This is why billionaires shouldn't exist.
How many people could have been fed, clothed, or treated by the money wasted on that trip alone?
this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
70 points (100.0% liked)
Environment
4013 readers
12 users here now
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
People building the yachts, and people operating them, are probably glad for the opportunity to divert some of the money to feeding, clothing, or treating, themselves and their families.
The problem isn't that billionaires spend money, the problem is that they don't spend nearly enough.
They physically can't spend it on themselves. There's no possible way any one person can consume that much in a lifetime. The money need be forcibly redistributed to benefit society.
Funding organizations, be it businesses, foundations, charities, or whatever, can very quickly consume any amount of money you throw at them. There is literally no upper limit to how much you can pay people to do your bidding.
The problem is that they won't voluntarily, so we need to take it from them forcibly.
Well, yeah. There are literally billions of non-billionaires, only thing that's needed is to join forces and stand up to them: strikes and taxes work wonders. The problem is most people would rather pick easier targets, and fight each other instead.
Ah the old trickle down.
How many lives would have been saved if the people working to build yachts and facilitating trips instead worked to feed the homeless or something?
Humanity has a limited pool of labour. If the billionaires spent more, it means more labour catering to billionaires, less labour catering to the rest of us.
Jobs are limited, salaries are not, technology already amplifies work output way above everyone's needs.
Trickle down would work if it wasn't for everyone undercutting everyone else: billionaires don't get charged enough, millionaires don't get charged enough, and people at the bottom keep trampling each other over minimum wage jobs.
The solution starts with people at the bottom joining forces and saying "FU" to unlivable wages, as in unions and general strikes. As long as most people keep seeing each other as a threat, those at the top can play them at will.
Oh Hells no
You're describing trickle down economy and how billionaires always claim that they HAVE to be so rich because it will trickle down to everyone, I promise!
Bullshit
Give everyone good wages, which is possible, and give everyone a job.
Have the billionaires pay up-to 100% income taxes and up to 50% owning taxes per year until their fortune is down to ~10 million, which is about the max that any human being should have. You cannot tell me that it's really fine for someone to have 100.000.000.000 dollars net worth while kids are under the poverty level in the US. With all the taxed money, you can immediately give everyone a universe income with which we can all live normal human lives.
Fuck these oligarchs, I sincerely they all die in an avalanche as that would actually make the world a better place. These people are leeches.
You're describing trickle down economy
Give everyone good wages, which is possible, and give everyone a job.
give everyone a universe income
Cognitive dissonance?
BTW, it's "Universal Basic Income", the "net worth" is a fantasy, a "100% income tax" is as easy to dodge as any other, and wait for inflation to hit before talking about "the max that any human being should have".
I sincerely they all die
This is where you've gone too far. Please think things through for a productive discussion.
It's too late to change things now, but we shouldn't have used the term 'sailing' for vessels without sails.
Saying that, I'd like to see Zuck sailing off into the sunset.
Or the edge of the world, and count the turtles all the way down.
known for his adventurous spirit
Wait; what? Give me a break. How much adventure is there in two yachts and a helicopter?
By utilizing the helipad on his yacht instead of landing on Norwegian soil, he sidestepped the legal requirements.
Did the helicopter not land on the mountain top? Or did he rappel down? Or is it irrelevant because there is no evidence?
Helicopters can hover barely above the ground, landing is usually considered to touch down and power off the engine... but yeah, it's splitting hairs.
If they don't want helicopters, then they should apply the rules to the airspace. Maybe they'll change it now.
This entire article was written by ChatGPT.