5 ms·

the rich, e.g. top 10% are definitely more affected by stock prices than bottom 50%. if your goal is to punish rich people it would look pretty much like this.

the rich, e.g. top 10% are definitely more affected by stock prices than bottom 50%. if your goal is to punish rich people it would look pretty much like this. if you’re so confident there will be a recession let’s do 1000 to 1 odds for next 12 months. bitcoin. ya?

01100011 2y ago
Per Gemini: In the United States, stock market wealth is highly concentrated, with the wealthiest 10% owning a record 93% of all stock market wealth, while the bottom 50% owns just 1%. OP isn't wrong.
- hobs 2y ago
  Yes, they are - the "rich" will take a haircut and not care because they fundamentally own the economy itself. The "middle class" or what's left it (see techies and their RSUs) are the ones who actually care about the stock market in the short/medium term because all their money is tied up in it, and their lucky bets are all that stand between them and being working class. The working class has been screwed six ways to sunday, so they don't really care except insofar as it might mean we're doing stupid stuff like getting in more wars, or making it impossible to pay rent.
  - eszed 2y ago
    Yes. From that standpoint (which I want to persuade everyone to adopt), we're all "Working Class", and we need to stand together.
  - 01100011 2y ago
    You mean the techies who saw massive gains over the past few years and were fools if they adjusted their spending as if it was going to continue forever? No man, I think we will be fine. Sorry if you can't send your kids to a top school or buy another tesla. If you consider your RSUs part of your salary and not a bonus you are not being responsible with your family's finances.
- OmarIsmail 2y ago
  On a relative and even absolute basis the wealthy will lose substantially more money. On a personal quality of life basis the middle class will get hit the hardest. It will impact retirement timelines, vacations, home renovations, car purchases, etc. seeing their 401k go down will make them feel poorer and want to save more and thus reduce their discretionary spending and reducing the amount of fun and entertainment they enjoy.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    this simply isn’t true at all. ignore the top 10%, the vast majority of americans do not have any real exposure to equities.
  - 01100011 2y ago
    At most it will hit retirement timelines of anyone retiring in the next 5 years. Come on man. Most people don't hold cash for vacations in the stock market. Anyone doing 60/40 isn't doing all that bad right now anyway. And this "market crash" (haha compare to '00 or '08) is on top of massive gains in the past few years.
lokar 2y ago
It depends what you mean by affected. If you mean, decline in net worth and or income, sure, the rich If you mean standard of living, disposable income and general economic stability, then for sure the poor are more impacted
m101 2y ago
The stock price, in this instance, is moving for a reason and that reason is in keeping with almost everyone being poorer. I was lukewarm trump, but this move was exceptionally stupid in the face of alternatives that exist.
- whateveracct 2y ago
  Why were you even lukewarm Trump when this exact tariff plan was a flagship part of his platform?
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    Tariffs were part of his platform. When did he say he would place 10% to 50% tariffs on all countries excluding Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and Cuba?
    - whateveracct 2y ago
      > Trump has called for a universal baseline tariff[31] of 10% to 20% on all imports,[176][177] with increased penalties if trade partners manipulate their currency or engage in unfair trade practices.[26] Trump has also called for 100% tariffs on cars made outside the U.S. and a minimum 60% tariff on Chinese goods.[176] Per Wikipedia for his campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2024_presidenti... Doesn't sound much different than what's happening
      - pseudalopex 2y ago
        Unfair trade practices and having a trade surplus are much different. And the article's sources clarified he mentioned these ideas at different times. Part of Trump's popularity is his inconsistency lets people hear what they want.
  - m101 2y ago
    The fact that markets moved tells you that his plan was not as expected. It is either strategic negotiating genius, or downright stupid. It is however, undoubtedly, unexpected.
_whiteCaps_ 2y ago
The rich are making a killing with hedge funds and puts.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  no they’re not. go look at the volume
RangerScience 2y ago
Math doesn’t math because it’s not about absolute losses, but practical losses. If you go from 100mil in assets to 10m, you’re fine. If you go from 100k to 10k, you’re not.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  you think poor people have 100k in equities? lmao
  - triceratops 2y ago
    What about people going from "negative net worth, but employed" to "laid off because the company's stock price is down"?
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      the exact same could be said if you taxed corporations more w.r.t. lay-offs so no I don’t really care. unless you’re arguing that taxing corporations similar to these tariff amounts wouldn’t result in layoffs?
  - RangerScience 2y ago
    No, but I needed some kind of number (100k in equities would be middle/upper-middle class?). Ah; I should’ve gone with 10m-to-1m and 100k-to-10k income. Those are reasonable numbers for either end of the scale, and illustrate the point.
matwood 2y ago
A rich person who had 10M and now has 8M is still rich. Raising prices on everything through tariffs also does little to impact the rich, but destroys the bottom 50%, along with the recession that's likely to follow. If the goal was really to punish the rich, it would be through tax policy.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  [flagged]
triceratops 2y ago
What's the first thing a CEO does when the stock price falls?
neogodless 2y ago
Wealthy people hold diversified assets (including cash buffers). Market fluctuations are temporary and benefit the wealthiest who are able to balance their asset allocation, shifting stable or growing assets to buy other assets with depressed prices. The wealth will get richer, while the poor will literally not eat, whether due to poor economic conditions, or because of a massive attack on social safety nets, or a combination of those things.
0003 2y ago
In capitalism the profits will flow to the top no matter what happens. This is a handslap. Taxing Wealth and obscene profits, and treating collateralized debt as selling the underlying would be more reasonable. Instead we are tanking the global order we built because we don't want to tax the status quo.
paranoidrobot 2y ago
The rich might be more exposed to stock market fluctuations, but they are fundamentally in a better place to leverage the changes in the market to either improve or at the very least maintain their position. The real impact will be felt by the people on the lowest end of the financial wealth scale. If the price of food, energy, clothing, housing, appliances, etc goes up - that means a lot more to those with the lowest wealth. The more wealthy you are, the less that is going to have a direct impact on you. If this were "eating the rich" then we'd see direct taxation or asset seizing from the wealthy, not raising of tariffs.

