buy politians to make them make laws to fuck over bilionaries, what is ironic lol
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
57 points (92.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43831 readers
1217 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel like this is the only answer that would make a difference long-term.
The other suggestions like giving people food and housing would only be putting a bandaid on a broken system; it needs to actually change to prevent the same situations from reoccurring.
You might be underestimating how little 100 billion is, compared to the wealth of other billionaires.
With the pennies they actually pay lawmakers, though? 100 billion could go a loooooooooong fucking way to outspend the billionaires.
The reason they're billionaires is because they're fuckin misers and penny-pinchers. They hate spending money and that is evidenced by how cheaply our politicians are bought for.
Simply outspend them quickly, and you'll have the politicians licking your boots.
This one crossed our mind as well, the problem is you usually don't compete against billionaires but rather against corporations or conglomerate which has much more economic power that single individuals. You also have to account for the benefits that these private entities can promise (knowing a law will favor a certain industry is a good way to make cash by buying stocks before said law passes), that's quite hard to compete with that when you're a philanthropist
load more comments
(7 replies)
100 billion puts you in the top 15 richest on the planet. You'd actually rank #11 ahead of Sergey Brin and Bloomberg.
Thatβs the publicly known list. There are many billionaires out there whose asset values are intentionally obfuscated so that they can remain below the radar (particularly offshore holdings), and there are known cases of people suing to stay off the billionaires list.
This. It's called "legislative capture" and corporates do it all the time.
I would set up a massive lucrative company and lobby the hell out of governments.
I am surprised nobody said 'education'. Every dollar spent there generates two dollars of worth. Educated people have fewer children and pollute less. Educated people don't vote as many morons into power. I sincerely believe many problems of the world could have been prevented with educating everyone involved.
Education, specifically primary and secondary education for girls, is highly effective at reducing poverty. It deserves be highly prioritized for investment.
True. Also sex ed and 'life education' like spending advice or household tips for people who struggle to live alone. I'd probably have a board of various teachers advising me on where to spend how much and track the results with studies to be able to correct course.
Very true...
Depends what areas of education you mean. I think the most important areas people need to know more about in order to better the world as a whole are literacy, numeracy and world issues (war, current politics, climate change, etc).
Spending $100B to make university free would just accelerate a new problem that the world is facing: overeducation. Now it's harder to get a job without a college degree as a minimum, especially above minimum wage, even though the skills gained in the degree are not what is actually in demand or being used in whatever job someone ends up with.
Granted that's mainly a problem in the USA at the moment, and with $100B you could also fund a lot of R&D so people studying STEM end up in STEM jobs bettering the world.
It needs to be heavily targeted towards mandatory education, particularly K-12 or equivalents, and have a strong focus on critical thinking, scientific skepticism, technical literacy, entrepreneurialism, and the methods and models of social programming that are commonly used (how to identify, resist and avoid them).
This will help create generational change which is great for the future, but sadly does nothing to solve the pressing issues we face right now.
Agreed. Education does not = academia. Iβd argue that right now the incentives for academia for the sake of academia is far higher than for education and learning. Thereβs something systematic there. I canβt tell where $100B would be the most effective but getting 20 years olds MBAs ainβt it.
Hire hitmen to remove the other 100 richest people in the π.
This is a great answer. But you have to realize, "hitmen" cannot operate autonomously. You would need to fund them, create a private investigative network, etc etc so that you could hunt down other billionaires. basically, you have to get your hands dirty if you want this to work.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Itβs a good start but then their wealth just transfers to their next of whatever. Hire hitmen after and during investing in creating political changes that ensure wealth is more fairly distributed through society.
I'd buy Facebook and rebrand it as V.
Pretty sure that would kill it.
Gonna need a couple hundred billion more for that :(
I'd do this and then turn it into a socialist hell hole where I censor everything that looks like it came from Storm Front. And when conservatives birch and moan for rhetoric that is Storm Front lite, I'll remind them that the platform is private and duck their feelings
load more comments
(1 replies)
Create a fund and use the dividends to fund free healthcare. Rather than spend it all in one go, I want it to continue generating a stable fund to keep things going.
