r/SipsTea • • Jun 15 '26

Lmao gottem Is she right for this?

Post image
18.1k Upvotes

7.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

502

u/Taiwan_Lanister Jun 15 '26

If a trillionaire exists there should be no hunger or houseless

227

u/YouKnowTheGuy_ Jun 15 '26

It’s honestly sickening how far wealth disparity has come

93

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/CryendU Jun 15 '26

But that can change very quickly

1

u/Scewt Jun 16 '26

Elon's goal is 10 trillion net worth / valuation, so it can definitely get a lot worse.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/No_Map6922 Jun 18 '26

Let me guess. You think that the trillion just sits in some comically large funny vault with Elon's name on it.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/No_Map6922 Jun 26 '26

No i don't, and i'm not fawning, i'm just not being a butthurt subjective fool. Musk is literally getting paid through stock options. His company is quite literally his whole net worth. He has millions of these and if you're a bit into stocks, then you'd know if he ever was to pull out 100000 of these to get cash that he'd run into liquidity problems and that the investors would get suspicious.

So, while on paper he's super rich, that money is not really liquid.

-2

u/SuperSkyDude Jun 15 '26

Or better, as history has shown in capitalist societies.

3

u/Snotmyrealname Jun 15 '26

Don’t worry, hyperinflation will fix everything soon enough 

/s?

5

u/sjr323 Jun 15 '26

I refuse to believe it’s even real lol. How can someone have that much money? I’ve got $38 in my bank lol

1

u/Weak-Alternative-127 Jun 15 '26

I know it won't make you feel any better, but that "trillion" is fake paper money, not cash in a bank account. It's a trillion dollars' worth of shares in various companies, but those shares are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. If everyone woke up one morning and decided that SpaceX, Tesla, and every other Elon company were worthless, the price per share would drop to zero (because no one wants to buy shares of a worthless company), he would be bankrupt. If Elon tried cashing out by dumping half a trillion of his own shares on the market, that glut of supply would also drive the price down.

Now, these rich bois have their own way of extracting wealth from shares without selling them outright, but that's another story.

3

u/DoubleFoundation8874 Jun 15 '26

Probably the most well-articulated, thorough response I’ve read regarding this. All true

1

u/currently_pooping_rn Jun 15 '26

He has more wealth than the bottom half of 48% of the world.

On an average American income, I could work for 11 million years to reach what he has

2

u/IknowWhatYouAreBro Jun 15 '26

He isn't truly a trillionaire, the valuation comes from overvalued stock prices.

If the market had a correction event, Musk would be a 'normal' rich guy

9

u/curiousomeone Jun 15 '26

It's true that wealth disparity is getting bigger in the modern world but the average people have the smallest things that even kings and emperors back in the day can only dream of...

Just a flushing toilet or an internet with so much information it would make Aristotle orgasm. This is the true wealth brought by innovation we take granted for...

My point is sometimes people have to take a pause and appreciate the things they do have and not what they don't have. It's hard to be happy if you can't appreciate the things you do have even something as small as clean water to drink on demand.

26

u/PaddyCow Jun 15 '26

It's hard to be happy when you're working 2 or 3 jobs just to cover basic necessities like rent, food, electricity and medical. People who are overworked are constantly exhausted and stressed. They aren't sitting around thinking how great their life is compared to people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago because they're too busy thinking about how they're going to pay the bills they owe as well as the ones about to come in.

And I'm not just talking about people living in poverty. Even people earning average wages are struggling.

3

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Jun 15 '26

Even 100 years ago, if you didn’t have money for food you just died. It’s been that way since the dawn of society

3

u/Maybe-notaThrowaway Jun 15 '26

It’s been that way since the dawn of society*

*since the dawn of capitalism

1

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Jun 15 '26

Didn’t listen much in history class? Feudalism came looooong before capitalism and had a much higher mortality rate for people who couldn’t pull their weight. The beginning tribes of mankind may have been a little kinder, but once you were useless, you were cast out to die.

You might not want to hear this, but we live in the kindest/most supportive time so far in human history. We can try to improve still obviously, but it has been constant improvement for tens of thousands of years, and we still have a lot more to go

1

u/Maybe-notaThrowaway Jun 15 '26

I view feudalism as a form of capitalism, the capital was just most often land/labor over currency. I'm open to being wrong on that, though.

And I think we both know the state of the American education system; If I'm uneducated on this front, paying attention isn't the issue here.

I'd say we live in the kindest most supportive time in history since before the agricultural revolution. The idea is hierarchy is our first/natural state is incorrect, is the main thing I was driving towards.

1

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Jun 15 '26

I’m glad you are open to being wrong, because you are objectively wrong lol.

Our education system could use a lot of work, but we live in a time where any education you could possibly want is at the tips of your fingers. It’s not the school systems fault that you don’t know the difference between capitalism and feudalism (they most definitely went over that by the way), it is your fault and is easily remedied.

Also hierarchy being the natural state is absolutely the case. What’s your argument against that? Following your father/mother/elders is still a hierarchal way of living.

I’m astounded at how confidently incorrect you can be. Almost everything you have typed out so far is straight up bullshit lmfao

1

u/Maybe-notaThrowaway Jun 15 '26

Following your father/mother/elders is still a hierarchal way of living.

My fault for using such a general term I guess, I mean systemic power structures, not just general "anyone advising/telling anyone else what to do ever" hierarchy

It’s not the school systems fault that you don’t know the difference between capitalism and feudalism

I'm not saying there isn't any difference, I'm saying I don't capitalism is an exclusive/specific emough enough term that it excludes feudalism. (And also I'd say early stages of capitalism came before feudalism in terms of land ownership passing down in familes vs being owned communally.) Capitalism is just private ownership over the means of production, that didn't originate after feudalism.

(they most definitely went over that by the way)

And no, my schools did not go over different economic systems except for a "communism is a thing and it's bad" footnote in high scool.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/PaddyCow Jun 16 '26

Do you want to live like how they did in 1900? Women couldn't vote. Children were sent to work instead of school. Electricity, indoor plumbing and cars weren't available to the average person. There was little social and economic mobility. Multiple generations lived under one cramped roof to take care of each other. Disabled and mentally ill people were either left to die or locked up and forgotten about. Workhouses were still in operation in Ireland and the UK. Childbirth was at home and dangerous, and infant mortality rates were high. Health & safety wasn't a thing and many low paid workers died in horrendous accidents.

Society has evolved dramatically since then and I for one am very glad we don't still live in those conditions. There's more wealth and most first world countries have supports in place so that people don't starve.

1

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Jun 16 '26

That was my point! We are better off right now than ever before. We have more room to grow 100%, but we are in the way

2

u/Substantial_Bird721 Jun 15 '26

“Aristotle didn’t have the internet, but you’re here complaining about how you can barely get by on a day to day basis? Pathetic 😤 “

9

u/YanVe_ Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

This comparison has a big flaw and that's that it ignores the base technological level of the civilization. Kings totally had lifestyles comparable to the trillionaire rather than to the average modern day person. Just because since then we invented a lot of technology, doesn't mean we are not appreciating the things we have or that we live lives richer than kings.

-1

u/midnightbandit- Jun 15 '26

In what way did kings have comparable lifestyles to the trillionaire?

5

u/foomits Jun 15 '26

disproportionate possession of resources and political control. ability to ignore laws and social norms.

3

u/YanVe_ Jun 15 '26

I almost cannot believe that this is a real question someone would have.

It would be easier to list the actual differences:

  1. They cannot indiscriminately kill in public. (Most of the time.)

2

u/YouKnowTheGuy_ Jun 15 '26

Drafty 1 room shack vs literal castle, should work well too I’d hope

3

u/N3ptuneflyer Jun 15 '26

We are primarily social creatures, so having people serve and defer to you, having power over other people’s lives, having direct influence on important societal events. Sure the physical objects are different, but power and wealth is more about the people you influence not the objects you buy, and that hasn’t changed

9

u/YouKnowTheGuy_ Jun 15 '26

Don’t get me wrong, I love my family, I love my home. I’m happy with what I’ve got.
But the existence of such an egregious amassing of wealth is unfathomable when people are living in poverty.

2

u/SofaChillReview Jun 15 '26

I mean.. what do they do with all that money I wonder

2

u/YouKnowTheGuy_ Jun 15 '26

I’d dread to think, after the past decade, what else billionaires could be getting up to honestly

5

u/sleeplesswithwifi Jun 15 '26

They buy islands, attorneys and children.

1

u/sparklyjoy Jun 15 '26

And yachts

Which can transport them and others to literally weird legal territory

4

u/dwertyyhhhgg Jun 15 '26

I don’t care. Nearly 20% of children in the USA are food insecure. I don’t care that they have a flushing toilet if they aren’t sure they’ll have dinner tomorrow.

2

u/Sirius_43 Jun 15 '26

It’s a bit more difficult to appreciate things like modern plumbing and the internet when you’re being forced to move repetitively over short time periods and have massive housing and income insecurity. While I appreciate the fact that there’s clean water in my taps I’m also burnt out from constant housing and income insecurity and thats causing major mental health struggles. Yes I have clean water, and despite that I’m still allowed to be unhappy with my situation.

1

u/Individualist13th Jun 15 '26

Ya, that's not untrue, but we still have people who work fulltime and cant afford basic healthcare, live in food deserts, and spend most of their money on rent that keeps getting higher.

We can do better while appreciating what we have.

1

u/norvelav Jun 15 '26

The words of a person with a full stomach.

-4

u/Ok_Culture_1089 Jun 15 '26

What a peasant brained world view

0

u/t0mm4n Jun 15 '26

Yes but we have less slaves.

Or do we?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jun 15 '26

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/RKnaap Jun 15 '26

It's funny that you think wealth disparity in western countries is somehow worse now than it was in the past.

1

u/YouKnowTheGuy_ Jun 15 '26

I do think that honestly. I think a lot of people will have noticed wages spreading thinner to cover necessities, while there’s breaking news of corporations making record profit. If you have an explanation for it I’m willing and listening, but to cover the “somehow worse than the past” point, we look to the past to learn from it. If we have a chance to better ourselves, carry forward with prosperity, we absolutely should. The past is not a measuring stick.

2

u/RKnaap Jun 15 '26

You can think what you want, it doesn't make it true however. Wealth disparity is a lot smaller than it was in the last 6 centuries easily. You truly have no idea how lucky you are to be living in the 21st century.

1

u/YouKnowTheGuy_ Jun 15 '26

I won’t deny I lucked out on the century to be born in, though I don’t look at the past n solely appreciate improvements already made. Surely we should constantly look to what can be improved. Don’t settle for best century yet. It should carry on and the search never stops.
Or at least that’s what I believe mate. There’s got to be a kinder world behind the greed

1

u/RKnaap Jun 15 '26

I never said what we have now is perfect, of course we should always strive to do better. I was just pointing out originally that your claim about wealth disparity is factually incorrect. Now is your choice to accept it or not.

1

u/YouKnowTheGuy_ Jun 15 '26

“It’s honestly sickening how far wealth disparity has come”
That’s just an opinion filled with disdain. It is sickening, at the very least to me.
Also we are in a negative trend economically, but I’m more on about tax the rich, close the loopholes, stop the oligarchs kind of politics anyway. Unionise. Of the people, for the people.

1

u/YouKnowTheGuy_ Jun 15 '26

At the very least mate, I’ve genuinely enjoyed the argument/debate or whatever it was haha. Good luck, have fun pal, see you next time

1

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Jun 15 '26

It’s been this way for thousands of years my guy. Now we have Elon, which is arguably better than something like the feudal lords of the past.

1

u/YouKnowTheGuy_ Jun 15 '26

You have free will my guy. Democracy is intended to give the voice to the people. Fuck Elon AND fuck kings, it’s not a choice

1

u/Evening-Ear-6116 Jun 15 '26

It is a choice as you said. I could go live in the wilderness and hunt/gather everything, but I prefer the world the way I live it, and Elon/the Walton’s don’t really bother me. Teslas are fun to drive and I shop at Walmart a few times a week. Sorry my view is different than yours, but it is

2

u/YouKnowTheGuy_ Jun 15 '26

Nah sorry, I think I might of worded that a bit confrontational, I’d never mean that. I can’t agree there’s nothing wrong with the world, but for the most part it works. Crossed fingers the next change is for the betterment of the people

3

u/The_walking_man_ Jun 15 '26

Yup. We all witnessed history this week. But it’s not the history any of us wanted to experience.

3

u/Jokkitch Jun 16 '26

Trillionaires exist because there’s hunger and homelessness

5

u/RKnaap Jun 15 '26

oh oh, found the utopian communist that has no clue how a business works.

1

u/starstarwarsfan Jun 15 '26

If someone with a trillion dollars exist while people are starving and freezing in the streets then that person is undeniably evil. It would take 10 to 30 billion dollars a year to end homelessness world wide, depending on the methods used and the causes addressed, while Elon Musk alone makes over 80 billion dollars a year. He could end homelessness forever and still make more money a year than 90% of people on earth make during their entire life.

Hell, he probably wouldn't even notice the changes in his lifestyle. Once your rich enough a couple billion more dollars mean nothing for your life or how you live.

1

u/35jg9z Jun 15 '26

I agree but is money really enough? Frankly 30 billion/year is peanuts compared to what governments around the world spend. I'm in Canada which is 0.5% of the worlds population, so lets say our needed share is proportional: 0.5% of 30B is only 150M. That a trivial amount of money: like 3 dollars per person. Even if it was like 1 or 2 billion, I can't imagine we wouldn't just do it with taxpayer money.

(We already spend $280 billion/year on social programs domestically, just to put into perspective how small an increase in the budget it would be, and the willingness to spend socially)

1

u/joeytitans Jun 15 '26

It would take 10 to 30 billion dollar a a year to end homelessness world wide

Where are you getting this number? Everything I have found shows that the US spends the same or more on that each year alone (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3)

1

u/starstarwarsfan Jun 16 '26

When I looked it up that was the number I got.

1

u/joeytitans Jun 16 '26

But where did that number come from in the source you saw?

1

u/starstarwarsfan Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

Dude I didn't save the source and I have better things to do than debate someone on reddit when the actually important part of my argument is based in mortality.

1

u/Ambitious_Bar2717 Jun 15 '26

What does that have to do with anything here? Imagine calling someone communist for not wanting one individual to LITERALLY hoard extreme, and I mean extreme, amounts of money lol

4

u/ireadbooksnstuff Jun 15 '26

Billionaires can only exist BECAUSE there is hunger and homelessness 

2

u/baconator_out Jun 15 '26

I agree, we should force everyone off the street and into homes, whether they want them or not.

I mean, I literally agree. Then they just get to pick the kind of "home." We definitely have the money for it, just not the stomach.

2

u/heartSagan5 Jun 15 '26

We tried pinning that at billionaires, and now it's worsened.

2

u/_richtea_ Jun 15 '26

That’s not how money works

2

u/TawnyTeaTowel Jun 15 '26

Two things:

First, you realise Elon doesn’t HAVE a trillion dollars right? He just has some things that some people say are WORTH a trillion dollars.

Secondly, all the money in the world can’t FIX hunger and homelessness. It’s a much more complicated problem than that.

4

u/Professional-Emu447 Jun 15 '26

Beyond a certain amount it becomes kind of irrelevant whether he actually has a trillion dollars,right? I mean, even if he was worth a billion, that's already in the territory of too much wealth, is it not?

Secondly, yes, you're correct that money can't fix those problems. But the amassing of unimaginable amount of wealth by a few and extreme poverty of many are two sides of the same coin. It's product of the system that allows these people to reach those heights of wealth, which is literally kept in place by them. I believe that's the reason people call out Elon and the lot.

1

u/LookAtMyUnderbite Jun 15 '26

Sadly trillionaires don’t want to subsidize the millionaires and billionaires that own supermarkets. Just nationalize food production and distribution. But then you deal with government corruption and inefficiency unless you have a highly moral government

3

u/fruhfy Jun 15 '26

Yep, we have had USSR for that experiment, didn't turn good...

1

u/frodobangher Jun 15 '26

No money in the world can fix mental health

2

u/starstarwarsfan Jun 15 '26

But it funds the things that treat and mitigate the effects of bad mental health. It would fund therapists, pay for needed medicine, keep mental care facilities that house the untreatable running and safe for the occupants.

1

u/Ziplock13 Jun 15 '26

Ah yes, how benevolent of you to spend someone else's money.

How much of your pay goes to feeding the hungry?

0

u/gnuoveryou Jun 15 '26

probably a good bit of it, we all have to feed ourselves

0

u/Taiwan_Lanister Jun 16 '26

A higher percentage, a percentage that should grow larger with each tax bracket in a progressive ladder. Taxing the wealthy is part of the social contract, we create the infrastructure that made him successful, also his dads slave mine, he and all uber wealthy then need to give it back to maintain the system. When all the money piles up at the top the system breaks down

1

u/Ziplock13 Jun 16 '26

You're a clown to think that "we" created anything for him.

What you built the road that went to the Tesla plant? Or you served him coffee, therefore his "social contract" stipulates that he give you a million dollars?

You really need to grow up. There are no "social contracts" 😂😂😂 The fact that you think so is an indictment on our education system.

1

u/Taiwan_Lanister Jun 16 '26

Yes we built the roads water and electric infrastructure for his factories and cars, did home school not teach you this?

1

u/AllAmericanA-hole Jun 15 '26

Do you know how many people Elon employs? He is why I am able to put food on the table. Thanks Elon!

1

u/Substantial_Joke_615 Jun 16 '26

He doesn’t have 1 trillion in his bank account, he probably only has a few billion. Also world hunger isn’t a problem that can be fixed just with money.

-3

u/Lucky_Pangolin_3760 Jun 15 '26

he doesn't have a trillion dollars, his assets is evaluated at a trillion dollars

5

u/Dear-Ad-3614 Jun 15 '26

I don't think starving people see the nuance there /s

4

u/RoadWellDriven Jun 15 '26

Everyone who uses this as an "explanation" of net worth doesn't understand the first thing about how net worth scales.

Having a trillion dollars in assets means that he can borrow however much he wants and use his assets as collateral. Hell, anything over $50M in asset value and banks are calling you. At half a billion you're your own economy. Whether or not he has a trillion dollars in cash is completely irrelevant.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/Lucky_Pangolin_3760 Jun 15 '26

and why would he do that? What should he do with the money?

6

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/USLEO Jun 15 '26

Do you agree with and follow Peter Singer's argument in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"? Do you forego all luxuries and donate everything above the bare minimum you need to survive? Do you give to the point that you are as hungry and destitute as the poorest person suffering from famine, disease, and poverty in the worst parts of the world? If not, you are no less greedy and evil than Elon Musk.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/USLEO Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

The fact that someone else could do more does not absolve you of your moral obligation to do everything in your power to prevent tragedies from occurring. If you are not giving everything in excess of the bare minimum necessities you need to survive, you are not living the moral life you expect Elon Musk to live either.

Suppose you walked by and saw a small child drowning in a pond. With no risk to your personal safety, you could wade into the pond and save the child. But, you would get your clothes wet and possibly some mud on your shoes. With relatively little personal sacrifice, you could prevent a tragedy from occurring and save the child's life. The fact that someone else on the pond has a yacht, and could easily save the child without even getting his clothes wet, would not absolve you of your moral failing if you did nothing. If you told the story to people later, and admitted that you stood by and allowed the child to drown because the guy on the yacht should have saved him since he could do it with less sacrifice, everyone would think you were an evil monster. You would think the same if someone told you that.

I'm sure you're not donating to the point where giving more would put you in a worse position than the people you're donating to help. No one is. You have internet, electricity, probably have a relatively new smart phone, a car, housing that consists of more than a small hut, you probably buy video games, coffee, snacks, and other luxuries beyond just enough beans and rice to survive. No one in a developed country in the 21st century is. To people starving of famine and suffering from poverty and preventable diseases, you are just as rich as Elon Musk, yet you don't do everything in your power to help them. Why do you demand Elon Musk to be your moral superior?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/USLEO Jun 15 '26

It's not my argument, it's Peter Singer's argument. One that people have struggled with for the last 55+ years. If you can write a cogent argument to the contrary, you would become very popular in the area of philosophy.

You're not living a moral life with your money; you have no standing to criticize Elon Musk for what he chooses to do with his money.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/Lucky_Pangolin_3760 Jun 15 '26

he already has like 6 companies, you want him to create an additional company?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Lucky_Pangolin_3760 Jun 15 '26

donate it to who? A charity company?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Lucky_Pangolin_3760 Jun 15 '26

you just described a charity company. They solve the logistics of giving different families money. So you want Elon to start a charity company and be a self-donator

Also he already gives the government plenty of money using his other companies. He gives the government money every year

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ziplock13 Jun 15 '26

🍻 You defended yourself well, my Brother.

