Richest 1% to own more than the rest

We should take away the assets of everyone that creates 100 or more jobs. None one should have several million dollars with of machines on his balance sheet and we should stop him from getting the capital to buy another machine. We don't want him making something to buy and putting another person on the payroll with that new machine.
 
Last edited:
We should take away the assets of everyone that creates 100 or more jobs. None one should have several million dollars with of machines on his balance sheet and we should stop him from getting the capital to buy another machine. We don't want him making something to buy and putting people on a payroll.

The problem as this thread illustrates is that people think that wealth is some self-perpetuating thing when it's not (as if the Rockefeller's and Vanderbilt's didn't have financial advisors and they still had their fortunes minimized by time).

For example, 7 of the 10 largest American fortunes are based on technology that did not exist 40 years ago. In 40 years, new tech will create new fortunes while the old fortunes will start being split up amongst people's heirs. But people don't want to look beyond today and don't calculate the changing world into their analysis of the perpetuation of wealth.
 
The problem as this thread illustrates is that people think that wealth is some self-perpetuating thing when it's not (as if the Rockefeller's and Vanderbilt's didn't have financial advisors and they still had their fortunes minimized by time).

For example, 7 of the 10 largest American fortunes are based on technology that did not exist 40 years ago. In 40 years, new tech will create new fortunes while the old fortunes will start being split up amongst people's heirs. But people don't want to look beyond today and don't calculate the changing world into their analysis of the perpetuation of wealth.

A lot of what I read out here scares me to death. People don't want to do everything to discourage domestic growth and chase capital out of the country. People want our balance of payments to continue to get worse. People don't want our debt to other nations to decline that is caused by a trade deficit, how dare us export anything. People want more forced onto welfare and other social services further increasing our debt.
 
Last edited:
this would not matter if all people have food, water, clothing and roof on daily basis.
 
That's what you get from 80 years of communism, about 15 years of functional capitalism.

Putin has been putting billionaires and mobsters in jail.

Russia does not have functional capitalism, what a joke.
Don't be naive, Putin is the head mobster in Russia.
 
Yes but stocks have a variety of risks. Specific rick, sector rick, and market risk. The portfolio diversifies out specific and sector risk but leaves market risk.

What does the dividend discount model look like right now?

A thing to consider is by holding the stocks you created a benefit. You created liquidity in the market place when you bought them. Though you didn't finance a new start up the liquidity in the market places existing encourages people to buy stock to support the growth or start up of a company that would be less likely to happen do to liquidity. Your initial purchase allowed someone to exist.

Something productive likely had to happen for the wealth to happen to begin with unless your a hit man or something else. By buying the stock right now you gave up current consumption of the full amount which is anti inflationary. you are rewarded by being able to consume more over and extended period of time but you are still carrying market risk. Just because there is market history does not mean the nation will hold up and there have been some massive dips in the market that meant it would be awhile before your net worth returns and someday it might not.

You could have consumed a whole bunch instead of buying the stock but you delayed your consumption, provided liquidity in the market place and is some people get what they want the government will take it away from you because it is seen as not fair so even that is a risk. If it is to be redistributed you would have been better off to have blown the money all at once, not make the market more efficient by creating the initial liquidity and contributed to short term inflation for those that are jealous of you so you helped in a way keep the poor from losing a bit of buying power and are taking on risk.

Congratulations for that liquidity you added by forgoing consumption to encourage money expenditure in the future for others so they will help a new company come into existence and create some jobs.

A lot of what you are say is explaining how investments benefit the economy by increasing jobs etc. So first of all I just want to say, yes I agree with all of that and I'm not sure I said anything implying otherwise. The point I was making is simply that once you have a vast amount money, it is quite easy to make more money... without having to take major risks, or spend the majority of your time working a normal job.

As for the risks, what lots of people don't seem to understand is it is quite easy to reliably make money off of investments. You just need 2 things: money and time...

Like I said earlier, the market always has good years and bad years with peaks, dips etc... but look at a historical chart for DJIA or any other major index and observe the overall trend. Anyone doing this objectively will conclude that bad years are actually anomalies, and the risk of these bad years is eventually mitigated by time. Choose any starting point and look at what it looks like 40-50 years or later.

This stuff is no secret, everyone has an equal opportunity to make money off of simple investments... but the reason that the average guy doesn't get rich off of them is because he usually doesn't have the luxuries of money or time. Usually 50% of an average guy's income is spent rent/mortgage alone. By the time all his other expenses come out, he does not have much money to put to work for himself. As a result of having little investing money, time is not a luxury the average person can afford... an avg guy might be planning to buy a house, etc and doesn't have time to wait out a crash and therefore may not even be able to take the risk of investing.

In other words, if a guy without much money and time (most people) wants to make the big bucks, he will have to risk a bigger share of his income, and take out riskier positions with better, quicker, payoffs than the simple market index investments or things of that nature. Conversely when you have so much money that your yearly living expenses account for a very small percentage of your income, safe investments are all you need as most of your money is working for you.
 
Last edited:
We should take away the assets of everyone that creates 100 or more jobs. None one should have several million dollars with of machines on his balance sheet and we should stop him from getting the capital to buy another machine. We don't want him making something to buy and putting another person on the payroll with that new machine.

Yeah, because if we capped wealth, and thereby limited the size of one rich person's business, there wouldn't be 1000 hungry entrepreneurs ready and willing to jump into the market to take on the undisturbed demand and grab that share. And "re-create" all of those supposedly lost jobs in the process.

