321–330 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need to start by making it illegal to be a billionaire. I’m listening. What does this law look like?
Someone on /r/latestagecapitalism pointed out if you seized everyone's excess billions above $1B, you could end world hunger for 216 years, end climate change by 2030, etc etc. Around 7.5 billion people on earth would probably agree to those benefits.
Why do people keep needing proof that big money runs everything.
It sounds conspiratorial to the average person, who isn't all that politicized or interested -- until it gets 'em. When it comes for you, it gets ya (via deplatforming or stock shennanigans or mortgage crisis bailouts or big wars and lies or whatever), and the online mainstream media Zeitgeist seems to support it, you join in on the understanding that big money corrupts and populism is worth a thought or two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's deplatforming, using AWS as a weapon against smaller voices. I can't see this ending well. This, so much - imagine you believe "they" stole the election, "they" got your favorite social media shut down (parler/gab/whatever), "they" blocked the buying of options, "they" then liquidated your position as the price predictably fail and you got margin called, you complained but "they" got your feedback deleted. Ouc…
In all of these cases ‘They’ were within their rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need to start by making it illegal to be a billionaire. I’m listening. What does this law look like?
2% annual wealth tax on wealth over 200M. 70% top marginal tax rate on incoming over $10M in a year. Then it wouldn't be illegal to be a billionaire, but it would be much harder, and would mean you were constantly contributing a significant amount back to society if you're able to maintain that level of wealth.
You misspelled “the oligarchs who run the government” as “society”
How were these not overall real reviews? If they can't prove otherwise, this just entrenches the idea that big money is vastly more powerful than small voices. I honestly don't see how if this trend continues how things will end well. It's not just about Robinhood, etc, it's deplatforming, using AWS, etc as a weapon against smaller voices. I can't see this ending well.
Federated/distributed systems where the network is itself the filter seem more promising to me, even though they tend to come at the expense of usability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s more likely emergent behavior born of individual executives making decisions that benefit their image and career, rather than some conspiracy. Having a diverse team looks good and deflects the political eye of Sauron from the largely white male upper management types, who are de-facto racists/sexists/etc in the pop culture lens. Who knows, maybe some of them genuinely believe that preferential hiring of…
As a (very!) low level manager, I’ve been espousing that diversity prevents groupthink for years. If we have too much groupthink, we risk driving off a cliff, high-fiving each other the whole way down.
Private company, they can do what they want. Or suddenly no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or Mussolini style Italian Fascism. Corporatist economics and authoritarianism
How exactly was this not the free market? Did robinhood do something illegal and break their contract?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone on /r/latestagecapitalism pointed out if you seized everyone's excess billions above $1B, you could end world hunger for 216 years, end climate change by 2030, etc etc. Around 7.5 billion people on earth would probably agree to those benefits.
Someone should have pointed out that they were wrongly assuming people could eat paper.