• ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Even if you ignore ethics and assume the billionaires are benevolent - it’s just a bad investment to invest majority of resources to a small number of investments. Does any successful large project hold 99% of their investments in few projects? It’s absurd.

    Small number of investments? Billionaires have shitloads of investments, what are you talking about?

    • northface@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I think they are referring to the fact that, ignoring the personalities who hold this kind of wealth, it’s just not a viable investment strategy for a project/organization as large as society to have all that wealth tied up with only a few assets (the billionaires).

      Economics tells us that diversifying the investments (equality, if you will) is a safer bet for society in the long run.

      I probably misread GP but hey, at least I tried!

    • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think they are saying that we, as a society, are investing into a small number of investments: billionaires. This is a bad tactic.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Exactly what I meant - each billionaire is our collective investment. We invest 99% of our wealth into a few billionaire projects which might trickle down to other smaller projects but trickle down is mostly a myth we can’t accurately represent and control with our current tooling.