• StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    17 hours ago

    They don’t have money. They have debt and stock. Their money is a whole other tier of pretend that we’re too poor to have access to.

    • Don_alForno@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Stocks are assets are money.

      The pretend we’re collectively falling for is that you can’t tax those assets because they’re somehow not really there until they want them to be.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Liberté! égalité! fraternité!

    Leeja Miller notes historically wealth accumulated by the aristocratic elite is never restored back to the public (that is, back to the state general fund, then used to sponsor roads, bridges, libraries, food programs, education, science, etc. which serve the public good) except through violence, e.g. the response of the French public after the États Généraux de 1789 )

    So this, along wirh discussions of the kind of reprisal Luigi Mangioni may not have done, all tracks, considering the escalating clime in the United States.

    It’d sure be nice to find a nonviolent path to restoring creating public-serving government and a system that regards the personhood of absolutely everyone, but we very much cannot take violence off the table, especially when it comes to restoring wealth parity.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    I like it, but it needs some work to give it staying power. I say start with 1 billionaire, then once they’ve gotten a good, front-row whiff of the consequences, we start a blind bidding war for social services, a different one each episode. Whoever has the lowest bid gets a new and excruciating ending at the end of each episode. The one guy left standing at the end gives up his money for the final program, but gets to walk out alive.

  • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    2 days ago

    If we’re workshopping names, Boil the Billionaire has nice alliteration.

    “I’m Mark Summers and Welcome to…”

    Live Audience: “BOIL!”

    Live Audience: “THE!”

    Live Audience: “BILLIONAIRE!”

  • balderdash@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    Online liberals will joke about eating the rich but get mad when protesters block traffic. Online liberals will joke about “the guillotine” but argue that destruction of property counts as “violence”.

    • Master@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      Because blocking traffic doesnt hurt anyone except other lower class people forced to drive for their livelihood.

      Lets protest the rich by punishing the poor. Next well protest the rich by licking their boots. They’ll hate that for sure… Makes no sense.

        • Master@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          I’ve started to reply to this a few times but I dont think there is a “good” answer. Me personally I think strikes and boycotts are functional protest methods. They hurt innocent people just trying to survive but the difference is that they dont “just” hurt those people. They also hurt the rich at their bottom line.

          The real problem I have with traffic protests is that they dont actually do anything other than alienate the protesters. If you could do mass traffic protests so that it actually made a difference to outweigh the other side of the coin then it would be different. But you would need a nationwide organized protest. Which we are nowhere close to.

          • oo1@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Thanks that makes some sense. I think the thing is they’ve been effective in the past, and not much else has. Maybe there has to be some sort of sacrifice to gain progress.

            I guess some of the postwar progressive (economic) reforms - largely now abolished - were actually a product of democractic pressure rather than protest - but some of the other ones like anti-racism stuff still did require sacrifice and protest on top of that. And the prevailing economic conditions were quite extreme at that time. When people have less to lose there’s less cost.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        There will be a lot of blocked traffic if we ever bring back the guillotines. Just be honest and say you don’t want to be inconvenienced.

        • Master@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Nah, im all for eating the rich but dont punish working people with stupid protests. Protests that inconvenience people who you want to be on your side just turns them against you. If you want to lose the fight make everyone who supports you stop supporting you.

          You do you though.

          • balderdash@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            How can we ever get to the point of eating the rich if we can’t even block traffic without turning people away from the cause? The former is far more disruptive than the latter.

            Mass protests in other countries have shut entire cities down. That’s what it takes. If your sentiment is the popular one (and it appears to be), then Americans will never get to a place of actual resistance. I guess people just aren’t mad enough yet.

  • Xande@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    There’s no real entertainment in this…

    let them fight to the death… and then let the animals in… If you want to know how to entertain MAGA folks… check out the ancient romans!

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Depends what you define as landlord.

      Guy who owns 2-3 duplexes in the city? Nah.

      Big time landlord who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars from thousands of properties? BOIL EM!!!

      • Flames5123@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Exactly. I’m living in a triplex that sold for $1.4 million last year. My rent is less than 1/3 a 30 year mortgage (with a 3.5% down payment). My old landlord set the right price. I hope my new landlord does the same.

      • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        the guy who owns 2-3 duplexes can (and are incentivised) to be as cruel and inhumane as possible by the same capitalist forces.

        if you ask me, rent shouldn’t be a thing. once you paid the value of the house in rent you should be able to claim it as your own.

        • cows_are_underrated@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          I agree, but those who own like 2 or so houses are literally not the main problem. We can work on abolishing them at a later point, but until then we can ignore them.

          • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’ll concede that they aren’t the “main” problem.

            but if we eliminate corporate landlords, that industry will be taken by smaller landlords and you haven’t really fixed the problem, just replaced a handful of corporations with a few thousands of landlords doing the same shit.

            • cows_are_underrated@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              Its much harder to enshittify a market when you dont have a monopoly, so it does improve the situation. But yeah, longterm we definitely have to act against those too.

              • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                19 hours ago

                we could go into a very nice debate, but I think the economical forces that push for enshitification will still be there even if you break monopolies or large corporations. It will likely be slower without shareholders demanding permanent growth. but the landlord greed is still there.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Based on that definition you never stop paying. Homes values constantly go up. My dad bought a house in the 1970s. 33k.

          Today the house has a value of 300k. Took him 30 years to pay off the original mortgage.

          • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            23 hours ago

            part of the reason house prices are always on the up, is because they agree considered an investment not a basic necessity. so there’s no interest in building more.

            a house shouldn’t cost more than construction cost.

      • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It still staggers me how quickly some people’s opinions on landlords changes when they see the money. A bunch of otherwise stand up fellas are now dreaming of using their retirement investments to ‘buy some houses, rent them out for the passive income,’ and another of the group who says his dream is to buy/own an apartment complex, all the while salivating at the money.

        Most of us are trying to play in a game we hate… where not playing means suffering. I don’t really see just owning rental properties to be worthy of the billionaire boil. Hold them accountable for every scummy practice and ounce of harm caused by greed seeking, but not merely for renting housing out.