this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
389 points (99.5% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

14053 readers
609 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hayduke@lemmy.world 58 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

This isn't the rich, that's what makes it so sad. These funds are managed by vultures, yes, but these portfolios are quickly bundled and turned into financial instruments, which in turn portions of them are rolled into other funds, which in turn are sold to groups like teachers pension funds, or fractions sold on Robinhood using fancy names that disguise what is in them. These funds are sold not to the rich but to those trying to stay ahead of the meat grinder that is the American capitalist economy. The rich get fees that are completely divorced from how well the funds perform, meanwhile working folk are inadvertently funding and fueling the machine that is making it impossible for them to afford to buy a home.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.zip 34 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

I don't think you understand.

EAT.

THE

RICH.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, that too, but my complaint is about the system that makes the rich while simultaneously convincing us to inadvertently participate in and strengthen our own economic slavery.

[–] llama@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's by design though. They get rich off selling us the promise of something being the next frontier of personal sovereignty.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

If repeating your meaningless slogan is the only response you can muster to someone actually trying to offer substantive explanation, you're the one that lacks understanding, whether willfully or not.

Writing it in all caps only further emphasizes this.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Should 10x property taxes on non-primary-residences, and split the proceeds between subsidizing construction of new housing and being distributed as a UBI. Would be better than trying to ban speculative investment in housing outright, because it would be attacking the underlying market factors instead of telling investors they can't try to make a profit.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

not only that, place limits on how many properties they can own as well, plus also close loopholes like using LLC / some kind of other shady company to buy more houses.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

place limits on how many properties they can own as well, plus also close loopholes like using LLC / some kind of other shady company to buy more houses.

This is a cat and mouse game that the law, glacially paced as it is, can never win. The tax strategy suggested would be much more effective.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

That's closer to trying to ban speculative investment. I guess my opinion on this is just that this type of approach won't work as well, because keeping people from participating in the market isn't a direct way to move the market. And what needs to happen is, lower housing prices and regular people having greater proportional purchasing power, so the best focus would be to give investors strong incentives to sell, increase supply, and redistribute wealth, in a way that's easy to enforce.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Houses should be for living in, not financial vehicles.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago

I'm not exactly arguing against that, I am suggesting taking steps to tank their price and discourage using them as a store of wealth.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

It's impossible to prevent anything of significant value that can be owned from becoming a "financial vehicle" to some extent. This is idealism with no practical application.