He doesnt make that in actual money tho. Rich people’s value are vibes based egregors summoned through the stock market. So, in a similar vein, if the stock market crashes and never recovers, he loses most of his money. This is why I propose ripping down Wallstreet to starve the machine.
He’d still have a lot of property to his name, a lot of other assets and stuff that aren’t tied to an arbitrary stock market. Even if you crash it, mansions and luxury cars would still be very valuable. He will never not be a billionaire due to that.
That is, unless you redistribute his wealth. Then yeah, he wouldn’t be filthy rich anymore.
Very true, but you have to be able to sell those assets to gain from them. If the stock market is erased you can’t sell your yacht to another exploiter because their networth is decimated too and they can no longer borrow off anything but physical assets, and now they also have a massive “income” stream that is now down so borrowing is more risky. We coulda had a bad bitch of a society, instead we let the rich turn us all into Mammon zombies.
well it’s worse than that becase most of those houses and other assets were bought for the most part from loans taken out at very low interest rates against the stock he has in his company’s and other shares in his portfolio . The stocks on whole give better return than that interest rate. So it’s free money they can spend an they don’t even have to sell their stock and pay taxes on the returns just the dividends at a way lower rate that any working person. the way this is setup it becomes impossible for him to spend money fast enough for him to actually lose more money than he gained.
As long as the loans aren’t paid off though, running the stock into the ground would result in margin calls. An empire built on borrowed money with loans secured only through the value of the empire itself can be a fragile construct.
Love both of these, but going after the stock market is how you kick billionaires in the balls. Then you redistribute their assets to serve society instead of society serving their assets.
If you can borrow against that at any time you want (read: 90% of billionaires), then you have that money effectively liquidand untaxed.
Then they will take out a bigger loan to pay off the existing loan and as such, pay almost nothing in taxes, the stocks that they borrow against grow faster than the interest on their loans, and they can repeat this process until they die where their debt just gets eaten by taxpayers because they transfer assets at the right time to children and then their estate will pay back the debt after death (just transfer stock ownership to lenders probably)
Even if the stock market crashes during this time, they can declare bankruptcy, free themselves of their debt, and then sell assets and they already have a huge golden elevator ready to bring them back up.
No, the stock market needs to go. It is the primary vector of mass exploitation and binds us all to these immoral chains. It makes Mr and Mrs Greenbury down the street as complacent in Nestle’s filfthy acts as the CEOs themselves, because everyone is drooling for line go up, nothing else. Wealth chasing is the heroin addiction for Mother Terra, and we will chase this dragon until the world is charred.
Thats great, you can still save pensions. Use the wealth you are redistributing to ensure pensions. The billionaires have enough for all of us to retire. I’m not advocating for instant destruction. I’m advocating for removing it and replacing it with a system that promotes cooperation and resource efficiency instead of one that solely focuses on financial gain.
The stock market is one of the reasons why we don’t have pensions anymore. Companies realize that it’s a lot cheaper to pawn off the responsibility of covering your own retirement on the people who work their entire lives for you.
They actually gave the job to a bunch of sycophants who transform it into some immaterial form using strange magic. It is unclear if this will hinder or benefit you. The sycophants use their commission to buy blow.
Well, those suggestions would destroy the stock market. Nobody would ever register their company on the stock market if it meant giving up 95% of the control.
All non-stock companies which is the majority of all companies. That’s the problem. When a company applies for a stock market registration, it means that they’re selling off control and profit sharing of the company in order to gain investments to expand.
All companies start with a single or two owners. The transition from owning everything to including others won’t happen if it means giving up to the majority of control, whether that’s 50% or 5/95%. That’s why many companies get stuck on 51%.
It only ever comes over 50% when someone dies or makes a mature decision of letting others control “their” company.
He doesnt make that in actual money tho. Rich people’s value are vibes based egregors summoned through the stock market. So, in a similar vein, if the stock market crashes and never recovers, he loses most of his money. This is why I propose ripping down Wallstreet to starve the machine.
