2 ms·

This was a fair comparison - the same exact thing was true of Hughes and Rockefeller. But your argument is actually my argument. The past 50 years wealth inequ

This was a fair comparison - the same exact thing was true of Hughes and Rockefeller. But your argument is actually my argument. The past 50 years wealth inequality has grown, and we are now starting to see liquidity issues where for their particular stock. But if we let this trend continue, sometime in the next 100 years, if they intend to sell and use their wealth for some utility, it will have a either have a liquidity effect on the entire market, or/and have substantial wage inflation as a result.

grog454 5y ago
>This was a fair comparison - the same exact thing was true of Hughes and Rockefeller. Agreed, but then Hughe's et al net worth are wrong imo as well. If you or I give a two week notice our net worth probably doesn't drop a cent. If some (but importantly not all) UHNW people quit on short notice their networth drops an order of magnitude or more. I presume it can be done with a very long term and carefully managed exit strategy, and I'll assume that's what bill gates did with nothing but the knowledge that he served as a board member long after stepping down as CEO. I suppose my only point is that these top N networth lists are irrelevant at best, and it would not surprise me if significant wealth utility is actually held by people with lower public visibility (inheritors, private company owners, private investors, dictators, etc).