this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025

1926 points (99.2% liked)

News

30632 readers

4445 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

admiralpatrick@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

1926

Zohran Mamdani says 'I don't think we should have billionaires' (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 1 day ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

393 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Order to eliminate all billionaires confirmed! To the Priuses, we ride!

*lift sword out window

*slowly pull away from curb with loud prius humming noise

/s I dont advicate violence and I agree billionaire level accrual of wealth shouldnt happen. When it does it should be taxed like FDR did it. We've never done so well as a country than when we had real progressive taxation. When Maga people talk about making america great agin, thats the era they are thinking about, when a single worker could support a whole family and buy a house and raise kids with a normal job, and a normal job was respected and dignified.

[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 27 points 5 hours ago

He is right.

Imagine a "billionaire" in the wild: An animal sitting on a vast horde of food that it could never eat while others starved around it ... yea, it would not last long.

Imagine a "billionaire" in a living body. A corporate money making entity would basically be a cancer that had to be removed to save the life of the patient.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 10 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

god he's so hot

[–] ballgoat@lemmy.zip 1 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)

Mamdani. He’s so hot right now. Mamdani.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 1 points 5 minutes ago

that picture of him in the white shirt

until he could clap with both hands in it

[–] EtAl_isGitch@lemmy.world 31 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Once you go beyond $100,000,000, there is no measurable difference in lifestyle. However, power accumulates. That amount of power shouldn't be in the hands of so few.

[–] SolNine@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I would disagree, 100 millionaires don't own F1 teams or have boats so large and so much money they can take down bridges to get them out of port.

The problem is people like myself and many other can't fathom even desiring things so absurd... And many of these billionaires won't rest until they own the entire world.

[–] ballgoat@lemmy.zip 1 points 38 minutes ago

You’re right, of course. I think it’s more like there isn’t much of an upgrade in lifestyle in general. Sure, it’s an order of magnitude more wealth, but you can do basically all of the most luxurious things in life.

For most luxury, you’re staying at the same presidential suite and driving the same car and that kind of thing. It’s not diminishing returns necessarily. I dunno.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 27 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

One cannot reign innocently: the insanity of doing so is evident. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.

-Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, 1792

Or, put in modern terms: There is no such thing as an innocent billionaire.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 13 points 6 hours ago

You don't become a billionaire without exploitation.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 hours ago

I don't think we should have the situations and lack of regulation that leads to billionaires, especially as it will likely continue to drain/erode the quality-of-life for everyone else to eventually lead to trillionaires...

[–] splonglo@lemmy.world 35 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The wealth of the rich is still growing and it will continue to grow automatically until the middle class ceases to exist. If we do not take the assets back, it will become impossible for normal working people to ever buy a house, or have any economic power over their own lives at all - nevermind the political control or the media manipulation.

Extreme wealth concentration is THE biggest issue facing society. Mamdani is absolutely right.

[–] SeptugenarianSenate@leminal.space 1 points 2 hours ago

I can’t take anymore

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 hours ago

I like this guy.

[–] Sdes01@lemmy.ca 35 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Hoarding = mental illness = billionaires

[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

well I have mental illness and some hoarding but I'm not a billionaire, so I don't think this equation works 😔✊

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 22 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I agree there is no reason why an individual should have that much economic power. There is no justification for that amount of wealth in so few hands.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] OpenPassageways@programming.dev 26 points 10 hours ago (5 children)

They could just stop impeding progress and let the working class have things like healthcare and a living wage. Guess that's too much to ask and they would prefer guillotines?

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 21 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

These people could still be fabulously wealthy and do anything they want for their entire lives while also ALLOWING for a healthy middle class and things like universal healthcare and living wages.

I capitalized "allowing" because I think it's absurd we're living under their domination and I think it's time we forcibly take what we need from them. The time for being amicable is over.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.world 8 points 8 hours ago

Trickle Down Economics was a huge success for the Aristocrats, and a disaster for the working class. Obviously, they want to keep the system that has worked so well for them, but it is unsustainable, and it is coming to an end. They are facing two choices:

Trickle UP Economics, in which more money is given to the workers, who will then spend it, stimulating the economy. Every time this has been tried (such as during Covid), it was wildly successful. The money eventually makes its way into the hands of the Sociopathic Oligarchs and Transnational Corporations anyway, but at least it greases the cogs of the economy on its journey upwards.

That would be the best way to handle the economy for everybody. The workers have more spending power, and the rich get richer. Everybody's happy.

Robin Hood Economics, which is "Take from the Rich, and give to the Poor." This usually follows a brutally violent rebellion in which the wealthy do not prevail. It is usually very uncomfortable for them and their families. The wealthy would rather avoid this one.

Of course, they want to keep on going with the plan that has made them wealthy, but we have to show them that the gravy train has come to an end, and we will not be indulging their hoarding mental illness any longer.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.world 8 points 8 hours ago

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 46 points 12 hours ago

Lmao that's because we shouldn't have billionaires

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, we probably shouldn't have people who horde so much wealth it negatively affects the economy.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 20 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

It's not that we shouldn't have billionaires. Its that we have billionaires when we have people living on the streets because the rent is so ridiculous. Its that we have people dying on the streets because they cannot afford health insurance. The gravy on the shit-fest is that billionaires are actively bribing the politicians to prevent those policies from being implemented. That is the textbook recipe for guillotines.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 11 hours ago (8 children)

All of these are reasons why we shouldn't have billionaires, though.
I mean, I agree. It's very bad out there.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 52 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

Even the billionaires would be better off without billinaires. It their relative ranking was the same they would still have more money than they could spend but it would now come with clean air, water, land, better infrastructure, a healthier world, happier people to interact with.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments