It’s just a class that is absolutely exploring people. You can’t become a billionaire without it. You can absolutely become an honest millionaire so it wouldn’t make sense to use that.

[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah like there are folks who are worth 10ish million who just bought a house 50ish years ago that gained a lot of value and had dual incomes that saved all their money for retirement.

100 million folks are on THIN ice, but there is probably an author or inventor out there who made something really nice and everyone they worked with was also well taken care of. Most of them are probably garbage, but not all of them have to be. Some famous actors also were well known for making sure everyone got paid what they deserved on set and were very generous.

I just don't see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

probably an author or inventor out there who made something really nice and everyone they worked with was also well taken care of.

JK Rowling should be a billionaire, but she keeps giving money away.

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Yeah but she’s a garbage human being.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I just don’t see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's false.

[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

By all means, show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions and actually earned it. I'm down to change my view.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions

You can't prove a negative, screwball. It's literally impossible to prove "never took advantage of anyone" about anyone, billionaire or not.

Not that you aren't almost certainly using an overbroad definition of 'take advantage', on top of it.

I'm down to change my view.

No, you aren't. People who are don't play these kinds of semantic games.

[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My man I don't think you belong the the MARXIST LENNIST instance if you're this aggro at someone saying something as generic as "Billionaires exploited people to get their billions"

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

My man I don't think I give a shit where you think I belong.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago

If you were following burden of proof, you could stake your claim on particular billionaires who you say never exploited anyone, and it would then be on the other fellow to prove they did exploit people. Without example billionaires, however, your claim is nebulous and no one has any particular reason to believe in it.

[–] itsralC@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

You really pulled the extendo grip out, huh?

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago

Lack of understanding of class. Billionaires are just the obscene top of the top of the bourgeoisie and they do excercise disproportional power in the ruling class, but the class war isn't only about them, it's about the system which makes their power possible. For example China also have billionaires, but they aren't even 1/100 of a problem there.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 3 points 3 months ago

Pareto principle. Eat the billionaires, distribute their wealth: 20% of the effort for 80% of the result.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Easier to focus on a few, very public individuals.