Asklemmy

43989 readers

689 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

162

[Serious] The revolution was successful! The old government is gone. You get to help write the new Constitution. What do you put into it? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

338 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about rich people not owning much but having everything in their company, non profit, etc.

Why do we collectively call people like that rich?

Most of the rich, including billionaires, don't have any actual wealth. Even the stocks they take loans out against aren't really a guaranteed source of funds; the stock market could crash over any little old thing, wiping the books.

I believe most rich people are just scammers who tricked everyone else into giving them special privileges, and most of America's wealth is not real. I think the real wealth, i.e. the gold and such, were stolen decades ago.

[–] Thavron@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not even gold is "real wealth". The value ascribed to gold is in essence the same as the value we ascribe to anything else.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

It holds objective value whether humans decide it has value to them or not. It's useful for certain things and would be useful for other intelligent, technological creatures besides humans because those uses are objective -- its malleability, resistance to rusting and conductivity make it valuable outside of the perceived human experience.

Land is probably a better measure of objective, external value though. Let's go with land -- the real rich people are the landowners, as they're the ones who can call the shots by deciding whether you can even exist in certain areas or not.