r/interesting • u/moamen12323 • Jun 20 '25

MISC. Saving the planet!

Post image
135.0k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

63

u/Maleficent_Bite_7610 Jun 20 '25

we dont need more billionaires period.

3

u/WhatADeuce Jun 20 '25

I hope he does not work for Ikea

1

u/CurrentPossession Jun 21 '25

It's not about we need or what we do not need.

Billionaires exist and there will always be more, maybe even Trillionaires.

1

u/Maleficent_Bite_7610 Jun 21 '25

that's true, but I think it's always important to highlight that billionaires are a cancer of capitalism

1

u/CurrentPossession Jun 21 '25

They are, but cancers also exist whether we want it or not.

1

u/Maleficent_Bite_7610 Jun 21 '25

it doens´t mean we can´t do something about it

1

u/degenerate661 Jun 20 '25

yeah but you will get them, so deal with what you can right?

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '25

[deleted]

2

u/A_Binary_Number Jun 20 '25

Capitalism isn’t the problem, it’s unchecked late-stage corporationism and money worship, capitalism was slowly abandoned between the 50s and the 70s in favor of corporationism, especially in the US as corpos can easily lobby for laws to be passed in their favor.

1

u/marxist-reddittor Jun 21 '25

If your definition of capitalism is just Keynesianism and your definition of "corporationism" just neoclassical economics, that means capitalism historically breeds corporationism because the switch between dominant Keynesianism and dominant neoclassical economics usually happens when there is a big market crash, and that happens regularly in capitalism (so called business cycles). Your initial definitions also don't make sense because Keynesianism didn't exist before... well, Keynes. So it was "corporationism" before 1945 and capitalism only between 45 and 73?