Anonymous #1 4d

I based it on cash, because at least with houses and cars, they’re spending money, some of which might even make it into workers’ hands

1

Anonymous OP 4d

Or at least get sales- and property-taxed

1

Anonymous #2 4d

Why would you even have over 100k in your checking account That’s not hoarding wealth that’s just like stupid since at that point you’re giving up free money

14

Anonymous #3 4d

Exactly my thought, like you have so much money you don’t care the amount you could gain with interest? My ass would be happy asf to have 10k in savings right outta college but throwing so much into CHECKING?

1

Anonymous #3 4d

Also anything past 250k isn’t insured by the fdic

0

Anonymous OP 4d

I get that. I’m from LI and there is extreme levels of wealth throughout the island. Out east 98% of real estate sits and collects dust the majority of the year as it’s just a summer/weekend house for them. And the people who live out there, that’s probably not just their second or third home. I find that so selfish, even if small percentage of money goes back into the working class, because it fs is small. there’s just so many better places for money to go but greed is greed idk.

1

Anonymous #5 4d

They don’t have a billion. They own a billion dollars worth of shares. If they tried to sell all of those shares at once, or even some of them, the stock price would plummet and they would be worth a fraction of what they were

-1

Anonymous #5 4d

People like Taylor swift, who a billion by other means, invest that money, which basically means buying stocks, so it’s the same thing. Having your money in stocks or bonds isn’t hoarding, it’s keeping the money in circulation. You’re essentially spending the money on private or public projects. So really billionaires aren’t hoarding wealth. That’s a misconception

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

this argument never made sense to me. if someone owns enough shares of a company that they would kill the prices if they sold, they own a significant enough share of the company to make decisions about what the company is doing. Decision making power over gigantic companies is more important to them than cash from selling their shares. If they wanted cash, they wouldn’t have bought in.

1

Anonymous #4 3d

Sure expect this argument doesn’t make sense when Elon Musk is about to put value on his assets as collateral and then argue that he “doesn’t have a billion”

4

Anonymous #4 3d

Also there are absolutely people who have a billion dollars.

3

Anonymous #6 3d

That’s not at all why people invest money. Billionaires invest in businesses so their money will grow, not so they can have 3% voting power and no board seats. Most stock portfolios are diversified, which you actually don’t have any voting power at all and fiduciary responsibility is given to the fund manager. You invest your money so that you will never be poor, and so that if YOU want to start an expensive venture you can leverage your stock value

0

Anonymous #5 3d

What you said 5 just doesn’t mean anything. Stop listening to Elon musk

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

exactly. If their portfolio is diversified they can sell it perfectly fine and your first argument doesn’t work. anyone with a billion in shares is still making more money in gains than they are able to spend.

1

Anonymous #4 3d

Are you dense? This DID happen and was accepted in the court of law and by a company. This DID NOT used to be accepted but now it is. So how are you going to sit there and pretend that “an almost trillionaire doesn’t have a billion dollars” when they are actively promoting how much wealth they have and counting their “assets and stocks” as part of their income and worth.

3

Anonymous #4 3d

And AGAIN your argument is so stupid it doesn’t even acknowledge that they are making more than they can spend which is the ENTIRE POINT of this conversation.

3

Anonymous #6 3d

No one is saying they aren’t rich. But no, people don’t take out more than they can spend because there would be no point. You invest to beat inflation and keep your wealth safe for the next generations. If you need a substantial amount of money you leverage. No one just hold onto 1 billion outside of any institution that’s ridiculous. No one’s hoarding wealth

-1

Anonymous #5 3d

It seems like you just don’t understand how money works 5. Being worth trillions isn’t hoarding money. The money still in circulation it’s not just sitting around

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

No they can’t take out more than they make because it isn’t possible unless they are literally giving it away. Do you listen to podcasts for financial advice?

4

Anonymous #4 3d

so why the fuck did you “uhm actually” someone saying they can’t? “It’s just shares” doesn’t matter, they make more than they could ever spend and it just grows. “Keep your wealth safe for the next generations” is basically a textbook definition of wealth hoarding.

5

Anonymous #5 3d

5 again what you are saying doesn’t mean anything. Always be sure to include a point in your posts

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

Your entire argument is literally just deflecting and ignoring any core aspect of the conversation. If you have a trillion dollars and you make a billion a year you will not be able to spend more than you make. You can quote all the podcasts and Joe Rogan you want but it doesn’t change.

6

Anonymous #6 3d

No, it’s not wealth hoarding!!! The money is being spent. It is in circulation. Shares mean the money is being spent and going into other people’s wallets. What do you not understand about this

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

But as someone who has taken several economics classes you don’t seem to really understand what wealth hoarding is or what it means for communities.

2

Anonymous #5 3d

5 lookup what leverage is

-1

Anonymous #5 3d

I don’t listen to podcasts I have a degree

0

Anonymous #4 3d

“My source is I made it the fuck up” type mf

1

Anonymous #4 3d

Sure buddy

1

Anonymous #5 3d

If you had taken economics you would understand that most leading economists don’t even believe that holding money outside of circulation affects the economy because the value adjusts. But I’m sure that’s too complicated for someone who doesn’t know what debt is

0

Anonymous #4 3d

so if I put money in the bank, it’s not hoarding either because the bank loans it to people?? bffr. “It’s being spent elsewhere too” doesn’t mean that it isn’t wealth

1

Anonymous #6 3d

Yeah it’s wealth, and it isn’t being hoarded. Where do you work?

0

Anonymous #4 3d

No SOME economists think that. The vast majority do not and we have studies showing how wealth accumulation in a small group impacts the larger group. We even have observation studies on the impacts. Do you believe in trickle down economics as well

5

Anonymous #5 3d

The vast majority of economists you listen to maybe. Almost all economists are free market believers. Their even further away from your beliefs than I am

0

Anonymous #4 3d

..where do I work? if you’re trying to one up me by comparing whether you’re more of a finance bro, that’s just sad, lmao. make an actual argument that isn’t reliant on the definitions of wealth and hoarding being fuzzy.

1

Anonymous #6 3d

No I’m trying to explain how someone else’s bank money ends up in your pocket. I wanted an example of a company

-1

Anonymous #6 3d

Chill out

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

Yeah and this is where you really fuck up because this is such a basic concept you learn in Econ 101. The vast majorly of economist do not agree with free market theory and the “invisible hand theory” was thrown out because it is one of the reasons the Great Depression got so bad

3