• Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    7 months ago

    So, over 300 million people enjoying a once in a lifetime natural event cost “the economy” about as much money as a typical CEO steals in a day?

    Sounds like misdirected anger.

    • wabafee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 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
        9
        ·
        7 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
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 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
        ·
        7 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
          ·
          7 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
                ·
                7 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
                  ·
                  7 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
                    7 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.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Way less than 300 million. The entirety of the West Coast had 50% occlusion or less, and as XKCD pointed out last week, that isn’t even noticable.

      I’m only pointing this out to point out that they are removed about a fraction of the country, and less than a percent of the so called economy.

        • iN8sWoRLd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          and so, spent money to travel and presumably stay someplace and eat food which actually might be a net gain to the economy given (we assume) the days off work were PTO time that would have been taken anyway?

          • meliaesc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I 100% agree with the post and the comments. But we stayed at my MIL’s house and ate mostly BBQ from her deep freezer meat supply. I took PTO, my husband did not. The only real gain was Quality of Life, which I have absolutely no guilt about.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        You do realize that the path of an eclipse isn’t the same every time, right?

        In Canada, some places last saw a solar eclipse in the 1920s and won’t see another one until after 2140.