3 ms·
Bill Gates is a special case -- I would imagine the vast majority of stock (surely over 95%, maybe 99%) does not have value because of who owns it. Also, if th
by CJefferson 13y ago
Bill Gates is a special case -- I would imagine the vast majority of stock (surely over 95%, maybe 99%) does not have value because of who owns it.
Also, if the rich are sitting on wealth which loses values as soon as it is spent, perhaps quite a lot of the "wealth" was never really there in the first place? (although there we are perhaps getting into philosophy)
- jalons 13y agoIt's arbitrary who owns it, it just has to be owned. On a very superficial level, it's supply and demand. Increase supply without increasing demand causes price to fall.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gaius 13y agoIf there is a revolution, then all financial assets are worthless overnight, stocks, bonds, whatever. Even physical assets lose a lot of their value - a factory that can't get raw materials and can't get their product to retailers is worth a great deal less than an identical factory with identical workers that is a going concern.
- oafitupa 13y agoIt was really there because it generated a lot of wealth, eg: Windows 8 (if you think it has any value heheh). In the hands of the poor, the company got destroyed and it won't produce any more windows.