He’d still have a lot of property to his name, a lot of other assets and stuff that aren’t tied to an arbitrary stock market. Even if you crash it, mansions and luxury cars would still be very valuable. He will never not be a billionaire due to that.
That is, unless you redistribute his wealth. Then yeah, he wouldn’t be filthy rich anymore.
Very true, but you have to be able to sell those assets to gain from them. If the stock market is erased you can’t sell your yacht to another exploiter because their networth is decimated too and they can no longer borrow off anything but physical assets, and now they also have a massive “income” stream that is now down so borrowing is more risky. We coulda had a bad bitch of a society, instead we let the rich turn us all into Mammon zombies.
well it’s worse than that becase most of those houses and other assets were bought for the most part from loans taken out at very low interest rates against the stock he has in his company’s and other shares in his portfolio . The stocks on whole give better return than that interest rate. So it’s free money they can spend an they don’t even have to sell their stock and pay taxes on the returns just the dividends at a way lower rate that any working person. the way this is setup it becomes impossible for him to spend money fast enough for him to actually lose more money than he gained.
As long as the loans aren’t paid off though, running the stock into the ground would result in margin calls. An empire built on borrowed money with loans secured only through the value of the empire itself can be a fragile construct.
And the vast amount of web storage customers
The Paper Billionaire Argument
Wealth shown to scale
Love both of these, but going after the stock market is how you kick billionaires in the balls. Then you redistribute their assets to serve society instead of society serving their assets.
You do not talk about project mayhem
If you can borrow against that at any time you want (read: 90% of billionaires), then you have that money effectively liquid and untaxed.
Then they will take out a bigger loan to pay off the existing loan and as such, pay almost nothing in taxes, the stocks that they borrow against grow faster than the interest on their loans, and they can repeat this process until they die where their debt just gets eaten by taxpayers because they transfer assets at the right time to children and then their estate will pay back the debt after death (just transfer stock ownership to lenders probably)
Even if the stock market crashes during this time, they can declare bankruptcy, free themselves of their debt, and then sell assets and they already have a huge golden elevator ready to bring them back up.
You don’t want the stock market destroyed. That is how retirements are funded as well.
You want to restrict ownership of an individual stock. Limit them to 5% or so. Also make every stock have 1 vote, no exceptions.
Thus illustrating [one of] the ulterior motive[s] behind replacing pensions with 401(k)s.
Pensions are funded by the stock market as well. Pension funds are some the largest landlords as well.
No, the stock market needs to go. It is the primary vector of mass exploitation and binds us all to these immoral chains. It makes Mr and Mrs Greenbury down the street as complacent in Nestle’s filfthy acts as the CEOs themselves, because everyone is drooling for line go up, nothing else. Wealth chasing is the heroin addiction for Mother Terra, and we will chase this dragon until the world is charred.
The stock market is how pensions are funded. That means the largest loss of wealth to the middle class.
Thats great, you can still save pensions. Use the wealth you are redistributing to ensure pensions. The billionaires have enough for all of us to retire. I’m not advocating for instant destruction. I’m advocating for removing it and replacing it with a system that promotes cooperation and resource efficiency instead of one that solely focuses on financial gain.
The stock market is one of the reasons why we don’t have pensions anymore. Companies realize that it’s a lot cheaper to pawn off the responsibility of covering your own retirement on the people who work their entire lives for you.
They actually gave the job to a bunch of sycophants who transform it into some immaterial form using strange magic. It is unclear if this will hinder or benefit you. The sycophants use their commission to buy blow.
Well, those suggestions would destroy the stock market. Nobody would ever register their company on the stock market if it meant giving up 95% of the control.
Really which company do you have more than 1 vote per share or have more than 5%? Very few people are given either.
All non-stock companies which is the majority of all companies. That’s the problem. When a company applies for a stock market registration, it means that they’re selling off control and profit sharing of the company in order to gain investments to expand.
All companies start with a single or two owners. The transition from owning everything to including others won’t happen if it means giving up to the majority of control, whether that’s 50% or 5/95%. That’s why many companies get stuck on 51%. It only ever comes over 50% when someone dies or makes a mature decision of letting others control “their” company.