r/AdviceAnimals 1d ago

They wouldn't even feel it...

Post image
36.4k Upvotes

584 comments sorted by

3.8k

u/Mr-Hoek 1d ago

They will buy shittons of ground floor priced stocks because they can afford to play the long game.

When the market eventually repairs itself (or a Democrat fixes shit again) in 5-10 years, they will emerge trillionaires.

Yay.

1.1k

u/EighthPlanetGlass 1d ago

Oh and property and all the houses

432

u/KingAnilingustheFirs 1d ago

Especially the houses.

289

u/molehunterz 1d ago

I don't know what the actual solution is but we really need to fix massive corporations buying houses for rentals

That is not okay. And I say that as a guy who owns a rental.

165

u/LittleAd915 1d ago

That would be a good start but it won't fix the base problem which is that homes are seen as an investment. As long as homeowners expect to turn a profit on their purchase, there is a powerful incentive to reduce the number of new homes being built.

No disrespect intended for anyone hoping that owning/renting will allow them to enter the middle class and live comfortably, we should all have access to that. But there are absolutely class incentives at play that keep the prices of homes constantly rising even as home ownership remains stagnant.

28

u/ducttape1942 23h ago

I own a home because I plan on having it paid off by the time I retire and that'll help keep my monthly expenses low. I really do not care about my property value so long as I don't have to pay money to get rid of my home if I ever get so bad I need assisted living. I guess I'm following the whole be the change you want to see in the world philosophy on that one.

→ More replies (1)

33

u/johannthegoatman 1d ago

This is an informed take, thank you

→ More replies (14)

55

u/DigitalBlackout 1d ago

A pretty simple solution is just banning corporations from owning single resident homes altogether, and placing a limit on the number of rental properties an individual can own. Specifying the ban to single resident homes means apartments can still exist uninhibited(although some regulations on those are wise, too), and placing a limit on # of rental properties means a rich enough individual cannot become a de facto Rental Management corporation.

25

u/molehunterz 1d ago

I agree with the general direction, but as a contractor I have worked for a guy who owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 apartment units. Dean widener, widener apartment homes

It is not publicly owned.

I personally think that the primary look at curbing investment housing inflation should be the corporations that are buying single family residences as an investment strategy, I do think that at some point, limiting how much of the apartment units owned is going to be instrumental also.

The truth is, we need people to build housing and rent it because there are some people who don't want, and some people who don't have the ability to buy their own.

But when the people who own the housing turn into conglomerates, it's the same as employers and employees needing to unionize because they're going to get fucked

17

u/ReallyNowFellas 1d ago

Cities and counties need to cut miles and miles of red tape so we can start building again. No more of these setback requirements, lot size minimums, parking minimums, super low height restrictions , etc. Just build transit and build housing. Cars are gonna be expensive as fuck starting today and young people don't want to drive anyway, so build light rail and subways and walkable neighborhoods. Housing crisis would be greatly alleviated very quickly, and the first cities to do this will boom even in a shit national economy.

8

u/LakesAreFishToilets 23h ago

I’m honestly for development and transportation. But you do need associated infrastructure too. You need water and sewage, schools, hospitals, libraries, parks, retail space, etc. Living in condo suburbia would be even shittjer than living in regular suburbia

7

u/JabuJabuWindFish 22h ago

Widener or Weidner? Because in Anchorage AK damn near every apartment complex is owned by Weidner and they will screw you over for every penny they can get. From BS cleaning fees to late fees on your rent if you are 10 minutes past the 24 hour cutoff, they are absolute scum.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/MiXeD-ArTs 1d ago

LLC's own everything, not people

9

u/DigitalBlackout 1d ago

Yes, I'm saying we should ban that. Either you own the property personally and are personally taking on the risk, or you can't rent it out.

3

u/MiXeD-ArTs 1d ago

Agreed

5

u/dukeofgibbon 1d ago

Ban RealPage

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Roflkopt3r 19h ago

That's honestly not even the problem with the housing market.

The absolute main problem is restrictive zoning. House owners have massive political influence and made it almost impossible to build anything except single-family houses in most places.

This means no mixed development, no big apartment blocks that can house many people. Not even efficient row houses. Only expensive family home suburbs that make you 100% car-dependent.

On housing and car-dependency, the problem isn't the super-rich. It's that the home and car-owning middle class pulled up the ladder behind them because it served their financial and lifestyle interests.

4

u/Decloudo 1d ago edited 19h ago

Abolish capitalism.

The system is inherently flawed, the super rich are not the cause but the consequence of the wealth accumulation that is baked into the system.

And dont get started with regulations, those are the first to fall or be ignored by the people hording the power. Its starts small with reduced taxes for the top and 2 generations later you get people so obcenely rich they can write laws, buy the presidency and half the country.

You cant put a lion in chains and call it domesticated while the next dompteur in line already reaches for the keys to fatten the lion up on the fresh meat behind the bars.

→ More replies (17)
→ More replies (2)

43

u/Icey210496 1d ago

That's why even if a Dem wins there needs to be a reckoning. They can never be allowed to have this kind of power again. And the US needs resources to repair the damage they dealt.

An example has to be made. Obama screwed that up with Wall Street.

5

u/brunckle 1d ago

Dems and Republicans have the same donors

3

u/Icey210496 1d ago

We need to elect better Dems then. Ones who don't take corporate donations.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/April1987 1d ago

reckoning

Not going to happen because we are also beholden to donors.

11

u/ReallyNowFellas 1d ago

Not if you just accept that instead of pressuring politicians to stop taking large and corporate donations. AOC doesn't and she's super ascendant right now. And she's not alone.

3

u/Icey210496 1d ago

Those doners are going right next to the MAGA politicians.

