5 ms·

Why? It's not like this money is in a giant vault filled with money and he swims around it. All of this money is being put to use in the U.S. economy.

jedberg 1y ago
Almost all of that was an increase in stock price. That's about as close as you can get to just sitting in a vault. If he were selling it and using the money for something else, that would be one thing, but he's really not using much of it. This is not to say it's his fault. That's how our laws are written. But that is the point of OP. That our policies should be forcing him to sell and put that money back into the economy.
- harperlee 1y ago
  Owning stock is the polar opposite of having money in a vault - it is giving money to the economy. Specifically to a part of the economy that is a money-generating machine: a company. Put in circulation precisely to be invested on the economy.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    When you buy a stock, "the economy" is not getting the money. Some other investor is getting it, who may or may not be putting that money to use. They may just turn around and buy another stock, giving that money to another investor, who buys a different stock, and on and on and on, with no other actual economic activity happening.
    - alexey-salmin 1y ago
      If the stock market worked the way you imagine, it wouldn't exist.
      - steve1977 1y ago
        It’s a pretty accurate description of how the stock market works. How would you describe it? The only time money actually flows to the company is when stock is initially offered. A company might be valued billions in the stock market, but this is not money that the company can work with.
        alexey-salmin 1y ago
        > The only time money actually flows to the company is when stock is initially offered. > A company might be valued billions in the stock market, but this is not money that the company can work with. Both of these statements are demonstrably false. Why do you think companies go public (which is quite troublesome) in the first place? Just vanity to see the billions they don't have access to? Or to allow investors to make money without helping the company in any way? It's clear why investors would come to a purely speculative market with no intrinsic value (e.g. crypto) but it's unclear why a company would offer their shares to be traded like a shitcoin. Being public is the instrument for the company first and foremost. There's the IPO, then companies continuously issue and buyback stocks depending on the cashflow. Look e.g. at the graph of Tesla's outstanding shares [1]. Then companies also sell bonds or borrow money using their own stock as the collateral. The bigger valuation you have the more capital you have access to. Not to mention that even in the OP's simplistic view of the market there is an actual "new value" aspect: if you buy stocks from a VC or a founder, they use it to fund the next startup. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/shares-outstanding https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/shares-...
        steve1977 1y ago
        I'm not seeing how this is contradicting to what I said. IPO is initial offering of stock. That's when money flows to the company. Fair point about using stock as collateral though.
        alexey-salmin 1y ago
        What about issuing more stock after IPO? For many companies money flows in continuously, check the Tesla graph I sent above. It wouldn't be called "Initial Public Offering" if it was the "Only Public Offering" like you suggest.
    - YZF 1y ago
      It's a lot more complicated than this. For example, money can be borrowed using stock as collateral and spent. Companies can and do also issue more stock. There are also indirect effects, for example investors putting money in new ventures. Either way the economy is not zero sum game where there's a fixed amount of money. If the stock market grows there is more money. That money reflects future expectations discounted to today but it's still more money. On the original question, how does Ballmer being very wealthy impacts the rest of us, there is no easy answer. It depends on what he does with his money. It can be neutral, positive, or negative. The sentiment though seems to be mostly driven by jealousy and a sense of unfairness. It's in fashion these days (in some circles) to hate the "rich" (which is basically anyone better off than yourself more or less).
- andrewflnr 1y ago
  > Almost all of that was an increase in stock price. That's about as close as you can get to just sitting in a vault. It would be at least as accurate to say it's as close as money can get to not existing at all. Policy should probably not be "forcing" people to realize gains that, in many cases (maybe not MS, but policy has to work for everyone), may as well be Monopoly money.
syntaxing 1y ago
Not sure if you’re really curious but it’s because it means the US is going from using tax to sustain itself to borrowing money (hence the ballon of debt). When your government relies on borrowing money, the rich always win no matter how you slice it because typically, you borrow money from them somehow. This reliance is the beginning of oligarchy and bad policies that strongly favor the rich from this endless cycle of debt. It’s been true for any developed nations like Four Asian Tigers and been true for nations with strong historic roots like the UK. How do you think the British “royals” sustain themselves?
ryandrake 1y ago
Investor dollars are not kept in a giant vault, but they are also not necessarily "being put to use the U.S. economy." If I buy $1000 of Microsoft stock, Microsoft doesn't suddenly have $1000 more to fund their projects. Some other investor gets it because he sold, and he's not necessarily putting that money to actual use either. It's all just numbers getting updated in a giant database somewhere, over and over until someone cashes out and actually spends that money to buy groceries or something. I guess some might consider those database updates and the growth itself to be "put to use" but I don't.
- thefourthchime 1y ago
  That's fine. Let's assume that the money is simply stored somewhere as numbers in a database. It would be irresponsible for them not to at least put into some sort of savings account or money market getting interest rate. That interest is generated by people borrowing against it, is it not? Realistically large companies don't do this. They put their money in hedge funds, which are much less risk averse, which would assume that they are more actively putting the money into the economy.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- skeezyboy 1y ago
  > It's all just numbers getting updated in a giant database somewhere, over and over until someone cashes out and actually spends that money to buy groceries or something. send me your numbers then edgelord... o wait theyre not just numbers now that Ive asked for some. Go read up on futures markets - they were invented to service a legitimate, real world problem - yes deriviative markets of today have become abstract but its no as black and white as capitalists vs us.

