3 ms·

Their balance sheet isn't the point, it's what they did and are doing to get there that is the point: - taking away healthcare from the poor, killing people -

Their balance sheet isn't the point, it's what they did and are doing to get there that is the point: - taking away healthcare from the poor, killing people - destroying/privatizing what was once free and part of the shared commonwealth - privatizing what never should've been profit-motivated in the first place: hospitals, prisons, schools and so on. - "deregulating" removing pollution and safety protections that were written in blood - spending money to corrupt the political process in order to buy passage of laws - underpaying workers so they have to live in their cars and cheating them out of the profits they helped create It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair (One could also call it the "Upton Sinclair-effect".)

mam2 7y ago
Life is adversarial. If you are angry about it, do something about it yourself, like putting up regulations or whatever. You cant attack someone for doing his job.
- Frost1x 7y ago
  Sounds like OP is adopting the adversarial approach and trying push the concept of change around.
  - mam2 7y ago
    Its true. But still, hating on bilionaires is just ineffecient
    - mantas 7y ago
      It's quite efficient if you manage to bring together large enough crowd.
      - mam2 7y ago
        It was never efficient ever.
        mantas 7y ago
        It's an efficient way to get rid of old aristocracy and give space for new aristocracy to raise. Russia and China are sweet cases. French revolution was somewhat similar too.
mantas 7y ago
Maybe it'd be more productive to criticise people based on those points. Rather pick a somewhat correlating group. How about we pick a skin color correlating with petty crimes and then draw conclusions on that? Not so cool, huh...
- viklove 7y ago
  Your skin color isn't based on your actions, but your wealth is. It's not a fair comparison to make. You should be judged for your actions.
  - mantas 7y ago
    Exactly, people should be judged for their actions. Not for skin color or net worth. One's wealth isn't automatically a result of bad actions. It's a very accurate comparison. Generalisation is generalisation.
    - viklove 7y ago
      > One's wealth isn't automatically a result of bad actions. It almost always is, though. Skin color never is. I don't agree with your take at all.

mam2 7y ago

Life is adversarial. If you are angry about it, do something about it yourself, like putting up regulations or whatever. You cant attack someone for doing his job.

Frost1x 7y ago
Sounds like OP is adopting the adversarial approach and trying push the concept of change around.
- mam2 7y ago
  Its true. But still, hating on bilionaires is just ineffecient
  - mantas 7y ago
    It's quite efficient if you manage to bring together large enough crowd.
    - mam2 7y ago
      It was never efficient ever.
      - mantas 7y ago
        It's an efficient way to get rid of old aristocracy and give space for new aristocracy to raise. Russia and China are sweet cases. French revolution was somewhat similar too.

mantas 7y ago

Maybe it'd be more productive to criticise people based on those points. Rather pick a somewhat correlating group. How about we pick a skin color correlating with petty crimes and then draw conclusions on that? Not so cool, huh...

viklove 7y ago
Your skin color isn't based on your actions, but your wealth is. It's not a fair comparison to make. You should be judged for your actions.
- mantas 7y ago
  Exactly, people should be judged for their actions. Not for skin color or net worth. One's wealth isn't automatically a result of bad actions. It's a very accurate comparison. Generalisation is generalisation.
  - viklove 7y ago
    > One's wealth isn't automatically a result of bad actions. It almost always is, though. Skin color never is. I don't agree with your take at all.