You must log in or # to comment.
That’s the thing; the billions don’t sit in a bank account but in the
stockbetting market. They would be heavily taxed otherwise.Correct (when it comes to billionaires; Sam Altman and his ilk intentionally caused the RAM shortage by buying RAM their companies are not using and should be held accountable).
Billionaires would be impossible in a properly civilised society, which would implement progressive taxes so that anyone with a wealth above, say, ten times the median wealth of the population or 25 times the wealth of the poorest person (citizen or not) in the nation (whichever’s lowest at the time) are taxed to the point that their wealth can increase no further, with the resulting income being invested on public services so that personal wealth is irrelevant except for luxury items.
Quit making perfect sense. You’re making the capitalists nervous and ruining the hopes and dreams of all the Questrader’s out there. /s
I think we should extract the water from Sam Altman’s body and use it to cool a datacenter
The blood could also replace the motor oil in my car. Use all parts of the Sam Altman.
It’s not underused if they’re running windows with a few tabs open in chrome with sites that have similar ram usage to chatgpt… 😅
Wasted in terms of bloat maybe in some cases, but it is being “used” 😅
That’s not how net worth works. Being a billionaire != having billion $ in a bank account.
They’re still financially obese parasites whose wealth should be taxed until it doesn’t exceed a reasonable amount (say, ten times the median or 25 times the lowest, whichever comes first), though.
the lowest is zero, or very close to it.
OK, so tax anyone with more wealth than that (exponentially proportionally to the difference) and invest in services and UBI and whatnot until it raises.
the lowest will always be zero, do not doubt the capacity of individuals to become statistical outliers and spend all their money. It might be a little bit reasonable if it was set to 100x-10000x the wealth of the 99.99th percentile
Yeah, most of it is all smoke and mirrors but they all own media companies which make it seem more than it actually is.
It doesn’t state that it’s in one person’s bank account.
From resource allocation point both of those statements sounds truthful
Why do billionaires despise efficient uses of money?
they like to hoard it, and use other peoples money thats why. thier net worth is actually in thier stocks/investments for the most part.
If their money is in stocks and investments, that means they are investing in companies which employ people. Lol at calling that “hoarding” let alone that its their own money to spend it on solid gold rocket cars if they wanted. A man making a product that a billion people choose to buy for $1 each, is not the reason you are poor.
2/10 trolling; nobody is this stupid.
I accept your resignation from the debate.
Dealing with investments and the stock market is like going to a casino. Unless they inherited legacy accounts, they made their money gambling.
Cuban is probably the most obvious example. The man placed a risky bet on shorts and won. Gallway, for all his faults, discusses the luck factor that he stumbled into based on someone else’s gambling failures.
Because they think they know better than us hoi polloi. Seriously. There’s a psych term that escapes me, but once a person gains wealth and power, they think they know better than the rest of us and the rules don’t apply to them.
One of the most horrifying things I know about humans is that almost all of us are susceptible to this and it’s not simply a matter of people kissing their ass, though that certainly “helps”.
Rich people are generally better than poor people. They even have all these copium theories to explain it “poverty causes crime!” Etc rather than both poverty and crime being caused by low IQ. The myth of “the noble poor and the evil rich” comes from Christianity because Christianity is about how a homeless dude was God.
Okay you have to be a troll, but just in case you aren’t: If poverty was caused by “low IQ” (which btw IQ is correlated with education so that’s a circular argument even if true) rich people who are dumb wouldn’t exist.
“low IQ”
Read their username. They’re obviously a troll, probably piloted by an LLM.
Nothing in that reply us true or makes sense. First, no, low IQ is caused by a “bad education”. In fact, IQ test results are MORE accurate if taken at an early age before school could have any possible effect. IQ is also a better predictor of life outcomes than education is and even than what your parents’ outcomes are. Lastly, no, the fact that some dumb people manage to get rich wouldnt disprove the claim. Its like saying that height isnt a factor in the NBA because an average height guy is in the NBA. Of you look at rich people on average, they are smarter. Or vice versa, if you look at people with low IQ at age 7, they (as a group) will make less money.
Because they don’t actually have the money. The value of their holdings are used as collateral on loans. They use the loans to pay for their expenses and are just constantly in debt. This avoids all tax consequences for them. And it fucking stupid.
i learned a new word kiting the other year, it sounds like thats why rich people do.
since brains can be used as potential AI processing, why not use Altmans.
You certain he has one? I don’t think homunculi usually do.
This is patently untrue.
Billionaires have myriad investments because, unlike us non-wealthy plebs, they have a critical mass of wealth that can easily make greater wealth by flinging it around. They rarely keep all that much in cash because cash is static and stupid to them. It’s the only money that isn’t working for them to make more.
Which is why they look down on us for chasing money needed to live and survive. Because we have to use silly pleb levels of money that we can’t even invest.
Billionaires have myriad investments because,
no they do it for the tax deductibles.
Both. It’s tax free and earns then more tax-free money.
All the incentives are there.
I disagree. No person needs so much surface to leave, people to care for their need, exceptions to the basic rules of leaving together. They can keep the money but leave in 100m2 max, buy your food, take the f…king bus.
