• wabafee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s like we forgot why we have an economy in the first place. Wasn’t it to enjoy our lives in this planet.

    • Nom Nom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      No only for the select few, the rest of us are serfs. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the billionaires started calling themselves Ramesses XXVI or something.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s the “avocado toast” people all over again. “Why are you enjoying anything in your life right now when you could be waiting to enjoy things in the last 10-20 years of your life (if you live that long)?”

    • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nope. Loot pillage and exploit. When we started this shit we had chattel slavery and proper empires.sigh.

      Rape kill kill kill rape, in that order. Can’t believe the rubes fell for that prosperity bullshit.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        We only missed starting with no slavery by a single vote. I’m not even joking. Georgia and Carolina caused the biggest and most drawn out argument of The Continental Congress, and only managed to win by a single vote. The other 11 colonies were in favor of outlawing slavery from the start, though their stance on the natives was still crap.

            • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Sure but you see this in those same buildings modern day?

              They need x people from their party to vote against y policy to stop it, and all of them want y to fail, so they make sure the bad thing banning y that all of them want to wring their hands over passes by exactly x votes, with a sacrificial asshole who can take the PR hit or is too old to care (let’s call him Joe man).

              So nobody has to deal with y, everybody other than joe-man gets to say how much they wanted y, and everybody gets to deflect criticism of themselves at joe-man.

              Not a new phenomena in the parliamentary politics every onebof these blatantly conspiratorial aristocratic scumfucks would have been familiar with.

              • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Ahh, I see. Unfortunately the people that made the institutions made the mistake of believing that dishonest actors would be ferreted out by the system they were creating. That has proven to not hold up. The last time that I can think of that a SCOTUS judge resigned due to ethical questions was in the '60s or early '70s.

                • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Believing? You think any of them were honest?

                  They were fucking ghouls. Kind of literally. Look up where wannabe-but-not-king george’s teeth were really from.