this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
649 points (98.1% liked)

Comic Strips

17389 readers
1874 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
649
Wealth Hoarders (lemmus.org)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by sundray@lemmus.org to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 71 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (9 children)

Being a billionaire (aka wealth hoarder) is a mental illness.

If they were hoarding anything else to this extent, going way beyond their rational needs, e.g. billions of tables, pokemon cards or toilet papers, everybody would know they are insane. But as it’s money, somehow they are supposed to be the smartest people in the world, and we should worship them.

[–] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 16 points 2 days ago (5 children)

If there are 10 monkeys in a zoo and they give them 10 oranges a day as a treat and one of the monkeys would hoard 6 oranges every day and left them to rot. Do you think that the zookeepers would keep an eye on it because it's clearly mentally ill or an asshole, or would they point at it and go: damn, that's one cool and smart monkey.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Great example, makes the contrast even more obvious. Insane people are controlling the world, and we are wondering why it’s going to shit

It's a bad example, because we are not monkeys, we lack zookeepers and money normally rots only at a much, much slower rate than oranges and increases itself over a certain threshold

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If the monkey traded the oranges to other monkeys for other treats, or for something intangible like status or privacy, the zookeepers would think it was a cool and smart monkey, but they would think the other monkeys who took the extra oranges in trade and let them rot were less intelligent.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

This. It's literally no different, and the fact that so many people idolise this kind of hoarding shows how powerful the processes of hegemony are.

[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can’t really do anything useful with a billion Pokémon cards, there’s always something you can do with a billion dollars

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But you could do lots of useful things with a billion pokemon cards - either bartering them for goods and services or converting them to money first, effectively "spending" the cards on useful things.

But practicality isn't the issue when people see someone hoarding incredible amounts of something - it's the abnormality of devoting yourself to accumulating vastly more than what we interpret as anywhere near normal. We treat hobby objects that way but not money.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

In the Post-Scarcity Era every guy will get a trophy wife!

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] bennypr0fane@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If only it were that easy to cut down billionaires...

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

it only takes about an ounce at 300ft/s

[–] bennypr0fane@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 30 minutes ago

You're talking about shooting, not cutting

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 6 points 1 day ago

Or a pointy stick at, uh, 15m/s?

[–] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 40 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

unpopular opinion: if most of the current billionaires werent this rich or lucky they would just act like normal people

[–] AreaKode@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (2 children)

As in, they're power tripping? Absolutely. When you get a false sense of importance, especially when you have sycophants reinforcing this image, narcissists in particular tend to act poorly toward their fellow human beings.

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 23 points 2 days ago

This is one of the best reasons to socially stigmatize wealth hoarding, even if you can't change the fundamentals of the capitalist system that causes it in the first place.

If enough people make people who hoard money feel lesser than, to the point that having less is a preferable alternative, then they're more likely to give away their wealth and become at least a little bit less shitty people.

This is also, coincidentally, why rich people isolate themselves within bubbles of similarly rich individuals, who won't look down on them for being so greedy and narcissistic.

[–] LeninsOvaries@lemmy.cafe 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is why we should have mandatory testing for NPD and be institutionalising anyone who tests positive. Narcissists cannot be allowed to walk the streets freely, their mental illness is too dangerous.

[–] shplane@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And if normal people suddenly became billionaires, they’d act just as awful as the current billionaires

[–] creamlike504@jlai.lu 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Power doesn’t corrupt. It just exposes who leaders really are.

Non-paywalled link: archive.ph

When we claim that power corrupts, we let powerful people off the hook. How you use authority reveals your character: Selfish leaders hoard power for personal gain. Servant leaders share power for social good.

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 13 points 2 days ago

And the inverse statement too: If normal people became billionaires, they would act stupidly too

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 31 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This is almost wholesome, imagine if it were that easy to regulate greed

[–] prex@aussie.zone 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The solution might not be easy but it is simple: tax. Good on the cuurent Australian governments increased taxation of superannuation over 3 million $.

[–] bennypr0fane@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There should be an income maximum. It should be a little above the maximum happiness threshold. Any income above that should be taxed at 95%

[–] prex@aussie.zone 1 points 22 hours ago

Not disagreeing with you but this particular tax is on wealth. Imo there is a place for both.

[–] Onionguy@lemm.ee 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Imagine if people who really should go to therapy (like melon usk in this one) actually went to therapy.

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 9 points 2 days ago

Yeah, that too. And not just about greed

load more comments
view more: next ›