this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
768 points (99.2% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2729 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

More than 11% of the world’s more than 2,000 billionaires have run for election or become politicians, according to a study highlighting the growing power and influence of the super-wealthy.

While billionaires have had mixed success at the ballot box in the U.S., billionaires around the world have a “strong track record” of winning elections and “lean to the Right ideologically,” said the study, which is by three professors at Northwestern University.

“Billionaire politicians are a shockingly common phenomenon,” the study said. “The concentration of massive wealth in the hands of a tiny elite has understandably caused many observers to worry that the ‘super-rich have super-sized political influence.’”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HooPhuckenKarez@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

First up. I know it's way too late to respond this comment. I understand the direction taken, but it misses the context of the conversation. I don't know why, but it's still getting to me.

Two points. I was talking about the potential for the preservation of billionaire flesh for future consumption, and Two thousand of them would require no preservation efforts whatsoever.

In conclusion,.. Only billionaires could afford a reasonable portion of billionaire..?

[–] ohitsbreadley@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago

Oh - that's quite a deliciously nuanced take, a subtext that I indeed did not catch.

I'm at times a simpleton; I chuckled at "billionaire jerky" and "pickled billionaire," as the phrases reminded me of the Bubba Gump quote.

I hear your point now - compared to the hundreds of millions of cattle, pigs, and chicken processed annually, 2000 billionaires would be small potatoes. The end product would be so scarce, supply/demand would necessarily dictate an ironically immense price, only affordable to those that served as the raw material.