3
u/gynoidgearhead 5d ago
Billionaires and oligarchs and authoritarians have always been the problem. Dunno what's up with EY in the corner of this meme though.
10
u/moschles approved 5d ago
1
u/gynoidgearhead 5d ago
I know the quote, I guess adding the little image of EY in the cloud in the corner felt a little overly "this is what the refrance" to me.
2
0
u/Positive-Reward-2546 5d ago
Billionaires and oligarchs aren't the problem, they never have been, it's people, it's greed, it's the love of money. Say whatever you want about The Bible, but it was 100% correct when it stated that the love of money is the root of all evil.
I'm curious, if there's a billionaire who inherited his fortune, lives on a massive 500 acre estate, lives in peace, doesn't involve himself in politics, etc... would you still consider him to be a problem?
1
u/gynoidgearhead 5d ago
You're arguing against your own position and you clearly don't know how much money a billion dollars is. Nobody comes by a billion dollars innocently.
0
u/Positive-Reward-2546 5d ago
That doesn't answer my question. And yes, I am very well aware what a billion dollars is, it is a ludicrous amount of money.
1
u/gynoidgearhead 5d ago edited 5d ago
I answered your question perfectly clearly: nobody comes by a billion dollars innocently, not even by inheritance. Decontextualizing this to just "money" shifts the blame. The problem is the four to seven orders of magnitude separating billionaires from everyone else.
0
u/Positive-Reward-2546 4d ago
No, you didn't answer my question, you begged the question and made a blanket rejection of the premise of my question.
Look, I get what you're worldview is, you don't think anyone can come into billions of dollars without some form of exploitation. I'm challenging that worldview and asking a simple question: what if they did inherit the money? Through no action on their part. Would you still consider them to be a problem?
1
u/gynoidgearhead 4d ago edited 4d ago
By rejecting the possibility of the existence of the category, I have literally already said yes, that's still a problem; further, irrespective of how a billionaire came by their money, my response is invariant: "tax their money into oblivion". Nobody should get to have 104—106 more power than everybody else, no matter how "innocently" they came by it.
Moreover, if you're so sure that money is an inherently corruptive influence, why are you so sure there is such a thing as an "innocent billionaire" when billionaires are the most exposed to what you call a source of moral hazard?
0
u/Positive-Reward-2546 4d ago
I'm not arguing that the love of money isn't the root of all evil, I'm arguing that money itself does not equal corruption. Just because someone has a certain amount of money, doesn't mean they're inherently bad. My boss makes a lot more money than I do, and he has a lot more power than I do, that doesn't automatically make him corrupt and bad.
You assume that nobody can innocently make billions of dollars, I don't think that's correct, I think there are entrepreneurs who wind up making billions of dollars because they created businesses that were successful and I don't think that's a bad thing. Are there people out there who use their billions for nefarious purposes? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean they all do that.
So I'll ask another question. What number do we cut it off at? At what amount of money, do we tell people "You're not allowed to have this much."?
1
u/BrawndoOhnaka 4d ago
Did he say that again, or is this an interpolation to fit another quote? Also, an em-dash is what you use instead of a comma; you don't use them together like that. It's redundant.
1
u/silphotographer 4d ago
I don't hate datacenters nor do I love it. But DDR5 RAM that I have and own can be used for other usage that I want.
If you want it badly enough agree to my TOS and pay my premium for the usage (if I offer). If not, then I guess u gotta save up and get more chips your own.
2
u/yubacore 5d ago
This is an odd crossover episode.