01100011 2y ago

Per Gemini: In the United States, stock market wealth is highly concentrated, with the wealthiest 10% owning a record 93% of all stock market wealth, while the bottom 50% owns just 1%. OP isn't wrong.

hobs 2y ago
Yes, they are - the "rich" will take a haircut and not care because they fundamentally own the economy itself. The "middle class" or what's left it (see techies and their RSUs) are the ones who actually care about the stock market in the short/medium term because all their money is tied up in it, and their lucky bets are all that stand between them and being working class. The working class has been screwed six ways to sunday, so they don't really care except insofar as it might mean we're doing stupid stuff like getting in more wars, or making it impossible to pay rent.
- eszed 2y ago
  Yes. From that standpoint (which I want to persuade everyone to adopt), we're all "Working Class", and we need to stand together.
- 01100011 2y ago
  You mean the techies who saw massive gains over the past few years and were fools if they adjusted their spending as if it was going to continue forever? No man, I think we will be fine. Sorry if you can't send your kids to a top school or buy another tesla. If you consider your RSUs part of your salary and not a bonus you are not being responsible with your family's finances.
OmarIsmail 2y ago
On a relative and even absolute basis the wealthy will lose substantially more money. On a personal quality of life basis the middle class will get hit the hardest. It will impact retirement timelines, vacations, home renovations, car purchases, etc. seeing their 401k go down will make them feel poorer and want to save more and thus reduce their discretionary spending and reducing the amount of fun and entertainment they enjoy.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  this simply isn’t true at all. ignore the top 10%, the vast majority of americans do not have any real exposure to equities.
- 01100011 2y ago
  At most it will hit retirement timelines of anyone retiring in the next 5 years. Come on man. Most people don't hold cash for vacations in the stock market. Anyone doing 60/40 isn't doing all that bad right now anyway. And this "market crash" (haha compare to '00 or '08) is on top of massive gains in the past few years.

