Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
I’m basically as far from DSA as possible but I don’t think the “there should be no billionaires” thing is about the nominal amount in either direction, it’s anti-inequality The idea is “it’s immoral for some people to be making $16.25/hour and some people to have 1 billion dollars”
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions

Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
Doesn’t make sense and is basically out of touch with reality, it’s more or less the mindset of a child but it’s not about the number itself
1 reply
1 recast
3 reactions

Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
I’m not talking about what’s happening, I’m talking about what’s possible. Is a system that redistributes the only way? Or are you open to people finding technology that grows the pie so much, that everyone has what they need?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
I think it depends if you mean everybody is *exactly* a billionaire and has the same net worth as anybody else, or if you means everybody is *at least* a billionaire. I think a lot of people on the left would tell you that as long as X, Y, Z material needs are met then they would be ok with inequality, but in practice I think that’s fake. People now are at a much higher material level than people 200 years ago but the ideology has stayed the same. Says more about people and political opportunities than material conditions
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
I agree that people who say they want everyone lifted, often seem to fall back on views that contradict. Everyone “at least” a billionaire or “at least” living in a system where technology has brought the cost of everything down so much that everyone is living like a billionaire
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
It very funny how when you point out how arbitrary the threshold is, you are called a devils advocate or bad faith or whatever but it’s extremely short sighted and naive to set what seems obvious as the current threshold as the objective threshold. It’s just gonna keep changing
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Evan pfp
Evan
@evangreenberg
Yes, which is why I’m using “billionaire” symbolically, as well as literally. The world winning doesn’t necessarily need everyone to have exactly $1B USD, but we can choose to pursue a world that grows the pie so big that everyone has what they need or we can choose one where anyone who gets rich is redistributed. Are you open that the former could be the way?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
Oh, sorry misinterpreting what you were saying, yeah I mean that would be great, and definitely preferable to redistribution I think what qualifies as “need” would be an issue if you tried to implement it as policy or something though. But it would be a good outcome
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction