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.
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.