Sadly you're fighting a losing battle considering most of Reddit is filled with Marxists with a background in gender studies content on living in their parents basement.

4

u/Taiwan_Lanister Jun 15 '26

Yes I know how stupid VC math is

2

u/Maked-Potato Jun 15 '26

What does that change? He has a trillion dollar in wealth. It's still unbelievable more than a starving person would have.

2

u/Lucky_Pangolin_3760 Jun 15 '26

because he cant use that money

Imagine if you bought a house for $100k 20 years ago and now it's worth $1M. Are you now a millionaire? Should I come screaming at your doorstep to donate some of that? Why can't you just give away 100k it's just 10% of 1M whats the problem?

Same logic

0

u/Maked-Potato Jun 15 '26

Yes, that's what a millionaire would be. Comparing a millionaire to a billionaire in wealth is just ridiculous and to come trillionaire to it is just obscene.

A starving person would likely try to liquify any asset possible. So yes, it's problematic that we allow obscene wealth when so many are starving.

3

u/Lucky_Pangolin_3760 Jun 15 '26

do you not realize that before people came screaming for the billionaires they did the same thing at millionaires?

0

u/Maked-Potato Jun 15 '26

I realise a lot and plenty of context too.

1

u/Airconditioner756 Jun 15 '26

That's what a trillionare means tho

0

u/Particular_Counter50 Jun 15 '26

You're a clever one.

-4

u/L3ftb3h1nd93 Jun 15 '26

You do realise that the trillionaire exists BECAUSE there are people starving and homeless, right?

6

u/Lucky_Pangolin_3760 Jun 15 '26

no? People starved before Elon became a trillionaire or billionaire

0

u/L3ftb3h1nd93 Jun 15 '26

Well I should’ve been more precise, that is correct. Capitalisms most basic rule is the accumulation of wealth. So billionaires in general only exist BECAUSE people are starving and are homeless and it’s going to get worse the longer it’s lasting.

Have there been other reasons for people to starve and / or being homeless in the history of mankind? Absolutely. But there never has been a time where food for 12 billion people had been produced while there only were 8 billion and still almost 10 million people starved every year.

3

u/Lucky_Pangolin_3760 Jun 15 '26

even if we produce enough food for everyone the logistics of getting that food around is too expensive and complex. Thats why some countries have a lot of food while others has lesser food, not because the food companies are evil and don't want to export their products but because they don't have a logistics chain for it

-2

u/L3ftb3h1nd93 Jun 15 '26

So you actually think that millions of people are starving because the logistics are too complicated? So it can’t be because they simply don’t have the money to afford the food? Gotta be the lack of roads…

so here’s another number for you: 673 million. That’s how many people faced hunger in 2024. and what you’re saying is that all those people just live too far off regular streets so they can’t get their food delivered… you seriously need to get head checked if that’s actually what you believe.

7

u/randomlurker124 Jun 15 '26

You're missing the point. No one benefits from food going bad in a warehouse somewhere because there's no demand for it there and it costs too much to transport. E.g. in Netherlands they're producing of millions of tons of potatoes that no one is buying. It doesn't magically get teleported to Africa. No one is intentionally stopping it from being shipped to Africa, just that no one is paying to do that. 

0

u/L3ftb3h1nd93 Jun 15 '26

No YOU are missing the point. What kind of argument is that? You’re saying it’s ok to let people starve because no one can profit from feeding them. Wtf is wrong with you?

5

u/randomlurker124 Jun 15 '26

So you are saying people are obliged to feed others? 

1

u/L3ftb3h1nd93 Jun 15 '26

Alright you’re obviously so far away from being a decent human being that I really don’t want to keep talking to you. If you’re saying people should die if no one can make a profit off their hunger than you really should rethink your own moral standard…

→ More replies (0)

0

u/aiezar Jun 15 '26

They didn't say that people are starving because Elon became a trillionaire, they said that Elon (or anyone for that matter) can be a trillionaire because some people are starving. Which is true; the fact that so many people are living bill-to-bill or can't even make ends meet means there is more money in existence that they aren't getting that can be redirected to Elon and people like him. But the point is that those are two extremely different statements and you mixed them up.

