bezos could single handedly destroy a city. And how many lives would that take? How many would drink themselves to death or die by their own hand after Bezos came in and destroyed their entire lives? How many would die from lack of resources and medical care, etc?

Bezos could absolutely, if he wanted to, single-handedly cause a level of destruction and human misery comparable to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

And that is a power no one should have. The only way anyone should have that level of power is through democratic elections.

This is why I support wealth caps. I would personally set the maximum allowable wealth at 1000x the median household income. In the US, this would be about $80 million USD. That's about the maximum fortune a person that actually works for wages can amass in a lifetime, if they're a very high earner, live very frugally, and marry someone of similar status. 1000x median household income is the limit of what I consider to be an honest fortune - one made primarily through your own work, rather than sponging off the labor of others.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Bezos could absolutely, if he wanted to, single-handedly cause a level of destruction and human misery comparable to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

I get your point but that's insulting the victims of the most heinous act against humanity ever committed. Those people, mostly civilians, died that day.
What you describe would definitely drive people into poverty, and maybe death, but it wouldn't instantly kill them.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 hours ago

what is the insult?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›