[Dylan16807]

Procter and Gamble doesn't want to enslave humanity, it wants to make money. And the stock holders are mostly retirement funds.

And billionaires control less than 4% of the world's money. (Let alone already being able to get as many servants as they want.)

There's no elite group that owns everything. The top 1% own almost half the world, which is too much but also the top 1% is nearly a hundred million people.

[xg15]

Until they privatize the water supply of entire countries, like Nestlé...

> but also the top 1% is nearly a hundred million people.

And the wealth and control will not be evenly distributed between those 100 million people either. Then you have to start looking at the top 0.1%, top 0.01% etc.

[Dylan16807]

> Nestlé

Still motivated by profit and not control.

They'd probably be happier if there was twice as much water where they bottle, so they could make the same products but without people being mad at them.

> Then you have to start looking at the top 0.1%, top 0.01% etc.

That's why I cited that billionaires have less than 4% between them. It's an extreme amount for single humans but very far from owning the world.

To reach 10% of the world's wealth, you need half a million people.

[metoobruh]

None of what you just posted is correct.

> There's no elite group that owns everything.

That you are aware of. But you're not aware of much.

[Dylan16807]

Okay, put up some numbers. What percent do billionaires actually own, if you're calling every source of these numbers wrong?