Because they're wealthy enough to have separation between their 'existence' money and their 'power and status' money. Tank the country and they get to own a little sliver more of it. The cheese and clothes they buy don't change. Because they've got more than plenty.
No that's not what I mean I mean like if I have 99% of my assets in ...business capital (read: mostly stock) what's the plan? I'd have to front-run, but the wealthy own half of the business capital in the US so that's also incoherent because there's just not that much besides other wealthy to front-run.
If the wealthy wanted to buy something up on the cheap that they didn't own, they'd do residential real estate: something that's majority middle class owned (a fun corollary: property taxes are just wealth taxes on the middle class, the proportion of business capital the middle class owns is teeny). However, house prices have gone in the opposite direction as you'd expect from this theory!
Most wealthy people’s wealth is in investments. If the value of the investments goes down, there are fewer resources to “buy the dip.” It doesn’t hold water as a theory. Basically robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Yes, but investors move in and out of cash positions. Bershire Hathaway is currently sitting on $334 billion in cash. If you're an active investor, you'll have periods of both buying and selling - so you'll have cash, or you won't have cash. To assume 100% is allocated at all times is incorrect.
Investors do hold some cash, but they generally prefer not to hold a lot of it because inflation reduces its value. $44B sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it’s only around 8% of the $632B of assets they hold. (Not sure where you got your much bigger figure; mine is from their consolidated balance sheet reported in their 10-K report for Dec 31, 2024.)
They have people whose jobs it is to even out those troughs, and I don't think you realize just how wealthy the wealthiest wealthy really are. Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Larry Ellison each have a net worth that is on par with the total gross economic output of a small American metropolitan area.
> Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Larry Ellison each have a net worth that is on par with the total gross economic output of a small American metropolitan area.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Net worth is in dollars, while economic output is dollars per unit of time. The comparison does not make sense.
You didn't even say which unit of time! Hell, I have a higher net worth than the total economic output of the US, given a short enough time frame.
This level of pedantry won't play in reality against someone who just lost everything and is seeking revenge on the tech bros who they perceive as enabling all of this.
I hope lenerdenator didn't just lose everything and isn't seeking revenge on the tech bros - more likely he's a tech bro!
It's not pedantry though. It really makes no sense to compare earnings per unit of time to accumulated wealth. They are entirely different things.
Compare the wealth of Elon vs wealth of average person on the Earth, or average US citizen. Those are also mind-boggling numbers and it makes sense to compare them.
I'm sure all those billionaires who paid Trump the $1m to grin behind him are dreading the impact on their groceries and upward mobility like the rest of us. Never forget that Trump and Bezos and Zuckerberg truly think of us first and wouldn't be so antisocial as to trade your family for a little bit more.
But as many responses to your comments; there’s a portion of the population who are not invested in the markets this way.
There’s clearly a very different perspective for some, and as per my original reply; it seems many more are worried (rightfully so) about assets others cannot even begin to comprehend - let alone invest day to day, or “spare”, money into.
Yeah, the random memecoins he issued and the NFC trading cards were meaningless to him. He's only invested in Truth Social and The Constitution. That's why he's in such competition with the owner of Twitter and would never undercut his social media platform.
What I was trying to point out: his wealth is in real estate and one huge chunk of DJT. No blue chips, no managed funds; nothing that mainstream America and Barack Obama would choose. I contend he attacks the mainstream because of all that.
Repeal citizens united, curb campaign and lobbying spending, breaking down of these chaebol-like conglomerates, make healthcare public and tax the rich massively. Something no body seems to want.
Switch to a better voting system to destroy the 2 party system and curb extremists getting into power. At least the state compact voting change to modernize the electoral college.
I would like to say, from my perspective, that it seems to not matter how “good”, even “exceptional”, business listed on the stock market do; the outcome is hostile and negative to the customer/consumer. Costs have only gone up, dramatically so. In my case; entirely disproportionate to, if any, income increase coming in.
Market does good. Market does exceptional. The experience has generally been negative?
Market does bad? I expect a lot of us can connect the dots, and will no doubt be impacted again.
Maybe the market, in my perspective; is not a beneficial experience.
Thanks for posting it.