• atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Spent by being traded amongst rich people which does nothing at all to the economy. It’s hoarding with extra steps.

    Don’t take my comment as excusing the wealthy. It wasn’t intended to be critical of them, but it was intended to give an idea of the scale of the problem. It’s not just rich people who are the problem. It’s the system (which my comment is intended to be critical of). It’s designed to make the rich richer. That’s what needs to be dismantled.

    Spending the money at the rate they would need to to put back into circulation would crash markets. It would make things worse for poor people.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The “spending” isn’t nearly so much the issue as “what its being spent on”.

      We’ve got billions of dollars flowing into the media market so that Libs-of-TikTok and TurningPointUSA dorks can churn out reaction videos at an industrial scale. Meanwhile, we’re privatizing PBS/NPR and downsizing all the journalist departments at the national news agencies, because its more important to generate profit for stakeholders than to do the thing these organizations ostensibly exist to do.

      The material that’s being produced - consumer ready mass media - is being degraded thanks to the sheer volume of money that’s redirected from large publicly accountable news organs to independent vanity projects with ultra-wealthy sugar daddies.

      You can play the same game with the education system, the energy grid, mass transit, fucking groceries. The very price of an egg is dictated by whether or not some fuckwads at Tyson want to pocket a fatter dividend by downsizing the department that monitors for bird flu outbreaks.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        What money is spent on matters quite a lot. Spending $300 a week on groceries, and $2000 a month on rent or a mortgage is a lot different than paying $2000 for a new watch, and $300 for new shoes just because they’re designer. But I do agree with your point. There’s a lot of money changing hands behind the scenes to the detriment of poor people as well. My comments weren’t a disparagement of or dismissal of this problem, it just didn’t acknowledge that because I see a lot of people who want to blame a chosen few individuals, ignore a chosen few individuals who are just as problematic for the same reasons, and never come close to recognising that the system is rigged or understanding that the system is extremely broken.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It’s the system (which my comment is intended to be critical of). It’s designed to make the rich richer. That’s what needs to be dismantled.

      But it is a system setup by and for them. They’re the very people that make the system what it is.

      And it’s this way in implementation. If you hand more money over to 12 people than the other 299,999,988 people in the country combined…you’re going to wind up with those 12 people having a lot more control and power over the country’s resources regardless of what else you do. (EDIT: this is just hyperbole, I know it’s not in actuality this bad, but it’s pretty close with the exact figures being slightly different)

      They designed the system in the first place, the founding fathers were tax evasive slaveholders.

      If you don’t have an actual conversation with them and keep blowing smoke up their ass, how is anything ever going to change? How do you dismantle the system that supports their wealth while propping up their throne and kissing their ring?

      If we can’t criticize these people, how are we supposed to “dismantle” anything? Critique and changing the discourse is a less drastic reaction than “eating the rich”…so if you’re saying you’re pro “eat the rich” but not pro “ask the rich pointed questions” how is that even possible?

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think mostly by using their tactics against them. There are more of us than there are of them. Withholding Labor, lobbying, pushing for more pay and benefits. I think there’s a lot we can do that doesn’t involve just pointing out that so and so is a billionaire. What are we doing currently? Because I don’t feel like most people are doing much of anything.

        Pointing out the problems and how things work so that people have a better understanding is at least a step in the right direction. Hence my wish for people to get educated about finances and my offer of examples to show the scale.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          There are more of us than there are of them. Withholding Labor, lobbying, pushing for more pay and benefits.

          Sure there are more of us than there are of them, but the entire economy is oriented around their existence and continued support. We can strike and organize (and must) but it takes messaging to organize, and it takes messaging to win support from the public at large. It takes people pointing out just how absurd the current system and how morally and intellectually bankrupt its winners are in order for people to understand the need for change.

          Also, “lobbying” involves money. We may have the pure numbers, but we do not have the money…and that’s an important part of why you can’t get there without being able to criticize the people who created and get the most benefits from the current status quo and shifting the mindset from “these people are smarter / work harder / are more innovative than everyone else” to something more akin to “these people are greedier and often times more morally bankrupt than everyone else”.

          EDIT: There’s another thread here that’s a messaging thing that I think is important: billionaires are often miserable themselves…the end game of this shit doesn’t serve anyone…including the rich.

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            When poor people stop spending money, the economy goes into recession. We have buying power. Collectively we have enough money to make waves. We aren’t organised and part of that has to do with the fact that we aren’t all on the same page. Because we don’t all understand what’s going on. I know it takes more than just one or two of those things. But we had power and regulations once.

            Worst case scenario is we burn it all to the ground. Because that’s an ultimate equaliser. But it will absolutely have a detrimental effect both on the number of people dedicated to change, and their lives. Doing so has to be a last resort because it will cannibalize any movement that attempts it. Poor people will fight not to make their lot in life worse if push comes to shove.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              When poor people stop spending money, the economy goes into recession. We have buying power.

              Poor peoples’ spending is less optional…you cannot exactly just stop buying groceries or clothing in hopes that the system changes. “Vote with your dollars” is essentially meaningless…especially when the very same billionaires we’re talking about have conglomerated the goods in the essential economies. The food systems and the medical systems are practically cartels at this point. (i.e. Boycott Goya all you want, are you really sure that they aren’t still producing your beans anyway under the store brand?)

              I also think that the above is a gross oversimplification of what a recession is. The poor have been mostly buying only essentials for a while now (because it’s all they can afford with the recent inflation) and we still aren’t technically in a recession.

              EDIT: I personally think a better means to protest monetarily for the non-well off is actually debt strikes. Most people don’t have a lot of spare cash, but they sure do have a lot of debt. Unfortunately, it’s another one of those things that only works if a whole lot of people do it at once.