4 ms·
If you didn't count the "theoretical" wealth you wouldn't call them billionaires in the first place. That "theoretical" wealth clearly has a massive impact on
by twblalock 4y ago
If you didn't count the "theoretical" wealth you wouldn't call them billionaires in the first place.
That "theoretical" wealth clearly has a massive impact on the real world, so it's silly to pretend it does not exist. For example, Elon didn't buy Twitter with a giant bag of gold coins -- he borrowed against his wealth, which is mostly in stock.
- Aperocky 4y agoAnd his "wealth" shrunk far more than what he had to liquidate and pay twitter for. Because no sane organization will lend out real cash over the same amount of collateral TSLA stock, and leveraged lending opens TSLA to extremely high risk as value dropping would means Musk will be forced to sell to cover/and or stake more TSLA. This is exactly how FTX failed - they counted their own token as their "asset". Spoiler: it didn't work. Does this wealth have a high impact on the world? Of course it does. But does it has the same impact as same volume of cash? Absolutely not.
- three_seagrass 4y agoAlso Zuck lost $100,000,000,000 in wealth when Facebook tanked. Counting beans in hand is not how wealth is calculated.