5 ms·

And yet account for all of that and divide it across remaining population and it will come out to nothing. The majority of their wealth is super inflated asset

by qaq 5y ago

And yet account for all of that and divide it across remaining population and it will come out to nothing. The majority of their wealth is super inflated assets that would not change anyones life if divided across the population.

Xylakant 5y ago
According to Wikipedia, in 2016 the Top 500 richest Germans, owned a combined wealth of 692 Mrd. €. That's around 8500 EUR per German citizen (infants and kids included) in 2016 - more today. For some people that is an amount that substantially affects their life. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_500_reichsten_Deutschen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_500_reichsten_Deutsc...
- qaq 5y ago
  that includes real estate in Monaco priced at 100K per square meter, works of arts jewels, stocks trading at 100+ PE etc. e.g. sh#t not convertible into shelter, food and other things people need. It's not that elastic on a gloabl scale.
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    The majority of this is ownership, for example the Quandt family owns nearly 50% of BMW. Stefan Quandt alone owns 25% of BMW. It's pretty elastic - and that wealth share of 700 billion is owned by 500 out of 80 Million people or 0.000625% of the population.
    - qaq 5y ago
      You are assuming that thats convertible to something tangible which it isn't at global scale. We just had a large scale experiment in this area with Covid. Food prices went up real estate is through the roof.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      > The majority of this is ownership, for example the Quandt family owns nearly 50% of BMW. This is still based on two massive misunderstandings: 1. This share is cash, when it is not. It is just evaluated as a cash value for simplicity. Removing these people's shareholding does not make actual money appear. 2. People have to buy shares in order for them to be worth anything. Why would anyone buy shares in your world?
- throw123123123 5y ago
  Yes, but you are liquidating the companies they own. If you consume them, they become much smaller, which means they have less employees, less work, less income, etc. This is consuming capital for expenditures, which will in a macro view reduce wages in the long term.

by qaq 5y ago

Xylakant 5y ago

According to Wikipedia, in 2016 the Top 500 richest Germans, owned a combined wealth of 692 Mrd. €. That's around 8500 EUR per German citizen (infants and kids included) in 2016 - more today. For some people that is an amount that substantially affects their life. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_500_reichsten_Deutschen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_500_reichsten_Deutsc...

qaq 5y ago
that includes real estate in Monaco priced at 100K per square meter, works of arts jewels, stocks trading at 100+ PE etc. e.g. sh#t not convertible into shelter, food and other things people need. It's not that elastic on a gloabl scale.
- Xylakant 5y ago
  The majority of this is ownership, for example the Quandt family owns nearly 50% of BMW. Stefan Quandt alone owns 25% of BMW. It's pretty elastic - and that wealth share of 700 billion is owned by 500 out of 80 Million people or 0.000625% of the population.
  - qaq 5y ago
    You are assuming that thats convertible to something tangible which it isn't at global scale. We just had a large scale experiment in this area with Covid. Food prices went up real estate is through the roof.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    > The majority of this is ownership, for example the Quandt family owns nearly 50% of BMW. This is still based on two massive misunderstandings: 1. This share is cash, when it is not. It is just evaluated as a cash value for simplicity. Removing these people's shareholding does not make actual money appear. 2. People have to buy shares in order for them to be worth anything. Why would anyone buy shares in your world?
throw123123123 5y ago
Yes, but you are liquidating the companies they own. If you consume them, they become much smaller, which means they have less employees, less work, less income, etc. This is consuming capital for expenditures, which will in a macro view reduce wages in the long term.