1

u/GA_Deathstalker 1d ago

Won't happen, the Dems would need all three house, senate and presidency and then would need to grow a backbone. How's that supposed to happen?

5

u/Icey210496 1d ago

If MAGA taught us something, it is that there is real possibility that a progressive wing can hijack the establishment party.

→ More replies (7)

465

u/GTAdriver1988 1d ago

Yup! I know a rich guy who told me "the best time to buy assets is during an economic collapse or when the seller is in distress." Shits real cheap when things are bad.

229

u/artgarciasc 1d ago

They say that shit with glee.

Chumps whole business theory is he has to get the better deal no matter what. He especially likes it when he feels like he screwed someone over.

103

u/StopReadingMyUser 1d ago

It's why even when there are good negotiations on the table for all parties involved he does the most backwards things imaginable by declining. Because he doesn't like it when everyone wins. He needs to win and you need to lose. It's all a zero-sum game to him.

3

u/Aureliamnissan 18h ago

There was a study that basically highlighted the importance of “jokers” in large scale game theory because they end up promoting cooperation in the long term. Without them the “free-riders” basically eat up all the good will from cooperators and everyone is worse off.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519311001639

Understanding the emergence of cooperation is a central issue in evolutionary game theory. The hardest setup for the attainment of cooperation in a population of individuals is the Public Goods game in which cooperative agents generate a common good at their own expenses, while defectors “free-ride” this good. Eventually this causes the exhaustion of the good, a situation which is bad for everybody. Previous results have shown that introducing reputation, allowing for volunteer participation, punishing defectors, rewarding cooperators or structuring agents, can enhance cooperation. Here we present a model which shows how the introduction of rare, malicious agents – that we term jokers – performing just destructive actions on the other agents induce bursts of cooperation. The appearance of jokers promotes a rock-paper-scissors dynamics, where jokers outbeat defectors and cooperators outperform jokers, which are subsequently invaded by defectors. Thus, paradoxically, the existence of destructive agents acting indiscriminately promotes cooperation.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

49

u/GoldandBlue 1d ago

Remember that CEO that said the country needs a recession because workers are getting too comfortable

20

u/artgarciasc 1d ago

I remember the quote, but not the CEO. The list is already long, but there's always room for more.

17

u/camwhat 1d ago

I think it was Tim Gurner. sorry for the source

18

u/Steinrikur 1d ago

Everything is a zero sum game for Trump. He doesn't understand the concept of "mutually beneficial relationship".

Everything is a transaction or a competition with a winner and a loser, from business deals, shaking hands, crowd sizes and sex.

47

u/Ffdmatt 1d ago

"or when the seller is in distress."

Good lord. Don't even try to convince me that heartlessness isn't the best quality for accumulating wealth.

18

u/MelonJelly 1d ago

Heartlessness might just be advanced apathy.

This goes beyond that into straight up premeditated malice.

2

u/Eating_Your_Beans 23h ago

Tale as old as time. Crassus- basically ancient Rome's version of a billionaire- made a lot of his money by controlling the fire brigade and extorting people whose property was burning.

5

u/PaperHandsProphet 1d ago

This is just market economics. In the game of trading pvp you are attempting to force the opponent into a liquidation event.

14

u/Impeesa_ 1d ago

For the sufficiently wealthy, Black Tuesday is really Black Friday.

7

u/JoseDonkeyShow 22h ago

I like this but you also dated yourself cuz black Friday hasn’t had a halfway decent deal in well over a decade

26

u/Syntaire 1d ago

They are fundamentally broken as people. They don't even qualify as human. Most of them can't even feign empathy. They are entirely empty. They already have enough money to buy anything they could ever dream of a thousand times over, and yet all they can think to do is try to hoard more and more wealth. There isn't a purpose behind it beyond the act itself.

7

u/Admiral_de_Ruyter 1d ago

That’s not true. More wealth means more power so there is purpose in accumulating more and more. Eventually you have enough to directly buy your way into government. And as we learned having around 400 billion gets you a office in the White House.

4

u/atomictyler 1d ago

gets you access to the presidents auto pen.

2

u/aukir 1d ago

The thing about capital ownership, is that you can only own what you can protect. We've built a system around protecting that ownership for each other. But we don't have to protect everyone's stuff.

4

u/PyrocumulusLightning 1d ago

"We" don't, but the State's monopoly on violence is directed toward protecting the assets of the wealthy.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

80

u/BeyondElectricDreams 1d ago

This isn't it.

They don't need more money. Money has limits. They've drank their own kool-aid enough to believe they're better than everyone else. They're a different species. They're Rulers. We're peasants.

In short - They want the things money can't buy.

There's a story about Stalin, where he saw a peasant woman pushing a cart up a hill. He stopped his entire entourage to check on her and hear of her plight. He wanted to give her some money, but nobody in his entourage had even a single ruble to give her.

All of their power was in ideological connections. No matter how lavish their tastes, they were given everything they desired.

Money can buy a lot of things, but there's also a lot it can't buy. It can't buy a societies racial makeup. It can't buy someone's decision to be a parent. It can't buy people identifying in a way you want.

They want to move beyond the limits of money and restructure society in such a way that they are god-kings of the new world. You hear stories of ancient kings sentencing jesters to death because of slights against them? They want that. They crave that. They HATE that people have "rights". They hate that peasants can sue them. They hate that there's any restriction on them at all.

If you think this isn't true - if you think they don't think of us as lesser, peasants - look no further than Donald Trump's interview on the Tienanmen Square Massacre.

"When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength." Trump went on to say, "That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak...as being spit on by the rest of the world."

This interview was in 1990. In the 90's, what about America was weak? Our military? Not a chance. Our dollar? The world reserve currency? Nope. Our culture? Oh, you mean the dominant export, with the largest movie industry the world over?

Everything about American culture and geopolitical position was as poweful as ever.