The result would be more prosperous people owning more businesses. With more price competition and more competition for labor - in the benefit of consumers and workers. A steroidal win/win for the economy.

But way to think it through, boss.
 
99% here. At least I wont be lonely.

I am in the top 5%, but I feel the sentiment against the mega wealthy. There is no reason for them to have those kinds of resources at their disposal.
 
I am in the top 4%. Fuck all of you.
 
1% is a cutoff used for arguments sake, but really it's the 0.1%

more like .000000001%

great way to have a fragile as fuck economy is to have a massive wealth divide.

A billionaire may own more and have more money than say 5 million people but that billionaire couldn't consume as much as those 5 million people even if his life depended on it.
 
Yeah, because if we capped wealth, and thereby limited the size of one rich person's business, there wouldn't be 1000 hungry entrepreneurs ready and willing to jump into the market to take on the undisturbed demand and grab that share. And "re-create" all of those supposedly lost jobs in the process.

The result would be more prosperous people owning more businesses. With more price competition and more competition for labor - in the benefit of consumers and workers. A steroidal win/win for the economy.

But way to think it through, boss.

Show me your business plan. It's not that simple and how are you going to gain economies of scale?

There was nothing stopping small and medium businesses to innovate and grow. For a long time we had a disinsentive

There isn't that much competition for labor right now.

Obama removed one of the big disincentives to produce domistically but there are still plenty of others.
 
more like .000000001%

great way to have a fragile as fuck economy is to have a massive wealth divide.

A billionaire may own more and have more money than say 5 million people but that billionaire couldn't consume as much as those 5 million people even if his life depended on it.

If the billionaire is in industry I promise that billion is not in cash. It is in hard assets like building, equipment, machines, tooling. Look at how an balance sheet is set up. That billionaire is buying tooling, parts, material and so on. you are operating on a false premiss.

It would be a shame for someone to create 1000 jobs making a product that could be exported to help solve the nations balance of payments problem.

That's OK, I am older and it will not make any difference in my life. It is sad that the next generations will get screwed out of not having jobs made by industry.
 
Last edited:
I am in the top 4%. Fuck all of you.

But how's your liquidity? :cool:

It's really the billionaires from financial sector that really rustle my jimmies.
And any douche who drives Rolls Royce or Ferrari. It rustles my jimmies.

There is no reason to flaunt wealth when majority is struggling.
 
But how's your liquidity? :cool:

It's really the billionaires from financial sector that really rustle my jimmies.
And any douche who drives Rolls Royce or Ferrari. It rustles my jimmies.

There is no reason to flaunt wealth when majority is struggling.

lmao :cool:


It's the sheiks of this world.
 
But how's your liquidity? :cool:

It's really the billionaires from financial sector that really rustle my jimmies.
And any douche who drives Rolls Royce or Ferrari. It rustles my jimmies.

There is no reason to flaunt wealth when majority is struggling.

i understand where you are coming from. They do server a purpose though. They create liquidity in the market so that the creators of industry can exit and do something else or obtain financing and delute their ownership.

Surprisingly in some industries it is not the 1% that hold the most stock but the 99%ers via mutual funds and retirement plans. Oil companies surprisingly are heavily owned by legions of 99% ers. I think I have only seen two Rolls and two Ferrari in my life.
 
lmao :cool:


It's the sheiks of this world.

Just reminded me of something I overlooked. Take those sheiks. How many of them do you think use their wealth to sponsor terrorism and cause unrest in the region to spike up oil prices? Anyone with those kind of resources becomes a game changer.

And then we have the mega wealthy in this country who constantly undermine democracy to protect and expand their own wealth.

Cokers spending 100's of millions on election campaigns. WTF? How can that not be a negative thing for society?

i understand where you are coming from. They do server a purpose though. They create liquidity in the market so that the creators of industry can exit and do something else or obtain financing and delute their ownership.

Surprisingly in some industries it is not the 1% that hold the most stock but the 99%ers via mutual funds and retirement plans. Oil companies surprisingly are heavily owned by legions of 99% ers. I think I have only seen two Rolls and two Ferrari in my life.

I see one of each few times a day. It's frustrating.

I will go as far as to say that billionaires have a potential to be a threat to national security of any country. If you're a billionarie, let a lone a multi-billionarie, you can bribe your way out of anything, you can corrupt organizations, and you can literally move markets and industries.

And if you have few of them working together...
 
Show me your business plan. It's not that simple and how are you going to gain economies of scale?

There was nothing stopping small and medium businesses to innovate and grow. For a long time we had a disinsentive

There isn't that much competition for labor right now.

Obama removed one of the big disincentives to produce domistically but there are still plenty of others.

You were pulling out the old hobby horse about the uber-rich employing the masses - and how if we don't let the uber-rich be uber-rich millions of people will be put out of uber-work.

I am contending, in essence, that 10 companies employing 1000 people each is the same as (in fact, better than) 1 company employing 10,000 people.

How am I wrong?
 
No evidence to suggest that this is true.

Was the collapse of Rothschild bank in the late 80's planned as well?



Many people in America and Canadians I have met resent the uber wealthy and want a system that is more "equal".

In other words they want others to have less money just like them. This is a very unhealthy type of thinking but they learn it from somewhere. Often Universities and he public schools.

To the first part of your statement, there is plenty of evidence as it's common practice for many families at varying levels of wealth.

As to the second part, agree 100%. They want us all to be poor.

If you want to break history down into a very simplistic cycle:

Inequality rises -> social unrest -> open conflict -> new class of wealthy elites -> back to step 1

Pretty much. Bingo.
 
Back
Top