• Armand1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Presumably this is satire, as these are clearly not equivalent statements.

    We don’t share limited horsepower, but we do share limited wealth, and it can be redistributed.

    • Armand1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Another minor point of contention: Lamborghini’s are at best 4-5 times faster than a shitbox car. A single-billionaire earns 20 000 times more than the average person. The scales are all out of wack.

      A closer comparison would be the difference between a private jet and a person walking. Even that would only be a 200x difference. A snail and private jet is much closer to that 20 000x difference.

      It’s so absurd a difference I’m scale that the comparison is hard for people to imagine.

      A world where the difference between the average person and the richest people is only as large as a shitbox and a Lamborghini’s speed would be actually be a pretty palatable society to live in.

    • Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I think a more accurate analogy would be “I’d be faster if Lamborghini didn’t steal the majority of my power output.”

      Money is made up (especially when we think about company valuations and the ability to use stock as collateral) so I don’t think it’s accurate to say there is limited wealth. Wealth distribution isn’t tackling the fundamental injustice of capitalism.

    • sepiroth154@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      A better comparison would be: “I’d perform better at the race if the winners weren’t the ones who made up the rules.”

      Edit: And somehow, they always get out of time penalties.