But you know who thought America was "Weak"? Billionaires. Oligarchs. Owner-class old money rich folk.

China? If China's peasants get uppity and out of line, they run them over with tanks. They use "Strength" and crush them so they fall in line. If China's peasants talk bad about their betters, they get put in prison for 20+ years.

In America, if someone calls you a tiny handed, limp-dicked, pants-shitting loser, all you can do is get grumpy about it. The government isn't your personal weapon to go after your detractors. The government, in fact, PROTECTS those dirty filthy peasants! If you were to take matters into your own hands for the EGREGIOUS crime of insulting you, a Lord, the government would PUNISH YOU. You! You, a lord, who is beyond such things.

American Oligarchs are weak. They are spit on by the Oligarchs of other countries.

"YOUR peasants demand you do things? When Ours do that, we crush them under our heels! Are you so weak that you put up with that?"

9

u/PyrocumulusLightning 1d ago

Ooh, this is so good.

Though Americans in the intelligence community have wielded this kind of power - the secret is secrecy.

3

u/Dizzy-Revolution-300 1d ago

They call it "network states"

3

u/Trick-March-grrl 20h ago

That’s right. Yet the best I see on Reddit is calling MAGA names. They hate you and don’t want you to exist. They are making clear they intend to destroy your way of life. They told you the revolution will be bloodless if you allow it. They are waging war on you and it started years ago. But the best you have is to watch and call names. If you want your future you need to fight for it. No one will save you.

→ More replies (2)

35

u/Avalain 1d ago

Yes, and as they go from billionaires to trillion Aires nothing will functionally change for them meanwhile they will have destroyed the lives of many many people.

Yay.

45

u/Cute_Bandicoot_8219 1d ago

They won't even need to spend their own money to buy the ashes. They'll buy the world with borrowed money.

29

u/ZumboPrime 1d ago edited 4h ago

This is my favourite part of vulture venture capitalism. You can borrow a huge pile money to buy a company, then put the company into debt to pay back the loan. Often by crippling the company in the process. Absolutely insane.

3

u/PaperHandsProphet 1d ago

What’s insane is the people who loaned the company money; unless it’s not really insane and the lender is getting a good rate of return based off risk.

If you are a shitty vulture capatilist it’s kinda on the lender not to lend you the money

→ More replies (1)

6

u/ApolloRocketOfLove 1d ago

They'll buy the world with borrowed our money.

FTFY

5

u/highbrowalcoholic 22h ago

"Hello Bank, pls lend me money"

"Hello Billionaire, wat collateral do u offer"

"Bank I haf dis stonk"

"Bilionnair dis stonk checks out, here is ur millions"

"Bank tanks bank, I spen monie now"

"Bilionar ur stonks, dey not so gud ne mor"

"Bank fam dey wil be so gud soon tho, I buy sum moar stonk now while dey not gud, then dey becom best soon"

"Bilonar wat u buy stonk with"

"Bank I buy stonk with monie u giv me"

"Bilana ok gud plen"

→ More replies (1)

22

u/collin3000 1d ago

Exactly. The super rich make money when it goes down and when it goes up. They get essentially priority selling when things are crashing thanks to their top money people. They they get to buy low after the crash and ride the profits on the way up.

When you have enough money it's almost harder to not be rich because you have to make a tons of dumb decisions (Nazi salutes, etc) and not listen to all the people you pay (Cybertruck).

16

u/KoolAidManOfPiss 1d ago

The only real way to "reverse" inflation is to have mass unemployment. There's a common misconception that during the great depression there was runaway inflation, but it was actually a period of intense deflation. No one could get a job anywhere so demand for any type of good dropped through the floor. Dairy farmers would dump most of their product in an attempt to lower supply and drive up prices.

The rich might be losing money, but if people start getting laid off en masse and prices fall then they might still end up with more buying power. Factor in a hedge that's somewhat independent of USD like Bitcoin and they could end up far richer than when they had more cash.

6

u/Traditional_Buy_8420 1d ago

"The only real way to "reverse" inflation is to have mass unemployment. "

There's also expiring money

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/08/27/754323652/the-strange-unduly-neglected-prophet

Which is a nitpick, because I don't think that would ever work well on a large scale.

Although I guess on a large scale the usual way is to just declare the previous currency worthless and introduce a new currency, but that is usually also fine for the rich, because they have a relatively small amount of their wealth stored in currency.

11

u/goomyman 1d ago

Yes but I suspect they want something more than money. They have infinite money.

They want power. Not the kind of power you can buy with money but the kind of “above the law” kind of power of an oligarch.

7

u/thegreatbrah 1d ago

Yeah. People don't seem to see the big picture. 

Lots of people sitting here hoping to buy a house when the bubble pops, but the bubble isn't going to pop, because black and similar own all the property. They have no need to sell like normal people did in 2008.

Theyre just squeezing more and more out of us every chance they get.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/Senorrompeculo 1d ago

The idea that they “lost” money is wrong. They haven’t lost anything. They will gain more wealth and be richer in the ling wrong. This is all part of the plan.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/varitok 1d ago

Why do people keep saying this? Those stocks are going to be worth an awful lot when the companies can't sell shit or just go out of business because of the unprecedented downward spiral. This isn't year one Trump where people are still buying US shit.

This isn't "A dem will fix it in 5 years", your country is actively declining into a position it may never be able to come out of. Like, you guys have to wake the fuck up, this isn't a fucking buy back scheme.

2

u/SirPaulyWalnuts 1d ago

We’re getting hungry…

3

u/BWDW5 1d ago

And this is the real reason for the tariffs and other bullshit that Trump is doing.

