So you're saying we're distributing wealth from the top down? Splatter down economics?

But the wealth would still be less centralized and they would be easier to kill for a while or have yo spend a larger percent on security its progress just because one virtuous heroic act doesn't immediately save everything doesn't mean doing a little bit every day won't make the world better because if you kill those five kids and kill their 25 heirs then you've just cracked the no billionaires mark! So its a couple years not a couple months the world would still be saved

From my experience playing Crusader Kings 2 and 3, gavelkind's a bitch.

Splitting your enemy's demesne amongst their successors gives you more but weaker enemies (and sometimes some friends), and leads to infighting and chaos amongst them.

Nine times out of ten murdering an enemy with lots of children leaves you better off than not murdering them.

(Of course, though, this scales inversely to the number of successors, so if there's only one or two proceed only if their stats are lower than your enemy's, or if it'll still be a few years before they come of age.)

The difference is that each head would be weaker and weaker until it's just a bunch of snakes like the rest of us.

That just means we aren't done yet. Besides, quite a few of them would refuse their fortunes if it meant the went on the Most Wanted List.

It's like money is a cursed artefact.

In theory though impossible in practice:

If we halved the wealth of the current richest person.

Equally divided that wealth to the 50% poorest household.

And repeated from their till there are no more Billionaires.

Musk would end up at 800 mil after having his wealth divided 10 times. While people who had no money to start now have around 50K

(Broad numbers, Not an accurate calculation)

They said "2 months". So you keep doing the work within that time, until the fortune is diluted enough to drop below 1B per person

How about "the current billionaire class" instead?

Because you're right, but the initial comparison is still something worth saying and I don't mind getting pedantic.

I don't think people would mind having more Billionaires to kill.

Also, there's like 1000 billionaires. 500 kids a month aren't getting shot.

Had this argument a few days ago. Someone said 'kill all billionaires' as a low-effort comment, and I noted that whilst that makes a good protest sign slogan, I wouldn't want to whip up a mob trained solely on that heuristic - I asked them to get specific in what they want to lynch this billionaire for. Not because I want to defend billionaires, but Lemmy is a discussion platform, and "kill all billionaires" is a thought stopper.

Minecraft slime

Up to a point. The inheritance getting split every time plus being taxed would diminish it quickly.