lokar 2y ago

It depends what you mean by affected. If you mean, decline in net worth and or income, sure, the rich If you mean standard of living, disposable income and general economic stability, then for sure the poor are more impacted

m101 2y ago

The stock price, in this instance, is moving for a reason and that reason is in keeping with almost everyone being poorer. I was lukewarm trump, but this move was exceptionally stupid in the face of alternatives that exist.

whateveracct 2y ago
Why were you even lukewarm Trump when this exact tariff plan was a flagship part of his platform?
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  Tariffs were part of his platform. When did he say he would place 10% to 50% tariffs on all countries excluding Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and Cuba?
  - whateveracct 2y ago
    > Trump has called for a universal baseline tariff[31] of 10% to 20% on all imports,[176][177] with increased penalties if trade partners manipulate their currency or engage in unfair trade practices.[26] Trump has also called for 100% tariffs on cars made outside the U.S. and a minimum 60% tariff on Chinese goods.[176] Per Wikipedia for his campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2024_presidenti... Doesn't sound much different than what's happening
    - pseudalopex 2y ago
      Unfair trade practices and having a trade surplus are much different. And the article's sources clarified he mentioned these ideas at different times. Part of Trump's popularity is his inconsistency lets people hear what they want.
- m101 2y ago
  The fact that markets moved tells you that his plan was not as expected. It is either strategic negotiating genius, or downright stupid. It is however, undoubtedly, unexpected.

_whiteCaps_ 2y ago

The rich are making a killing with hedge funds and puts.

amazingamazing 2y ago
no they’re not. go look at the volume

RangerScience 2y ago

Math doesn’t math because it’s not about absolute losses, but practical losses. If you go from 100mil in assets to 10m, you’re fine. If you go from 100k to 10k, you’re not.

amazingamazing 2y ago
you think poor people have 100k in equities? lmao
- triceratops 2y ago
  What about people going from "negative net worth, but employed" to "laid off because the company's stock price is down"?
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    the exact same could be said if you taxed corporations more w.r.t. lay-offs so no I don’t really care. unless you’re arguing that taxing corporations similar to these tariff amounts wouldn’t result in layoffs?
- RangerScience 2y ago
  No, but I needed some kind of number (100k in equities would be middle/upper-middle class?). Ah; I should’ve gone with 10m-to-1m and 100k-to-10k income. Those are reasonable numbers for either end of the scale, and illustrate the point.

matwood 2y ago

A rich person who had 10M and now has 8M is still rich. Raising prices on everything through tariffs also does little to impact the rich, but destroys the bottom 50%, along with the recession that's likely to follow. If the goal was really to punish the rich, it would be through tax policy.

amazingamazing 2y ago
[flagged]

triceratops 2y ago

What's the first thing a CEO does when the stock price falls?

neogodless 2y ago

Wealthy people hold diversified assets (including cash buffers). Market fluctuations are temporary and benefit the wealthiest who are able to balance their asset allocation, shifting stable or growing assets to buy other assets with depressed prices. The wealth will get richer, while the poor will literally not eat, whether due to poor economic conditions, or because of a massive attack on social safety nets, or a combination of those things.

0003 2y ago

In capitalism the profits will flow to the top no matter what happens. This is a handslap. Taxing Wealth and obscene profits, and treating collateralized debt as selling the underlying would be more reasonable. Instead we are tanking the global order we built because we don't want to tax the status quo.

paranoidrobot 2y ago

The rich might be more exposed to stock market fluctuations, but they are fundamentally in a better place to leverage the changes in the market to either improve or at the very least maintain their position. The real impact will be felt by the people on the lowest end of the financial wealth scale. If the price of food, energy, clothing, housing, appliances, etc goes up - that means a lot more to those with the lowest wealth. The more wealthy you are, the less that is going to have a direct impact on you. If this were "eating the rich" then we'd see direct taxation or asset seizing from the wealthy, not raising of tariffs.