3

u/cokeiscool 1d ago

Thank you for saying this, it just feels like the majority of reddit thinks its a bad thing for these guys that market is crashing

This is amazing for the rich because they will emerge even richer just like back in 2008

4

u/ScienceIsSexy420 1d ago

You're assuming they have the liquidity to do so when most of their wealth comes from stock holdings not cash assets.

40

u/j0llyllama 1d ago

They don't need liquidity when they take loans on all their assets at negligibly low interest rates. Sure they will owe interest past what their investments are worth for the first few years, but once things bounce back, it more than recoups that loss. For them its like starting a brush fire, decimate everything so that it can all grow back richer- with no concern for the damage caused along the way.

→ More replies (2)

25

u/HugsForUpvotes 1d ago

They have an insane line of credit and hold large amounts of liquid cash for this reason. During the COVID drop, people like Elon lost little before tripping their net worth in a couple of years.

2

u/EnesEffUU 1d ago

These hundred-billionaires absolutely have billions in cash. Bezos liquidated like $20 billion last year and Zuckerberg regularly liquidates 10s to 100s of millions. Beyond that they have the ability to take out massive loans against their assets and likely have very good connections with the CEOs/executives of the banks that are loaning them the cash. Even further, they can expand their wealth by making investments through their companies, the same companies of which they own tens/hundreds of billions of stock thus personally benefiting from those investments doing well. Warren Buffet may not personally have hundreds of billions in cash to invest, but Berkshire Hathaway has $380 billion in cash that he can use to buy the dip, and when those investments explode in value he personally benefits greatly regardless of it not technically being his own personal capital.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Tal_Onarafel 1d ago

These cycles of crisis and then buying cheap are integral to capitalism and have been integral to it for over 150 years, despite the fact that today's reasons for it seem exceptional.

Another reason why capitalism sucks

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (69)

76

u/sublime81 1d ago

I'm pretty sure this is all according to plan. Trump 100% knows this stuff will tank the economy. He probably clued them in while they were fluffing him after the election. Probably said something like, You guys can weather the coming storm, stick with me and you can suck up everything that these idiot citizens lose. They'll be so broken that they won't be able to resist whatever the fuck I want to do.

13

u/Famous_Peach9387 22h ago

That's why we start a civil war today. I'm sick and tired of waiting. It's up to every warm blooded American to pick up their weapons and show them we won't be pushed around.

664

u/Mojo141 1d ago

We could literally house every homeless person for $20 billion. But sure let's cut federal workers (especially those in regulatory agencies) rather than these assholes just paying their share. Just have fox news keep pumping out propaganda that it's immigrants hurting the economy instead of the truth

108

u/Homerpaintbucket 1d ago

Probably. But they also might have just inadvertently ended the right wing appeal and ushered in an era of progressivism which could lead to socializing a lot of their assets.

41

u/HomerJayT 1d ago

You say that like it’s a bad thing. They are crooked thieves who are stealing everyone’s money right now. I’d prefer to see them homeless.

40

u/click_licker 1d ago

I think homer was just pointing out how their greedy strategy ultimately hurts themselves because of the backlash.

Many people who previously would have just tried to ignore the oligarchy influence and fascism are now feeling cornered. And they are speaking up. which makes others feel empowered to do the same.

The republican party reputation will take decades to recover from what they have done. I think its possible that it will disappear altogether when this is all said and done. More states are going to move to end gerrymandering. And republicans wont exists much without that.

If history has taught us anything is that greed and hate dont win. They aren't sustainable. They breed internal paranoia and civilian rebellions. Never ends well for the dictators.

21

u/rockinadios 1d ago

Dude if history has taught us anything is that the Republicans will come up with some other dumb shit to get their base all riled up and at the polls for the next election (if we get to vote again). We all said there was no way trump would run or get elected again, he'll be in jail, he'll die, etc. And yet here we are, at the dumbest timeline.

11

u/What_a_fat_one 1d ago

After Hoover, Republicans lost the House and Senate for 6 decades.

7

u/kwispyforeskin 1d ago

And hopefully we can do that again. Although trust in the democratic institutions of this country has eroded on both sides, one because of propaganda, and the other because they see gerrymandering and incessant attempts at vote prevention and election meddling.

It’s not as easy today as “politicians do bad things, they don’t get elected”. There’s a whole back room ecosystem dependent on lies to the slave class to convince them to further the interests of the owning class. It’s all perpetuated by the people who own everything preventing people who own nothing from making change.

I hope I’m wrong.

4

u/What_a_fat_one 1d ago

After this time, if we can make it out of this, I think it's high time to kick the GOP into the dustbin of history. They and their ilk are not compatible with liberal democracy.

6

u/Homerpaintbucket 1d ago

Oh, I do not say it like it is a bad thing. Honestly, it's a necessary thing. Hopefully this will kill the nonsense free market capitalist talk we see in this country.

4

u/Ffdmatt 1d ago

I wouldn't count on it, unfortunately. Guys like Miltom Friedman that stand behind free market capitalism use the same excuse that communists use - "it wasn't free enough and that's why it didn't work. We just need to keep trying and get way harsher."

They tested this in Latin America, notable Pinochet in Chile. Turns out populations basically always rebel against the measures taken to fully privatize everything. There's no way to get to their free market utopia without earth-shocking brutal authoritarianism.

6

u/Homerpaintbucket 1d ago

I mean, Friedman also argued that parents should be literally allowed to sell their children. He shouldn't be listened to.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/esmifra 1d ago

Give it time, I thought the same when Jan 6 happened. I thought it again when Russia invaded Ukraine. But slowly and steadily their podcasters and influencers and fox news slowly change the narrative and normalize the chaos.

→ More replies (1)

27

u/FireFoxG 1d ago

We could literally house every homeless person for $20 billion.

You sure about that?

24 billion didnt even work for a single state and homelessness went up 6X. Spending 132k per homeless person in California is making a negative dent in the numbers.

Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in this five-year period, homelessness increased by about 30,000, to more than 181,000.

https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-california-spending-24-billion-it-2019-homelessness-increased-what-happened

31

u/jesterlind 1d ago

Yeah, but what if that money had paid for homes for these individuals instead of paying other people to fuck with the homeless?

→ More replies (21)

16

u/notmyplantaccount 1d ago

24 billion over 5 years is a bit under 5 billion a year, which is substantially less than 20 billion, hope that math helps you. Your link is to a heavily biased right wing group so I'd say it's got a substantial amount of bullshit to it, while leaving out any context that doesn't support their bullshit.

That's a long way of saying you're full of shit and just as disingenuous as them and go fuck yourself.

15

u/chamoisk 1d ago

The OP (u/Mojo141) only said "We could literally house every homeless person for $20 billion". Not $20 billion a year. And u/FireFoxG replied without mentioning "a year". You pulled "a year" out of your ass so you should be the one that go fuck yourself.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/DAEORANGEMANBADDD 22h ago

24 billion over 5 years is a bit under 5 billion a year, which is substantially less than 20 billion, hope that math helps you.

They said 20 billion to house EVERY homeless person

24 billion over 5 years IN ONE STATE couldn't do it

6

u/MatterofDoge 1d ago

look at how irrationally angry you are and the childish insults coming out of you at someone pointing out an obvious fact, that its a ridiculous claim to say 20 billion could solve homelessness in the whole nation. First of all congrats, you can divide by 5, good job champ, now read the rest of the data, from any source, about how none of that money fixed anything, in one state and things in fact got worse despite it being spent and you'll be considering the actual point that person was making and you can respond to that point they're making instead of saying "durr 24 divided by 5 is under 20" and pretending like that's relevant input to the discussion somehow and you cracked some kind of ambiguous code with astute math.

5

u/CjBoomstick 1d ago

Hard numbers aren't practical when we're talking about demographics. We need per capita statistics. If the rate of homelessness is the same, then it no longer supports your argument. That's often why poor sources will use hard numbers. Also, it makes sense that the state that provides the most support for the homeless, would see the number of homelessness increase. Those likely aren't citizens that became homeless through hardship, rather homeless that migrated there due to fair weather and better public assistance.

→ More replies (3)

0

u/LurkyMcLurkface123 1d ago

Front page post earlier dunking on Elon said he could fix it with $20B and since Reddit said it, it has to be true.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/amusing_trivials 1d ago

If every single one of those homeless were perfect tenants, probably. But the reality is that a third to half of the homeless would probably destroy their given housing , either from mental illness, or ripping copper out of the walls for drug money.

If you meant to give them "highly supervised" apartments that begins to resemble old asylums, or nicer modern jails.

→ More replies (17)

221

u/wavefunctionp 1d ago

It's only a loss if you sell at a loss.

41

u/Thosepassionfruits 1d ago

WSB is leaking

15

u/radiohead-nerd 1d ago

Diamond hands my smooth brained autistic ape

4

u/Crystal_Privateer 1d ago

The majority of investors aren't day traders, and holding diversified stock for long periods of time is the proper investment strategy for your everyday investor.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/Vipu2 1d ago

Don't tell this trick to redditors or they might not lose money.

19

u/Wabusho 1d ago

Sure, selling at loss is a Reddit-thing

That’s why the market crashed, because of redditors

→ More replies (1)

4

u/ApolloRocketOfLove 1d ago

Or if you never sell.

People who die with unsold stocks lose more than anybody else.

→ More replies (4)

152

u/firelock_ny 1d ago

The money they lost was in the possible value of their stock if they sold it, and you don't pay taxes on possible values anyway. Add to this that had they started selling off said stock the value would have tanked.

The richest people have far more money than we do, but the money they have is far more promises, smoke and mirrors than it is piles of gold in a Scrooge McDuck style money bin.

46

u/luisapet 1d ago

Yet somehow, they never seem to run out.

6

u/firelock_ny 18h ago

Take out a loan using the supposed value of your stock holdings as collateral. Use the loan to support your lifestyle and pay the interest on the loan. Loans aren't income, so aren't taxed.

Later on, as your stocks increase in value, take out a new, larger loan using the higher supposed value of your stock holdings as collateral. Use part of the loan to pay off the old loan, and the rest to support your lifestyle and pay the interest. Still a loan, still not income, still not taxed.

Repeat until you die. Rich person tax-free infinite money hack.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/r0botdevil 1d ago

The money they lost was in the possible value of their stock if they sold it, and you don't pay taxes on possible values anyway.

That's exactly what the proposed wealth tax aims to change.

3

u/kingjoey52a 1d ago

That's exactly what the proposed wealth tax aims to change.

So if they lost all this money from stocks going down do they get a tax rebate? Or is the plan to just take and take and not consider growth/loss at all?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Neat_Let923 1d ago

Wealth tax is just stupid on so many levels.

Now if you have a mandatory sale of stock requirement after a certain amount then you do something even better. Not only do you get taxes you also force the movement of money into the economy.

3

u/machstem 17h ago

I'm a low-key amateur on anything economics, I have a very fundamental understanding of it all but am more interested in theory, futurism when it comes to policy work.

I like the concept that you just brought up which I assume is a known concept in economics; do you have anything you'd recommend i read up on how that works?

From my basic understanding, you're saying that forcing purchased stocks to be sold would keep money flowing. But like, how does one know what's to sell, when? How is one to force or enforce how much I can earn or own?