You’re saying you disagree with what billionaires do, and not the factual statement of what they do and how they talk about us being foolish non-billionaires, right?
They are human beings. No human is an enterprise nir need so much. I’m not against who they are, I am against what they think they are.
Salaries are for suckers is the phrase.
I get what he’s saying, but billionaires don’t have “billions” in “banks”.
Just because it isn’t hundred dollar bills in their mattress doesn’t mean they don’t have it. They can leverage what they own in exchange for goods and services equivalent to the value of their holdings, the exact mechanism doesn’t really matter.
We just watched musky light $500,000,000 on fire last month they clearly got the liquidity.
he also spent an additional 1bn to stop the documentary from being released, now ellison holding the rights.
The crazy part is, thats the equivalent of me buying a combo at Wendy’s.
No, it’s that they invest their money so it makes more money. They leverage the wealth being liquid to make more. It’s the real dividing line between wealth and not.
You can’t really invest $200 in your bank account and expect anything. First of, you need that to spend to live.
The only actual cash billionaire I can think of is the guy that created and sold Minecraft. That dude has billions in the bank. Or at least he did for a minute or two before I’m sure he invested a ton of it. All the other billionaires just own billions worth of stuff for the most part. Banks don’t even leave money in banks. They invest or loan out all of it and keep the returns. That’s the scam, same as it ever was.
It’s not really a scam to move your cash into non liquid assets for financial security. How you got there could be a product of a scam but (going off of a previous comment I made a few days ago about how they buy assets and hold their money in those) typically, after you have a certain amount of money, one can only figure boredom kicks in and that in-turn, would most likely create a sense of frivolous spending or seeing what you can hold in forever items with absurd values.
Paintings, Collectable Cars, Mid-Century Clothing, Collectable Foods (ikr), Historical Properties (that sometimes get sold and then they re-coup losses through making the historical property profitable…sigh, creating a historical society with the goal of recouping losses). …
Whoever downvoted this: For example, if you purchased a… Idfk a Rolex watch and it gained value over 40 year and you kept it pristine condition and never wore it and sold it at auction, is that a scam or just market fluctuations? Is it a scam that someone would pay twice as much at auction for a watch that due to others opinions gains market value or just ridiculous?
It’s no one’s fault or a scam that an item in the future gains value. Is it a scam that a video game system can become more valuable in 20 years or just a product of opionated market value?
It’s not fucked up to have nice things of value. People put payment plans on nice things that they may choose to keep in pristine quality for decades before it gains value and sell it at auction, is the person who did a payment plan for the item and has an item of value that gains value over time more fucked up than the person who can buy the same item outright to do the same?
It’s the fact that people who are stupid rich do it but if I, a person in financial poverty does the same, through a payment plan I’m a fucking idiot for not saving money.
So when does it become okay to buy nice things at a ridiculous value to have financial security in non-liquid assets? When, in your opinion does it become okay to buy a nice piece of jewelry or a nice painting and storing those away properly until they gain more value?
I mean shit people collect baseball cards and wait until they gain value. It’s such a normal thing, to hold value in assets.
People have this contrary view that billionaires actually have all this liquid wealth, yet that same money living in the stock market is fake. And this causes no cognitive dissonance.
This tweet has to be intentionally being stupid. It must be bait.
It’s intentionally provocative. Some might call it “bait”, but to me it has a slightly different nuance.
But then how will we resurrect the great israel?
He bankrolled a longevity company called Retro Bio to the tune of $150M. It’s lunacy and the money would be way better spent by the NIH as tax dollars.
Billionaire hate is low IQ. I get hating specific people that happen to be billionaires (sam altman etc) that are objectively harming you, but a billionaire isnt harming you by mere virtue of being a billionaire, nor do you deserve their earnings by mere virtue that you have less money. People are actually angry at things like inflation and being unable to buy a home, but these things are caused by things like eternal desert wars, government spending and printing money, infinity H1B Indians in white collar industries etc, not by a guy making a toy that a billion people buy for $1.
There is, and there always has been, an unusually high and consistent correlation between the stupidity of a given person and that person’s propensity to be impressed by the measurement of I.Q.
- Christopher Hitchens
People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.
- Stephen Hawking
IQ is no measure of intelligence, EQ is no measure of emotion either. But craving for IQ and EQ is symptom of a shallow and feeble character.
- Abhijit Naskar, Rowdy Scientist: Handbook of Humanitarian Science
If you think a billionaire made their money in a vacuum, with no impact on society, you’ve been duped.
The reason you are poor is not because a lot of people bought an XBox from Bill Gates. There is no rational system in which you and someone like Bill Gates arrive at the same income, or deserve the same income. Inequality is good as ling as you dont suck. If you do, must suck to suck. Now, are there actual issues that exist? Yes, things like inflation exist. Yes, the new eternal desert war is an economic problem. Not all economic hardshipnis caused by merit, bit the part that is, is good. Its good that in a perfect world, someone tha is lazy and 80 IQ has less purchasing power than someone that creates and runs a large company that employs thousands of people.
