Nah, it’s the correct metric because of what gets people that metric: greed.
The “billionaire” part is simply because of what the current number is for the richest piles of filth. I would hope most people understand the hate for “billionaires” is directly equivalent to the hate people have for any greedy, money-grubbing shitstain.
If unjust/gross wealth is the metric, it’s the correct metric.
Remember: A metric doesn’t tell you how to fix things. It’s just a metric. Of course leaving unregulated capitalism in charge after billionaires exploded wouldn’t be wise, but a metric doesn’t tell you how.
Though your point is still true in that if we ONLY cared to eliminate billionaires directly and literally, it wouldn’t work: Any metric that becomes a target ceases to be a good metric.
Although that wisdom really does beg to go up against a problem like billionaires… When the problem is the very existence of something, sometimes the metric is directly the problem. Like poison levels in your drinking water. You need to use that metric regardless of how you decide to solve the problem.
If you could drag the poison in your drinking water out back and shoot it to get rid of it, wouldn’t you? Even if you had to do it once a week, you’ve still greatly improved your drinking water!
There are problems with that metric. One of them is that a lot of really rich people that hold local power just excuse themselves by claiming that they’re not billionaires. Estate owners are a good example. Many hold ownership over vast lands and contribute to people not having access to agricultural land, housing, etc. They’re mostly not billionaires, but are a key part in our oppressive system. Yet, the metric put them in the ok group
Focusing on such metric can give room for wrong solutions, like reducing globalization, which would limit how much money a corporation can amass. It would mathematically reduce inequality, but wouldn’t change our living standards, and wouldn’t give us access to better things, like housing, healthcare, etc. Yet, in terms of metrics, we would have achieved our objective
Like I said, the metric should be “extreme undue/unjust wealth”, not the most basic baby-brained interpretation of, “no billionaires”, as already explained.
Nah, it’s the correct metric because of what gets people that metric: greed.
The “billionaire” part is simply because of what the current number is for the richest piles of filth. I would hope most people understand the hate for “billionaires” is directly equivalent to the hate people have for any greedy, money-grubbing shitstain.
If unjust/gross wealth is the metric, it’s the correct metric.
Remember: A metric doesn’t tell you how to fix things. It’s just a metric. Of course leaving unregulated capitalism in charge after billionaires exploded wouldn’t be wise, but a metric doesn’t tell you how.
Though your point is still true in that if we ONLY cared to eliminate billionaires directly and literally, it wouldn’t work: Any metric that becomes a target ceases to be a good metric.
Although that wisdom really does beg to go up against a problem like billionaires… When the problem is the very existence of something, sometimes the metric is directly the problem. Like poison levels in your drinking water. You need to use that metric regardless of how you decide to solve the problem.
If you could drag the poison in your drinking water out back and shoot it to get rid of it, wouldn’t you? Even if you had to do it once a week, you’ve still greatly improved your drinking water!
There are problems with that metric. One of them is that a lot of really rich people that hold local power just excuse themselves by claiming that they’re not billionaires. Estate owners are a good example. Many hold ownership over vast lands and contribute to people not having access to agricultural land, housing, etc. They’re mostly not billionaires, but are a key part in our oppressive system. Yet, the metric put them in the ok group
Focusing on such metric can give room for wrong solutions, like reducing globalization, which would limit how much money a corporation can amass. It would mathematically reduce inequality, but wouldn’t change our living standards, and wouldn’t give us access to better things, like housing, healthcare, etc. Yet, in terms of metrics, we would have achieved our objective
Like I said, the metric should be “extreme undue/unjust wealth”, not the most basic baby-brained interpretation of, “no billionaires”, as already explained.