4 ms·

> what do you think investment does? Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?

cakealert 4mo ago
When you invest money it disappears from your control and you get a piece of paper that says you own shares in an entity.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  And if you're investing in, say, a Fabergé egg, that's a (potential) problem. If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.
  - cakealert 4mo ago
    > If you invest in $AMZN, much less so. But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.
    - ceejayoz 4mo ago
      It's not really that "out of my control" if I can convert it back to cash with a few clicks of a button.
      - cakealert 4mo ago
        The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Liquidity doesn't matter? Huh. That's a Nobel Prize in Economics waiting to be awarded, if true.
        cakealert 4mo ago
        Liquidity is an emergent property. It doesn't change the fact that when you buy something the money moved.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        And that doesn't change the fact that Jeff Bezos, fundamentally, is extremely wealthy, even if he'd have to sell or borrow against a few shares to use it.
        cakealert 4mo ago
        Perhaps refer to the root of this convo branch: > Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely? You changed the subject. Wealth wasn't it.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        Again: Bezos's wealth is readily convertible to money. It is not a critical distinction for him.
        swiftcoder 4mo ago
        It kind of was the subject. The person I replied to up thread was clearly implying that rich people making investments is a net benefit to everyone, and if they were all acting like VCs, maybe, but since they are mostly locking up their investments in mutual funds or real estate, its less clearly beneficial. Yes, a lot of economic activity is predicated on the availability of investment capital, but only investing in already-successful firms doesn't generate new economic activity. And static, unused real estate generates basically none at all.

When you invest money it disappears from your control and you get a piece of paper that says you own shares in an entity.

ceejayoz 4mo ago
And if you're investing in, say, a Fabergé egg, that's a (potential) problem. If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.
- cakealert 4mo ago
  > If you invest in $AMZN, much less so. But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.
  - ceejayoz 4mo ago
    It's not really that "out of my control" if I can convert it back to cash with a few clicks of a button.
    - cakealert 4mo ago
      The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.
      - ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Liquidity doesn't matter? Huh. That's a Nobel Prize in Economics waiting to be awarded, if true.
        cakealert 4mo ago
        Liquidity is an emergent property. It doesn't change the fact that when you buy something the money moved.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        And that doesn't change the fact that Jeff Bezos, fundamentally, is extremely wealthy, even if he'd have to sell or borrow against a few shares to use it.
        cakealert 4mo ago
        Perhaps refer to the root of this convo branch: > Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely? You changed the subject. Wealth wasn't it.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        Again: Bezos's wealth is readily convertible to money. It is not a critical distinction for him.
        swiftcoder 4mo ago
        It kind of was the subject. The person I replied to up thread was clearly implying that rich people making investments is a net benefit to everyone, and if they were all acting like VCs, maybe, but since they are mostly locking up their investments in mutual funds or real estate, its less clearly beneficial. Yes, a lot of economic activity is predicated on the availability of investment capital, but only investing in already-successful firms doesn't generate new economic activity. And static, unused real estate generates basically none at all.