3 ms·

Billionaires at Trump's Swearing-In Have Since Lost $209B (alt link in comments)

29 points by mergy 2y ago

nicce 2y ago
New oligarchs will born once they buy the dip. Richer get richer. Swearing is there to make dip deeper.
- quantified 2y ago
  Some will have insider knowledge of when tariffs will be announced or rescinded, etc. The volatility will be harvested for sure.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- tombert 2y ago
  I'm a little annoyed at myself. I seriously debated buying a put option on Tesla a week ago, I could have made tens of thousands. Maybe I should apply to SpaceX and try to be one of Elon's lackeys.
mergy 2y ago
https://archive.is/7c759 https://archive.is/7c759
toomuchtodo 2y ago
No need to add (alt link in comments) to the title, just include the paywall bypass you did in a comment with nothing else.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
redeux 2y ago
It's immaterial to them. Falling asset prices hurt the middle class far more than they hurt the wealthy. Every time asset values fall, the wealthy scoop them up, furthering inequality. If Elon Musk lost 90% of his net worth, he'd still have $34 billion. What would you have if you lost 90% of your net worth (assuming you have a positive net worth to begin with)?
- tombert 2y ago
  I completely agree, this is why I've always gotten annoyed at the libertarian proposition of "only have sales tax", I think usually called the "fair" tax, by eliminating all other taxes and setting sales tax to 10%. A tax like that would disproportionately hurt the poor. Poor people spend roughly 100% of their income, meaning that their effective tax rate would be, you know, about 10%. A billionaire almost certainly does not spend anywhere near their entire income. If they spend 10% of their income, then their effective tax rate would be 1%. This is also what annoys me about the stupid tariffs that are happening right now. The republicans are saying that the tariff income is going to be used to lower taxes. Since the consumers of the products are the ones who end up paying the tariffs one way or another, this means that these tax cuts are going to be mostly covered by spenders, likely a lot of poor people.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  I don't think billionaires measure their wealth by the amount of assets they can buy. If they did, they would probably lose interest in increasing their wealth after the first $1B. Afterall, what can you buy with $2B than you can't buy with $1B? No, it is all about status and keeping score. It is not enough that I $xB, I need to have more than all the other billionaries. That is why they can never have enough.
  - redeux 2y ago
    I don’t think you quite understand the full range of assets. Corporate entities are assets. Twitter was an asset that cost Elon $44 billion
- eadmund 2y ago
tombert 2y ago
I mean, for the most part does this actually matter? I think most of their wealth is in the form of stock in their respective companies isn't it? You only "lose" money with stock if you materialize it by selling at a loss. They've done a good job bribing their way into presidential circles, the stock prices will probably bounce back.
- EdwardDiego 2y ago
  Well, they fund their lifestyles by borrowing against their immense paper wealth. At this rate, they might have to live within their means and buy one less island!
- croes 2y ago
  Their credits for buying Twitter and such are backed by their stocks. If they lose value the banks get nervous.
mac3n 2y ago
it's a bargain, in exchange for legal sovreignity

29 points by mergy 2y ago

nicce 2y ago

New oligarchs will born once they buy the dip. Richer get richer. Swearing is there to make dip deeper.

quantified 2y ago
Some will have insider knowledge of when tariffs will be announced or rescinded, etc. The volatility will be harvested for sure.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tombert 2y ago
I'm a little annoyed at myself. I seriously debated buying a put option on Tesla a week ago, I could have made tens of thousands. Maybe I should apply to SpaceX and try to be one of Elon's lackeys.

mergy 2y ago

https://archive.is/7c759 https://archive.is/7c759

toomuchtodo 2y ago

No need to add (alt link in comments) to the title, just include the paywall bypass you did in a comment with nothing else.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

redeux 2y ago

It's immaterial to them. Falling asset prices hurt the middle class far more than they hurt the wealthy. Every time asset values fall, the wealthy scoop them up, furthering inequality. If Elon Musk lost 90% of his net worth, he'd still have $34 billion. What would you have if you lost 90% of your net worth (assuming you have a positive net worth to begin with)?

tombert 2y ago
I completely agree, this is why I've always gotten annoyed at the libertarian proposition of "only have sales tax", I think usually called the "fair" tax, by eliminating all other taxes and setting sales tax to 10%. A tax like that would disproportionately hurt the poor. Poor people spend roughly 100% of their income, meaning that their effective tax rate would be, you know, about 10%. A billionaire almost certainly does not spend anywhere near their entire income. If they spend 10% of their income, then their effective tax rate would be 1%. This is also what annoys me about the stupid tariffs that are happening right now. The republicans are saying that the tariff income is going to be used to lower taxes. Since the consumers of the products are the ones who end up paying the tariffs one way or another, this means that these tax cuts are going to be mostly covered by spenders, likely a lot of poor people.
hermitcrab 2y ago
I don't think billionaires measure their wealth by the amount of assets they can buy. If they did, they would probably lose interest in increasing their wealth after the first $1B. Afterall, what can you buy with $2B than you can't buy with $1B? No, it is all about status and keeping score. It is not enough that I $xB, I need to have more than all the other billionaries. That is why they can never have enough.
- redeux 2y ago
  I don’t think you quite understand the full range of assets. Corporate entities are assets. Twitter was an asset that cost Elon $44 billion
eadmund 2y ago

tombert 2y ago

I mean, for the most part does this actually matter? I think most of their wealth is in the form of stock in their respective companies isn't it? You only "lose" money with stock if you materialize it by selling at a loss. They've done a good job bribing their way into presidential circles, the stock prices will probably bounce back.

EdwardDiego 2y ago
Well, they fund their lifestyles by borrowing against their immense paper wealth. At this rate, they might have to live within their means and buy one less island!
croes 2y ago
Their credits for buying Twitter and such are backed by their stocks. If they lose value the banks get nervous.

mac3n 2y ago

it's a bargain, in exchange for legal sovreignity