I can only assume the 105 IQ reference in your username is accurate. Just barely above average, but apparently enough to give you an inflated and misplaced sense of intellectual superiority. It would certainly explain the confidence with which you mistake your own ideological assumptions for economic analysis.
If the guy getting money for the toy, paid the people actually making the toy what they’re worth, there wouldn’t be billionaires. Your premise is flawed because you assume billionaires are good people who worked for their gains, when in reality every single billionaire in excistance has abused their workers, at minimum, by not paying them their actual worth.
Add to that the psychotic greed. When they reached say 500 million, why keep hording more money? They could lower the price of the product to the point of being a non profit, or paying their employees instead of themselves. They would never need more money in their life, but no, they’d rather hoard money, than let their employees live as comfortably as themselves.
There are no ethical billionaires.
Add to that the psychotic greed. When they reached say 500 million, why keep hording more money?
Because they have a mental illness, OCD manifesting as a financial hoarding syndrome. They have a compulsion to accumulate more, despite not needing it at all, and despite the fact that their growing fortune may even be damaging society. They would literally kill people, if it meant more money in the bank accounts.
So imagine what they’ll be like when they start converting to Trillionaires? They’ll be able to afford their own militaries, especially if they form alliances. Then they can create or conquer their own sovereign nations, and really start fucking things up.
Billionaires are dangerous enough. We cannot allow Trillionaires to join the “More Money Than Brains Club.”
I reject your implied premise than an adult man that agrees to build the toy for X wage, is being “oppressed” or whatever. Man A (the toy company owner) doesnt owe man B (a random man) anything upon merely existing. When man A then says “i will pay X wage to make my toy” if man B accepts, nothing “unethical” has occured. “Why this?!? Why that!” Are you unaware of things like game theory or biology?
Man A is abusing Man B’s ignorance of his own worth. Man A is also colluding with his competitors to make sure Man B can’t make more anywhere else. Man A is also always, always, ALWAYS, supressing Man B’s opportunities to unite with his fellow workers, either by union busting, or by lobbying to destroy the education system that would allow Man B to inform himself of his actual worth.
But I guess if we only look at billionaires with a 2 dimensional perspective, and ignore all the things they do to make sure their employees couldn’t possibly demand more money, then billionaires look like they’re just giving people job opportunities…
But if they paid their employees their worth, they may only have money for the next 20 generations instead of 40…
The idea that every company is price fixing with every competitor is retarded. C’mon, man. “Abusing man B’s ignorance”, what exactly is he ignorant of? Man A can straight up tell him “i will sell for Y, do you agree to make for X?” And man B will still accept. Did you think every non-billionaire was retarded? You make a lot of claims that are impossible to be true (every company is price fixing. Every non-billionaire is ignorant). There is no such thing as “what man B is worth”. What he is “worth” is what they negotiate and he accepts. If man B accepts working for $1 an hour, that is what he is worth. He doesnt have an intrinsic salary value by merely existing. If he says “I am worth $1 million a year to clean toilets” but nobody agrees to pay him $1 million a year to clean toilets, he is objectively not worth $1 million a year to clean toilets (and cleaning toilets might be his most useful skill)
See that’s where I think you’re fundamentally wrong. I think every single person has an intrinsic value, and no person is worth more than anyone else. I don’t think it’s up to the owner to decide what other people are worth, since his own worth would then be dependant on convincing other people they’re worth less.
I also think you’re showing the exact ignorance I’m talking about by arguing what you’re arguing. Ignorance isn’t about being retarded, or stupid. Every single person is ignorant about something. We can’t all know everything. You’re showing ignorance by arguing that some people’s lives are worth much more than your own, simply because they happen to own more. How many rich people are rich because they managed to create something worthy? And how many rich people are rich because their parents were rich, because THEIR parents were rich? Would you be able to be rich and make a great company if you started life with 500 million from your parents? If you did, would your life and comfort be more important than everyone else’s?
I think you’re fundamentally wrong in your assumption that any rich person has any worth, and I think it’s fundamentally wrong, that anyone’s comfort, life or access to basic necessities is less important than any other person.
Username checks out.
Maybe if you remove the 1 and the 0.
Nah, 105 is around average, and people are dumb as fuck.
100 is literally average (median), that’s the point of it.
It’s a scale that sets 100 as the middle, and then above average is anything above 100, and below average it’s anything below 100
but these things are caused by things like eternal desert wars, government spending and printing money, infinity H1B Indians in white collar industries etc
There’s no way you can look at any country in the developed world not called America and thing the thing holding America back is government spending. This is simply not a position that can survive contact with reality and if you disagree you’re going to have to provide evidence (my evidence is the Nordics). Also in response to your other comment: That’s also not how that works. Money given to poor people has been thoroughly proven to mobilize the economy more than that given to rich people. Which makes sense when you actually think about it: Rich people just throw money back and forth at each other through the stock market, while poor people actually spend it on goods and services. A tremendous amount of labor (and therefore jobs) would be necessary to give 400 million people a big mac each.