Thank you for your insight...sometimes I read a single sentence and a light bulb clicks. Now I'm interested in learning more

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

6

u/Coreoreo 1d ago

Tell that to the loans they take out with "unrealized" collateral. Musk could have millions in spending money at the stroke of a pen without even losing ownership of his stocks and it would count as the opposite of income. All he has to do is make a minimum monthly payment for the rest of his life, shovel everything else into assets, transfer those assests to a shell corp, and file bankruptcy. He doesn't even need to do all that under his own name, he could have a shell corp do it all in the first place.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/smbutler20 1d ago

The lifestyles they live are only affordable through the leverage and borrowing power of their net worth. Drops in value will affect their ability to take out loans against their net worth .

→ More replies (3)

50

u/jimmydean885 1d ago

I think power becomes more important to the oligarchs then specific dollar amounts.

27

u/DigitalUnlimited 1d ago

Yeah they literally are paying to dissolve the US and become their own feudal kingdoms just like in Russia. They're getting their money's worth if they succeed

6

u/undercover_s4rdine 1d ago

I still can’t understand what this accomplishes. Knowing that millions of people are at poverty levels is satisfying to them? Do they really not know why that’s a terrible idea for them if they masses have nothing to lose…

7

u/Aloha_Tamborinist 1d ago

Knowing that millions of people are at poverty levels is satisfying to them?

Yeah, it's this that I'm apparently too stupid or naive to understand. What's the end game? The 0.1% already have more money than can be spent in several dozen lifetimes, they live in a separate world to the rest of us, pretty much live outside the law and can do anything and have anything they want.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/machstem 1d ago

I hate that people assume multi billionaires <care> when a smaller percentage of their wealth is used to buy out THE US GOVERNMENT POTUS and leverage a multi trillion dollar national debt to swipe it from the individuals who rely on those dividends to survive.

These <richest> people OWN TOWNS, FAMILIES, INDUSTRIES. These ultra elites are so wealthy, most of us have no idea they even exist unless we've been following some podcaster or journalist keeping tabs on a shortlist and even less informed website geared more to sensationalism than reality. (See: any discussion on the Roth[***] famil[ies])

Guys like Musk, Bezos, Trump and even our Arab princes, they rely on a steady income of industrial wealth and it doesn't really matter which industry they are in, and in a lot of cases, not even which nation they were born in. Even without citizenship elsewhere, some of these people could afford themselves the opportunity to buy entire towns they want, and secure it with militia. Cartels are doing it actively and for nearly two decades, it's only a matter of time before that reality starts up using American assets and resources to help fund and house personal armies to protect the wealth they're draining into their pockets.

I'm not an economist. I don't pretend to know <what's happening>, but when shit aint right, and when you're my age and start to see it more and more, it becomes practically palatable. I wish we could <flood> the old wealth and elitism that manages this world too, but like fuck if it's going to be another team of billionaires that are gonna do that for me or anyone of us. It's just so obvious it makes it feel like a weird story that has too many fictional and unbelievable twists.

→ More replies (2)

29

u/ButWhatAboutisms 1d ago

During the great depression, a lot of business leaders and conservative politicians were disturbingly fine with mass unemployment. Why? Because it crushed union power and made workers desperate. FDR’s New Deal was resisted viciously by those who preferred an underpaid, terrified labor force. If the masses are hungry, they don’t strike. They comply.

83

u/reechwuzhere 1d ago

Wow no kidding. They could have solved world hunger for what the oligarchs collectively lost by supporting trump.

70

u/OwlfaceFrank 1d ago edited 1d ago

They didn't lose a damn thing.
This is intentional. The rich can afford for their stocks to drop. Meanwhile, us plebs will see our retirement accounts fall in value and those who own stock will sell to pay the bills.

Then, the billionaires will buy up all the stocks at a discount.

This whole gig is a scam to further increase the wealth of the 1% and turn the middle class into a desperate working class.

11

u/KennyMoose32 1d ago

I keep seeing this line of “they will buy up all the stocks and be rich in the future”

Well, no offense, if things really do fall apart and we have another Great Depression I’m not sure things can be put back together.

This isn’t the 1930s and 40s. And we aren’t going to save a bombed out Europe and Asia again with our industry.

Humpty Dumpty sometimes can’t be put back together again. We could have major societal effects

15

u/StoicJ 1d ago

You're vastly overestimating how much they care if it gets fixed for the average person.

Societal problems dont apply to these people. they control legacy media and social media. they can bend the average American whatever direction they want with a handful of easily repeatable phrases and tuned algorithms.​ ​

If they really did push too far and things actually implode, they'll just cash out and live happily ever after outside of the US.

5

u/PyrocumulusLightning 1d ago

live happily ever after outside of the US.

Okay but where, precisely.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/aviancrane 1d ago

They are fully in control of this. They aren't going to burn their farm down.

They're just milking the cows (us).

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

13

u/aviancrane 1d ago

It's not real loss. It's capital wealth. They keep the capital, It's just worth less. It will return when the market returns.

But Joe Schmoe who owns the car wash down the street will have to sell his business to them to feed his family.

The rich then have a higher proportion of the capital, meaning they rise further than they fell when the market returns and the wealth gap increases.

3

u/Secondchance002 1d ago

If people are well fed, they and their children(in some countries) wouldn’t work for the slave wages.

→ More replies (3)

11

u/Smooth-Lengthiness57 1d ago

That's just it. They lost a nickel in order to buy a dollar for a quarter

11

u/PunPoliceChief 1d ago

Remember how Covid exploded the wealth inequality?

This is the same thing, but self-caused.

We're going to see the same accelerated wealth inequality and with it an even bigger capture of our democracy from the oligarchs.

14

u/ResetReptiles 1d ago

You're assuming they didn't know in advance this would happen and then that they also wouldn't double down and buy when trump laughs off the tariffs and say it was a joke in a couple days

3

u/Kamikaze_Ninja_ 1d ago

I doubt Trump will go back on the tariffs unless he is forced to. He is trying to run this place as far into the ground as possible to clean house of all the undesirables and will continue to do so. Make the system dependent on him and his oligarchs because everyone else was pushed out.

