• pearsaltchocolatebar
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not really. You have to remove the companies that made them a billionaire or they’ll just be replaced.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Drug trade has shown: even if you remove the company, as long as demand is there, another supplier/company will pop up.

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

        I think this is why the OP mentioned buy less stuff and travel less, these two directly reduce the demand for environmentally harmful goods and services, reducing the ecological impact of the companies which issue the shares that make the billionaires in question billionaires.

        It’s kinda disappointing to see a post about good actionable advice to do the best you can to reduce climate change and the first reply on Lemmy is non actionable (and more controversially; to my mind irrelevant) advice to assassinate billionaires.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sort of. There have been major shortages before and sometimes you can’t do anything about a lack of supply. Buying drugs is still a localized thing apart from the darknet.

        I dont think that you can reduce something like that to simple supply and demand though since it creates mental and physical dependencies in a lot of cases.

      • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        So remove the demand by instituting a properly managed state industry that provides the service in a sustainable way