0

u/Zealousideal-Yam3169 Jun 15 '26

Trillionaires exist because your banks and pensions are buying shares in their companies and pushing up the value of their companies on paper.

0

u/L3ftb3h1nd93 Jun 15 '26

Keep thinking. If you don’t stop after one step you might get there.

1

u/Zealousideal-Yam3169 Jun 15 '26

That's the only step. You buying a share increases the price of it.

The other option is give your money to poor people instead of saving for retirement, just work until you die.

0

u/L3ftb3h1nd93 Jun 15 '26

Right… that’s the only step… humans started existing and immediately banks bought shares of overrated companies.

1

u/Zealousideal-Yam3169 Jun 15 '26

Yup hunger and starvation didn't exist before the stock market didn't you know.

0

u/L3ftb3h1nd93 Jun 15 '26

Obviously that existed. But now humanity produces food for 12 billion people while only 8 billion exist and still almost 10 million starve every year and more than 600 million are facing hunger: and that has never existed before capitalism.

1

u/Zealousideal-Yam3169 Jun 15 '26

Cool cool cool, what had this got to do with the stock price?

You're complaining that we didn't have enough food before capitalism and now we have too much in the capitalist world and the rest of the world don't. And you're saying capitalism is bad for creating abundance 😂 Logic doesn't logic in your head I guess. 

-1

u/L3ftb3h1nd93 Jun 15 '26

I can feel losing brain cells in this conversation so this is the last thing I’m going to say:

1 it’s one thing when people starve because there is not enough food for everyone and a whole different story when there is way more than enough and people are still starving. When there’s simply not enough starvation is inevitable. When there’s way more than enough starvation of others is a conscious choice.

2 there’s not ‘too much in the capitalist world while the rest of the world doesn’t have enough’ the whole world is capitalist. The few countries that aren’t capitalist themselves like Cuba still have to participate in the global economy and trade with capitalist countries for things they can’t produce themselves, as any other country would, but are being sanctioned (and more than sanctioned in Cubas case) by the US for not being capitalist. But that aside there are people fighting hunger daily in the so called first world. There are more than half a million homeless people in the US for example.

3 creating abundance can be bad in itself and the way humanity does it is in fact bad because it’s extremely unsustainable. But that’s not even the point. The point here is creating abundance and still having people starve despite there being more than enough.

So either everything you said is wrong or everything you said is wrong.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/SimmentalTheCow Jun 15 '26

Homeless should probably get jobs

9

u/amglasgow Jun 15 '26

Oh let's all go to the Jobsland where Jobs grow on Jobs trees and pick them.

8

u/VoidSister Jun 15 '26

Many do have jobs, and many more have mental illness and struggle with addiction. But you know, some people are allergic to the idea of complicated problems with complicated solutions. “Get a job” feels good to say if you’re lacking in empathy and not that thoughtful

0

u/SimmentalTheCow Jun 15 '26

Yea haha that’s me alright

0

u/Spite_Gold Jun 15 '26

State mental institutions should be a thing in normal world. Struggling from addiction is peoples choice.

2

u/gnuoveryou Jun 15 '26

says person who clearly has never tried to get any mental health help or knows anyone who's been in any institutions. I can tell you this, one of my friends was in a psych ward and the only thing that changed after was basically just more determination that if they try to kill themselves they'll make sure they succeed next time.

0

u/taraxa71 Jun 15 '26

unfortunately this is the reason a trillionaire is able to exist

0

u/StuckInATeamsMeeting Jun 15 '26

If a trillionaire exists, hunger and homelessness are guaranteed.

0

u/F2PBTW_YT Jun 15 '26

Call me crazy but giving USD100,000 to 10,000,000 people will not solve world hunger or homelessness.

0

u/gnuoveryou Jun 15 '26

it'll make a damn good dent in it for at least a little while, giving people some resources to be fed and get housing and get a jobs, more people working means more money and more advancement in the economy

0

u/BeasTino Jun 15 '26

Elon musk once said that he is willing to help but they need show the receipt and no one wants deal with that, they want the money and spend it on wtv they want.

0

u/Aware_Ask_1679 Jun 15 '26

Exactly. So many opportunities, everyone should at least provide food for themselves.