The Real Purpose of Wealth 💸
21h 26m ago by lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/diffaldo in memes@sopuli.xyz from lemmy.dbzer0.com
It makes me think of the rich assholes in Altered Carbon. They’ve lived so long in the most athletic and pristine “sleeves” that they’re essentially bored of life and their whims just get more and more unhinged, because they have zero moral checks and balances. It’s affluenza. Parasites in society that drag us all down with them.
Makes me think of 40k where the Eldars solved every problem in their society and then turned to debauchery so unhinged that they manifested a god of debauchery
I am still pissed that the third audiobook in the Trilogy was done so poorly that it is essentially unlistenable. Especially given how well the first two were done.
Oo there's a third....?
While I fully agree, the meme kind of misses the point.
Money is power and power is the ability to do what you want. Once you get so much that you can do anything that society allows, if it’s gone to your head and corrupted you, you see the social taboos of society as a restriction on your freedom.
That’s why they always talk about freedom and that we should be removing social and government barriers, they reached the limit and honestly don’t know where to go from there.
They have spent their entire lives gaining privileges through more money and can’t conceive of any other way to live.
I've heard that the trans underground has the ultimate subjective experience, but Big Government wants to make transing illegal. Pass it on.
you could have everything. travel the world. feed the poor. learn the job you want. be an artist. study. live in your dream home. build your own workshop. do sports. bungee jumping. gaming. cinema. eat everyday in another fancy restaurant.
the fuck is wrong with them?
They did all those things already (maybe they donated a little to a charity) and still were unfulfilled.
The mansions of the rich don't look Like anyone's dream homes, they look like museums or art installations.
As though unlimited wealth doesn't fill a meaning vacuum
I keep saying it but they'd be happier in just a regular degular working class life with friends and family who like you for who you are.
Notwithstanding that working class life is kind of shit because we allow the ultra wealthy to continue wealthing up our planet...
A lot of people do exactly that.
Money has a strong diminishing return to happiness. Once you have enough to do what you want, and keep up that lifestyle from investments, you've "won".
Most who goes past that point are self selected as problematic personalities. They've figured out that more money = more power = more happy. When they are not happy, they obviously need to work harder to get more money. This doesn't make them happy and the feedback loop continues.
I would actually be curious if the curve goes negative after a while. There's a point where more money gets isolating. That is well past the point where the happiness gain becomes negligible too.
I think I can kind of put myself in that headspace...
Reminds me of the rush I felt the first summer I discovered reading outdoors, but by next year it was gone so I started reading by the lake, and that lasted even less time. I tried reading while drinking tea, listening to music, etc, but I was just chasing the world's lamest dragon.
Anyway, as a former addict I could see what this treadmill was.
But I guess if money was no object maybe I'd be one of those assholes going on a beach vacation to read or something.
i think i read, that you need about 70.000 -100.000€ (probably a lot more in the US) a year to live in the happiness optimum. more helps, but after a certain sum it starts to make you unhappy again because you loose connection to "normal" people, start to get worried about loosing it and your lluxuries start to bore you/ yoi don't value them as much anymore. however having not enough money is clearly more dangerous in a capitalist system to make you unhappy since you loose the freedom of choice and action.
i guess it's annoying to see what rich people buy with their money since i don't value it that high and value my wishes higher (and i hate "minimal design" buildings with lawn or even ston gardens when you have clearly enough money to pay for beautiful buildings and a gardener. also fuck golf for having courses in nearly every town).
I'd guess the flip over point is maybe a bit higher. I can see definite gains up to 500,000-1,000,000 a year.
I suspect the cut off is around there however. Assuming the same base work level to get it.
I could personally live VERY happily on 100k a year, but not afford EVERYTHING I could reasonably want.
This also has cause and effect backwards in many cases. People who do awful things are ripe for blackmailing and controlling, so they get inserted/promoted to important positions to act favourably for those running the blackmailing. (eg the Epstein files)
I wonder if its seeking the thrill of something considered taboo? If you can afford everything and everyone you probably start seeking out more more and more extreme forms of "entertainment".
In conclusion no human should be given (close to) absolute power. We just arent made for it.
Forbidden means forbidden to decent folks rich or poor.
A sexual deviant with money is a dangerous predator.
...What am i looking at?
The aforementioned scum flailing around until theres CSAM to consume.
Porn is not a valid term for it.
This is a bad image metaphor tbh, it's just a blurry picture of... Like, rats? I guess?
I don't see any CEOs in the image
You are looking at the parasites doing their favorite activity.
Most are predatory with sociopathic traits, and child predation is the ultimate expression of that.
Obligatory Frankie Boyle routine.
not to forget alot of scientists and artist for whom being in a VIP boys club and feeling special is apparently more important than being a decent human.
I'm a little confused here.
We know for a fact they're predominantly evil sociopaths, war criminals, child predators, liars, thieves, rapists, and murderers, among other, equally horrifying crimes.
But we're still not shooting them on sight. How come?
Because we'd get caught and then destroyed in the media by the elite who want to keep doing it.
Can you imagine the outcry from the hardliners of either major US political party if someone with even minor leanings towards their "enemy" kills one of their elite?
The reality is, while many people say they'd willingly do that, the vast majority of people have too much to lose if they do, and they know it.
That's the real issue. The political elite have been pushing us right up to the breaking point for 100s of years, and they've learned just how far they can go without starting an actual revolution.
It would be interesting if we got some way to crowdfund a defense, but there's no way the government would be dumb enough to allow that to happen.
May be we do. One thing that has been stuck in my head for a long while: I have something to lose, and I have people to care about, same as many others. So I am not running around killing every bastard. But - there are people who have nothing to lose, no family etc. - what about them?
The answer may be quite simple: even when they do punish some bastards, I do not get to hear about this, because guess who controls the media. Yes, it doesn't cover "haven't heard anything like it at all" - but making it "almost didn't hear about it" for me is definitely possible
Did they just amplify the Brian Thompson story so we'd think "wow this must be rare"? His alleged shooter Luigi Mangione might get off, and the public loves him.
I wouldn't be surprised at all
there are people who have nothing to lose, no family etc. - what about them?
All I'm going to say is that squeezing the middle class like they have been is going to create a lot terminally ill people with otherwise treatable disease. Those people may very well be incredibly pissed off, along with family, and also have the time and resources to do things that might be life-ending anyway.
It's about asserting power over the weaker by those who could.