• Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    It only makes sense that we collectively eat the first trillionaire.

    Tbh I’d guess that it’s unlikely that we’ll have a trillionaires at all. Hiding wealth will become easier and easier and I don’t think anyone wants that rep in “eat the billionaires” sort of public climate.

    • BigFatNips@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I agree about hiding wealth and all that, but is the public climate actually “eat the billionaires?” Because I basically only see that in left-wing spaces. Normies still seem to be doing a ton of boot licking tbh. I do live in a pretty conservative area though so maybe that’s biased?

      • herrcaptain@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        Speaking anecdotally, I’m pretty sure you’re right on that one. In my circle of (millenial / lefty) friends it’s basically seen as common sense. Among the average person I interact with, however, such as at work, it’s seen as a fringe idea. And I’m not even advocating for eating them in the revolutionary sense - just taxing the rich in a way that doesn’t allow any one person/family to horde egregious amounts of wealth to the point that they can unduly influence society with their power.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      We should have eaten the first billionaire. If we stay eating people we definitely didn’t stop as long as there are any billionaires.