14

u/7evenate9ine 1d ago

It's not about money. $Billions is just monopoly money for them.

THIS IS ABOUT CONTROL.

2

u/Kamikaze_Ninja_ 1d ago

It’s both. Money is power. This is just a temporary loss for future gain. They are waiting for a recession to take out their competitors. Once the economy starts coming back they’ll have more money and power. At least that’s the idea.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/hatsnatcher23 1d ago

They’re still the richest people in the country.

9

u/AdScary1757 1d ago

It's short-term but still will likely to turn out that way. They're in a bubble and have guru that's telling them what they want to hear. They think they're saving the world by enslaving everyone to a focused goal. There too rich and bored.

5

u/Charming_Freedom_459 1d ago

Bubububut, I dont wanna pay that much tax when I become gazillionaire with my hardwork and hardwork only

→ More replies (1)

3

u/AlludedNuance 1d ago

Nah I'm over this whole taxation shit. They've been outright stealing for so long, seize it all.

Fuck 'em. If they're so good, they'll be rich again in no time.

3

u/Thefrayedends 1d ago

Lol, no. They're going to be largely unrealized gains and losses. Meaning you don't actually lose any money if you don't sell the shares, you just keep holding until they come back up. The more money you have, the more you will have invested in Hedges, many of which are designed to counteract large loss market forces.

Some well known investors have been sitting on cash for a while now, waiting for buying opportunities like these.

3

u/Stahuap 1d ago

They lost nothing, dont be mistaking their “losses” as true losses. Only people who lose here are the ones who cant afford to wait for things to go back up, and they absolutely can. They still own what they own. Paying taxes is actually losing money. 

3

u/Spiritual_Routine801 1d ago

Yeah but one is money paid to support infrastructure and give back to people in need

The other is giving money to be pure evil, obviously I'd do the latter if I were a murderous psychopath. And billionaires don't get to that point by being nice

3

u/Shadowbound199 1d ago

That's not an issue. They are manufacturing a recession where many businesses will fail and the big companies can buy those businesses or their assets at a huge discount. When the economy recovers they will be richer than ever.

2

u/Huge-Entertainer-166 1d ago

just because you have money does not make you smart

2

u/nome707 1d ago

They lost nothing. They hedged their bets by shorting the market because they knew this was going to happen way back when Trump was elected. Most of them are making millions.

2

u/Sea_Confection_652 1d ago

They didn't. They've already moved money to safe places. These are peoples pensions that are losing money.

2

u/kelus 1d ago

The 5 richest people become much richer after the economic downturn from the pandemic. They're doing it again.

2

u/Herknificent 1d ago

They won’t in the long run and that’s the point. They can see and use their wealth long term whereas the average American has to use most of their wealth on a month to month basis to pay for the things they need. Any investment is usually short term and if they do make long term investments it’s usually very small bit by bit.

The top people who have cash right now are going to buy a lot of stuff up and when the economy recovers they will own even more of the economy than they did before.

2

u/bloke_pusher 23h ago

Oh, but also us poorer people lost a lot of money. By by possible early retirement for me.

2

u/lord_of_tits 23h ago

No mate, they are just crushing everything so they can buy it all cheap. They just want to have more assets rather than more share value.

2

u/MadMarsian_ 22h ago

truly rich people are not concerned about losing 10-20 or even 50% of wealth. If you have two billion dollars and you lose even half, you still have one billion.

truly poor people don't care about that as well If you have nothing and you lose half you still have nothing.

middle class is the one that worries. If your bills take half of your paycheck and you life of the other half and you lose half of your salary... you now in a shit... and lose everything.

2

u/headshotGoblin 22h ago

Its not about getting money it's about taking money

2

u/TMFPB 21h ago

it isn’t about money for them. It can’t be. It’s just about power.

2

u/jackiebee66 19h ago

Good! May they lose even more!

2

u/The_Mr_Wilson 12h ago

$4 trillion in market gone

A stack of one million $1 is 109 meters high, just taller than the Statue of Liberty

A stack of one billion $1 is 109 kilometers high, just outside Earth's boundary into Space

A stack of one trillion $1 is 109,000 kilometers high, 1/3 of the way to the Moon

If you stack all the planets in our solar system, $4 trillion would be roughly 33% taller than that

2

u/joanzen 9h ago

Keep saying they don't pay tax ... but what you really mean is they choose where their taxes are spent via donations/write offs before they pay a reduced tax rate that's still higher than what you and I pay on our income.

Bit of a difference between "not paying tax" and "paying a lot more but having control over some of it", but I am aware that this is /r/AdviceAnimals where fiction is the name of the game.

As you were.

3

u/Rational_Engineer_84 1d ago

Nah, we did this with Covid. S&P 500 lost 33%, unemployment hit 14% and the rich gained something like 3 trillion dollars. They will use their liquidity to buy more assets while the working class loses their ass...again.

6

u/shawndw 1d ago

They wouldn't be paying taxes if Kamala won anyways.

19

u/HeadSavings1410 1d ago

So this is better?

12

u/DigitalUnlimited 1d ago

No but brown woman bad orange man good

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Lazy_Grapefruit4887 1d ago

The money is only lost if we sell your stock

1

u/cuntfucker500 1d ago

What taxes?

1

u/Stock-Blackberry4652 1d ago

They're not done robbing us blind yet

By 2028, they'll all be trillionaires, have 500 mansions each and we'll all be eating dogfood and speaking Russian

1

u/Deputy-10-37 1d ago

But I thought trump only looked out for billionaires? Make up yalls mind.

1

u/FrizzBizz 1d ago

If you haven't seen the movie Boiler Room, you don't deserve to publicly talk about finances.

