1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
So what you are saying is we have plenty supply of school children and not enough billionaires? Let's see how we can get more billionaires then. Or do you want to reduce the number of school children? Because that is being worked on constantly...America, you have the freedom to get killed by someone with mental issues anytime.
Another fun fact, billionaires and their lifestyles emmit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average person in their lifetimes.
I haven't actually done the math, but by percentages I think they are probably fairly close.
Its not hard to look up school shooting fatalities, but it would be depressing
Welp that sucked.
69 deaths in 2024 (323 school shootings in 1 year. More school shootings than school days. What are you doing there?)*
And
400+ billionaires the poorest is 3.3B
So 2024 had 1 Billionare death, at this rate, we need 399 more years...
*I forgot to add. Both this source and me are not american. Feel free to correct me with a more local source
More numbers for people to play with. "Since 1999, 440 people have been killed and 1,243 injured in shooting events at K-12 schools."
https://www.security.org/blog/a-timeline-of-school-shootings-since-columbine/
If I'm reading the hypothetical right, it's saying what if in a year, the numbers were reversed... 323 $hootings with 69 deaths, versus 1 school shooting with 1 death.
Would gun laws change, would tax laws change? Etc etc. Would minimum wage change?
Purely hypothetical of course
In total, you'd only need four numbers:
Rate could mean over time or percentage of. I think OP was thinking of time, in which case your wouldn't need the total number of schoolchildren. Just divide the population of billionaires by the number of schoolchildren that die by violent crime per year.
So, who here didn't know that there are several orders of magnitude more kids than there are billionaires?
lol
I love how Luigi has become a defacto symbol of the revolution. I can't imagine Nintendo being happy about it.
I mean. There's no such thing as bad advertising, supposedly. I doubt this would violate that statement.
They will probably reference it in the next Mario movie.
Seriously. Their boardroom must be up in arms about it not being Mario.
My OCD wonders if they factored in having to assassinate the heirs of the CEOs who immediately become billionaires, recursively until every fortune has been divvied up so many ways nobody has a billion anymore. Cuz that would be necessary if you really want to "run out" of billionaires, and would also mean you advocate executing children for inheriting a lot of money. This does require thinking beyond the simple meme, but go ahead - you can do it!
I wonder what that particular scenario's Gini coëfficient versus Cumulative Assassinations plot looks like. Sounds like the plot for a new season of Death Note.
Compare the number of size S body bags used every time the cops gather to watch another “mentally troubled loner” to the average number of immediate family over 18 size of each billionaire, kids would have a trust fund guardian you’d rather capture than kill. All in all you’d probably expend a lot less ammo for more benefit going top down. Hypothetically of course.
Any reason to prefer capturing trust fund guardians rather than killing them? I mean, the base plan doesn't call for checking how the original billionaire got their money or assessing them personally. We're operating strictly at meme level - controlling enormous wealth is evil. "Kill them! Kill them all!" Anybody who decides to wuss out and start adding constraints could be a shill or an apologist - at any rate it doesn't show full commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Ironically, moreso for legal reasons than anything else. If Jeeves becomes the sole guardian of the kids’ inheritance, offing him means you lose the passwords to the offshore accounts and control of the trust goes to some extended family member or the bank itself. If he can be coerced or turned, you’ve a much easier route to accessing the funds, buying the company that makes school lunches and telling them to knock it the fuck off charging children for food.
We don’t need to kill them all, just enough to make the rest realize that “number go up” doesn’t mean much when you see a torch and pitchfork every time you look out a window.
E) This is assuming all banks and lawyers follow legal procedure, which may go out the window along with the first publicly defenestrated billionaire so…I’m not sure how we go about getting all the digital bank notes but I’m just a grunt who exits the plane early, that’s a question for someone smarter
Unlike royalty the transfer of wealth isn't instant so if you work fast enough you can achieve a brief window when there are no billionaires.
I get the impression a brief window isn't the goal, but in this thread rationalization might be.
Wealthy people likely have a living trust and the next trustee picks up immediately without needing time-consuming procedures like probate.
People might be reluctant to assume possession of billions if people were murdering/ systematically killing billionaires. So, it might be achieved relatively quickly.
Sure you can have the infinite money stone. All you have to do is make it past everyone who will suffer to power it, there’s a lot more of them than you and they are hungry
Make it so.