3 ms·

I agree. Just be careful not to call it "trickle down" because it's a trigger word for people. For example, who cares if a billionaire buys a yacht--the buildin

I agree. Just be careful not to call it "trickle down" because it's a trigger word for people. For example, who cares if a billionaire buys a yacht--the building of said yacht employed dozens of craftsmen, caused thousands of supply chain orders, and will support hundreds more in maintenance over time. Also, for luxury goods you can be sure that the margins at each step are quite healthy. The real problem would be if the people making all this money just hoard it which often happens. The only way that gives back is by providing bigger balance sheets for banks to lend out more money which has a miniscule effect.

caffeine 5y ago
> The real problem would be if the people making all this money just hoard it It’s not actually really possible to hoard money. A dollar is meaningless until you use it to convince someone to give you something. If you just accumulated $1T in cash and hid it under your mattress, all those people wouldn’t just do $1T less stuff. They would just do a little more for $1 than they would’ve before. That adjustment might take a little while so the fed might (did) print $1T to speed things along. Also, when some one like Jeff or Elon is worth $300b - it doesn’t mean he has $300b. It just means that other people are willing to purchase their shares in eg Amazon such that if were to sell all of them at that price, it would add up to $300b. But that money didn’t change hands, it’s just indicative. And of course if Jeff were to say “I’m selling all my shares right now who wants em” the price would change dramatically because nobody actually wants to buy all that. So really he would get about half of the money or something.