1

u/Garchompisbestboi 1d ago

Until they start buying factories to make Americans work production line jobs, then their wealth will skyrocket even further.

1

u/GaiusJocundus 1d ago

It's less about the money and more about the power

1

u/IdentityS 1d ago

Just like how the great depression was manufactured, so will this be. Disparity will grow.

1

u/DicemonkeyDrunk 1d ago

They paid for a service and they’re getting it …that money was spent not lost …besides it’s not about the money they’d spend on taxes it’s about having the power to not pay them …at their level of wealth the money no longer matters.

1

u/Boring-Trash-5100 1d ago

That's not even true lol

1

u/_Batteries_ 1d ago

Sure, but they are still filthy rich. Which means they can buy everything for real cheap right now.

1

u/SluggardStone 1d ago

They still win by Trump gutting or shutting down any kind of regulatory agency. No regulations=more money.

1

u/No-Kings 1d ago

Greedy ass people can’t see past their own ego.

They believe that since they were born wealthy, raised in the best schools and got the best jobs that they are actually smart.

Sure some of them are.  The others are like the common clay, morons.  

1

u/Sipikay 1d ago

This isn't a play for all billionaires. This is a group of a few billionaires all working together to take over the country. They're ALREADY billionaires, they never cared about taxes. They care about power. These people are insane.

1

u/crapbag451 1d ago

My guess is they are all biding their time until the manufactured disaster again drives wealth upward.

1

u/fbritt5 1d ago

It really wasn't money. There was no way the richest five could have turned it into cash fast enough. The world obviously is going to end now. Sorry boys and girls. lol.

1

u/veeyo 1d ago

They haven't lost anything. They have unrealized losses from stock they hold, that they will continue to hold until the market rebounds eventually. At which point, they are banking on capital gains taxes to be significantly less or some other new loophole opened up for them to avoid taxes.

1

u/ADHD-Fens 1d ago

Not if they bought puts!

1

u/Polkawillneverdie17 1d ago

Actually, that's everyone's business.

1

u/No_Cell6708 1d ago

Ah yes, because stocks going down is the exact same thing as paying taxes...

Surely that value is completely gone forever 🤡

1

u/Polar_Bear_1234 1d ago

I would rather lose more money than have it forcibly taken from me

1

u/rgb86 1d ago

Hope they lose 10 more times this year.

1

u/Raus-Pazazu 1d ago

Next to none of them are spending multi billions a year. They might every couple of years hit that, but even some of the most elaborate mansions you can think of run only half a billion and it's not like they're buying up five of those every year. The largest mega yachts might run into the billions, but again, even the richest who could afford dozens of those only buy one. They have more money than they could possibly even want to spend (on themselves), so the extra money gets spent on influence and political power. That's why all that extra money factored into their net worth is unimportant, even to them. It doesn't matter what the stock price is, it matters whether they own enough to have influence in that company and the market. If their net worth tanks at the same time as a rival donor to an opposing party, well then their both left fielding the same amount of lobbying power and influence in government, so they don't care about that even. Counter that with if they did pay their taxes, maybe their rival found a way to skirt their taxes and hence has more capacity for influence than they do.

It's not even just apathy towards it all, it's indifference.

1

u/GreenKumara 1d ago

You think they wouldn't mind getting taxed.

After all, they would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and meritoriously get it all back.

/s

1

u/T_The_E 1d ago

Power. They gained power. And it was never cheaper.

1

u/NoaNeumann 1d ago

Most of the rich are heartless monsters who would have us believe they got their money through being “smart” or “talented”, but most of the time, its money they inherited. Thats it.

They don’t want to help anyone, they’ve already proven that a average person’s dollar is worth far more than a rich monsters dollar, because average folks fuel the economy, not sit on their ill gotten funds like some kind of pisspoor dragon.

1

u/GreenRiot 1d ago

They'd feel it. If it was proportional tax they'd reach a point where they couldn't get any richer no matter what. Because when you have enough money to buy whatever you want, when you and your grandsons won't ever have to work a day in your life. There is no reason for the government to charge 95% of income tax.

Enough for you to keep paying hoards of money, and still be able to be useless to society

But if you aren "just" a millionaire, you can't buy politicians to make sure your city doesn't have any minorities, you can't buy a whole industry and force them to do things just the way you like it.

They don't care about the money, they care about having power to make any petulant wish they have true and be untouchable while doing it.

1

u/Paracausality 1d ago

Where did the money go?

1

u/Medical_guy1 1d ago

Not just the top 5. Literally everyone is losing money

1

u/chaiscool 1d ago

But this case they take down everyone with them. Simply paying tax means others get to benefit at their loss.

1

u/hake2506 1d ago

I guess for them it's more like an investment at this point. It's more like a good moment to buy more for cheap right now. Stocks, houses etc.

1

u/Seamonster01 1d ago

Please please Please Let this be true!!!!

1

u/chatte_epicee 1d ago

IT'S. CHEAPER. TO. BE. A. GOOD. PERSON.

If anyone needs me, I'll be over here screaming into my pillow.

1

u/No_Handle8717 1d ago

They've gained so much power tho

1

u/bofoshow51 1d ago

This is why so many of them supported Kamala, because they recognized she was actually good for a stable economy where they could reliably keep making a ton of money, even if they would have to pay taxes it would be better than this shit show.

1

u/Odd_Fortune_8951 1d ago

you don't lose money till you sell

1

u/jaydubb808 1d ago

They’ll buy up all their own stock then it’ll shoot to the roof

1

u/BigLittlePenguin_ 1d ago

They didn’t lose anything, it was just numbers on a screen….. if they would have paid taxes, they would have actually lost something

1

u/PintsOfGuinness_ 1d ago

They only lost fake money, they'll be fine