jedberg 1y ago

Almost all of that was an increase in stock price. That's about as close as you can get to just sitting in a vault. If he were selling it and using the money for something else, that would be one thing, but he's really not using much of it. This is not to say it's his fault. That's how our laws are written. But that is the point of OP. That our policies should be forcing him to sell and put that money back into the economy.

harperlee 1y ago
Owning stock is the polar opposite of having money in a vault - it is giving money to the economy. Specifically to a part of the economy that is a money-generating machine: a company. Put in circulation precisely to be invested on the economy.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  When you buy a stock, "the economy" is not getting the money. Some other investor is getting it, who may or may not be putting that money to use. They may just turn around and buy another stock, giving that money to another investor, who buys a different stock, and on and on and on, with no other actual economic activity happening.
  - alexey-salmin 1y ago
    If the stock market worked the way you imagine, it wouldn't exist.
    - steve1977 1y ago
      It’s a pretty accurate description of how the stock market works. How would you describe it? The only time money actually flows to the company is when stock is initially offered. A company might be valued billions in the stock market, but this is not money that the company can work with.
      - alexey-salmin 1y ago
        > The only time money actually flows to the company is when stock is initially offered. > A company might be valued billions in the stock market, but this is not money that the company can work with. Both of these statements are demonstrably false. Why do you think companies go public (which is quite troublesome) in the first place? Just vanity to see the billions they don't have access to? Or to allow investors to make money without helping the company in any way? It's clear why investors would come to a purely speculative market with no intrinsic value (e.g. crypto) but it's unclear why a company would offer their shares to be traded like a shitcoin. Being public is the instrument for the company first and foremost. There's the IPO, then companies continuously issue and buyback stocks depending on the cashflow. Look e.g. at the graph of Tesla's outstanding shares [1]. Then companies also sell bonds or borrow money using their own stock as the collateral. The bigger valuation you have the more capital you have access to. Not to mention that even in the OP's simplistic view of the market there is an actual "new value" aspect: if you buy stocks from a VC or a founder, they use it to fund the next startup. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/shares-outstanding https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/shares-...
        steve1977 1y ago
        I'm not seeing how this is contradicting to what I said. IPO is initial offering of stock. That's when money flows to the company. Fair point about using stock as collateral though.
        alexey-salmin 1y ago
        What about issuing more stock after IPO? For many companies money flows in continuously, check the Tesla graph I sent above. It wouldn't be called "Initial Public Offering" if it was the "Only Public Offering" like you suggest.
  - YZF 1y ago
    It's a lot more complicated than this. For example, money can be borrowed using stock as collateral and spent. Companies can and do also issue more stock. There are also indirect effects, for example investors putting money in new ventures. Either way the economy is not zero sum game where there's a fixed amount of money. If the stock market grows there is more money. That money reflects future expectations discounted to today but it's still more money. On the original question, how does Ballmer being very wealthy impacts the rest of us, there is no easy answer. It depends on what he does with his money. It can be neutral, positive, or negative. The sentiment though seems to be mostly driven by jealousy and a sense of unfairness. It's in fashion these days (in some circles) to hate the "rich" (which is basically anyone better off than yourself more or less).
andrewflnr 1y ago
> Almost all of that was an increase in stock price. That's about as close as you can get to just sitting in a vault. It would be at least as accurate to say it's as close as money can get to not existing at all. Policy should probably not be "forcing" people to realize gains that, in many cases (maybe not MS, but policy has to work for everyone), may as well be Monopoly money.

syntaxing 1y ago

Not sure if you’re really curious but it’s because it means the US is going from using tax to sustain itself to borrowing money (hence the ballon of debt). When your government relies on borrowing money, the rich always win no matter how you slice it because typically, you borrow money from them somehow. This reliance is the beginning of oligarchy and bad policies that strongly favor the rich from this endless cycle of debt. It’s been true for any developed nations like Four Asian Tigers and been true for nations with strong historic roots like the UK. How do you think the British “royals” sustain themselves?

ryandrake 1y ago

Investor dollars are not kept in a giant vault, but they are also not necessarily "being put to use the U.S. economy." If I buy $1000 of Microsoft stock, Microsoft doesn't suddenly have $1000 more to fund their projects. Some other investor gets it because he sold, and he's not necessarily putting that money to actual use either. It's all just numbers getting updated in a giant database somewhere, over and over until someone cashes out and actually spends that money to buy groceries or something. I guess some might consider those database updates and the growth itself to be "put to use" but I don't.

thefourthchime 1y ago
That's fine. Let's assume that the money is simply stored somewhere as numbers in a database. It would be irresponsible for them not to at least put into some sort of savings account or money market getting interest rate. That interest is generated by people borrowing against it, is it not? Realistically large companies don't do this. They put their money in hedge funds, which are much less risk averse, which would assume that they are more actively putting the money into the economy.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
skeezyboy 1y ago
> It's all just numbers getting updated in a giant database somewhere, over and over until someone cashes out and actually spends that money to buy groceries or something. send me your numbers then edgelord... o wait theyre not just numbers now that Ive asked for some. Go read up on futures markets - they were invented to service a legitimate, real world problem - yes deriviative markets of today have become abstract but its no as black and white as capitalists vs us.