Ewwwwww! You want us to get Pensions you filthy commie!?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway
Buy and open source as much farming, education, housing, medical and general automation technology and is practical, then deploy non profit supply chains to allow even the furthest reaches of the planet the ability to acquire and implement this technology.
Subsidize the edges of this supply chain to ensure the most disadvantaged get equal access
With everything that remains, acquire the means of productions (farmland, housing, mines, wells, roads, rivers) that are in private lands and set them up with an autonomous non-profit democratic anti-privatisable organisational structure built to exploit those resources for the benefit of the local population.
Basically, it's doing the exact opposite of the "enclosures" and then making sure it doesn't happen again.
Hire people who would actually know where to begin with that.
The simple answer is to give it all away in some way. The notion that you can personally do good with that money is the delusion of every billionaire.
Idk probably buy the Amazon rain forest and then hire blackwater or whatever their name is to patrol it and make sure no logging or clearing or anything else is taking place. The indigenous people can use the land for their needs but no one else.
Buy a major social media platform and run it into the ground. Oh wait...
With 100 billion dollars, I would spend all of it on housing to end homelessness. Let's just provide homes for as many people as possible. All of it would get spent on this if I had my way.
200,000,000,000 / 200,000 = 1 million homes.
There are about 140 million homes in the USA.
You have ~2.5 people per home in the USA.
You would essentially be able to buy everyone living in Chicago or Houston their own home per population.
Chicago, IL (Population: 2,670,406)
Houston, TX (Population: 2,378,146)
I think I would rather work with a builder for higher density housing simply because the money could be stretched further. We need to rethink the concept of housing and homes.
I think youβve touched on a great point as to how some of the money should be spent - finding the brightest people with the best ideas and adequately funding them. Yet another folly of most billionaires is that they think they have all the answers; if youβre able to eschew that idea then you can really get some serious bang for your buck by not going full-blown Elon with the Captainβs Calls.
Bet you could buy a lot of teepees with that money and increase the curb appeal of tent cities.
In the book Capital in 21st Century, the author comes to a conclusion that one way to reduce inequality is by increasing the skills among the people. I would make higher education more accessible to poor people via scholarships, establishing colleges, etc..
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fund projects to drastically upscale desalination efforts.
I'd lean on the charities that have done the research on how best to deploy money and how much money those methods can support.
I'd also set myself and my friends/family up for life with a handful of millions each. But the rest gets donated.
First I'd find out how to make the money grow ethically
Then I'd invest in fusion power and green power, invest in lab-grown meat, invest in atmosphere cleaning, perhaps start some well-funded schools in areas of low education, sponsor some hospitals, etc.
I think I would also try to get asteroid mining to take off.
Probably just throw it at people until I run out. It'd at least help people up front.
Unpopular opinion; A big mass suicide. Just give money to the family of anyone that offers to die. World wide.
Popular opinion; make an american "charity" π
Trees. I'd plant as many trees as possible across the world.
And an old dogs sanctuary. Just because.
Spend on research and development to end menstruation.
Organic farming?
Pesticideless farming that's respectful of the environment, easy way to make people healthier without damaging the plant further and while thinking about the future sustainably. Sounds like a decent deal to me!
Organic farming isnβt pesticide free, they use a range of pesticides, and usually at a higher volume than normal farming methods, because they donβt work nearly as well.
Additionally, organic farming tends to produce lower yields (19-25% lower on average) than traditional farming, meaning you need to actually use more space and resources (water, fertilizer, plus application of both) for the same benefit.
Organic farming can be good for some things, like fixing already-damaged environments, but itβs not a silver bullet by any means.
Start going around to banks and pay off mortgages - but only for people with like less than $1000 to $2000 in the bank. that would change lots of lives, quick.
view more: next βΊ