So then forcibly nationalize their companies if they won’t share the equity in their companies with the workers who built it. Fuck your stupid argument that defends oligarchs
Comment on It will trickle down any second now
shalafi@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That’s not liquid money though. For each one, the figures mostly represent stock in their own companies which they couldn’t pull out without crashing the value. Musk’s wealth in particular is mostly air. At least the other two have profitable companies that actually function. In any case, much of it’s not real money we could pull out of the bank and spread around. (But we could tax the fucking snot out of them and spread that around!)
But even if they were “only” worth a few 10’s of billions, the real issue is that they own the government. And Zuckerberg and Musk own a monster chunk of our social media, control our opinions.
tl;dr: It’s not real money and the problem is influence, not total wealth.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
shalafi@lemmy.world 6 days ago
This place makes me feel like I’m surrounded by angry teenagers. I merely explained that their wealth isn’t liquid, and that is a cold stone fact. I also explained that the money isn’t the issue in and of itself. The issue is that they can purchase influence enough to run the country.
Lemmy: “BOOTLICKER!”
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
Of course what you said is accurate. But you’re missing the point. The point is that there is a systemic issue wherein a business owner can capture equity and keep it from their workers.
Neolibs hate this because they’re like b-b-but what if I start a small business?? Or what if I finally get that promotion into the c suite?? I need to be able to extract wealth from the peons!!
In a just society there would be Amazon but jeff bezos would be far less wealthy because the average Amazon worker would have a significant amount of shares in the company, since without them the company wouldn’t exist. But instead will live in a society that serves oligarchs and allows the overwhelming majority of those workers to be paid essentially nothing while a small portion of people at the top of the hierarchy not only get reimbursed in exponentially more money, but equity shares as well.
When you point out they can buy influence without addressing the systemic issues it’s like you’re saying “oh hey it’s not like they actually have the money. They just have this influence.” But you don’t connect a to b and it’s like are you fucking dumb? The have that influence because we give it to them. Thus, bootlicker
Saarth@lemmy.world 1 week ago
This is bullshit.
When it comes to measuring their wealth it’s not real money.
But when it comes to calculating GDP and growth and other economic metrics these are still included. Make up your mind, either equities are real money or GDP is made up nonsense.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
This is not entirely correct.
As in: it’s technically correct, but practically they just use their equity as leverage for loans, turning them into cash without actually touching them. Oh, and since they took on debt, now they get to report that as a loss and get tax breaks. They can pay off the interest from whatever actual money they’re earning.
Saarth@lemmy.world 1 week ago
This is exactly my point, their equities act very similarly to our real money/assets. There is nothing unrealised about it
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’m not sure what you mean here. GDP is total money spent and as such would not include equity.
Tho GDP is real, or at least as any metric and proxy we use for measurement.
This bit is kinda true. Its not money until its sold. I would include being leverage into a loan to count similarly and should be taxed as capital gain (this is a current loophole)
Saarth@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Is the money earned by hedge funds and investment banks part of the GDP calculations or not ?
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 1 week ago
No, but the things he buys with said loans will.
The standard understanding of how GDP is calculated is:
GDP = Consumption © + Investment (I) + Government Spending (G) + Net Exports (NX).The investment must be spent that year and most of the net worth that is being discussed here was accumulated over previous years. Said net worth is not real money until it is sold (or tax side stepped with loans on assets). To be a bit more clear this is money spent by investors on securities and such that is counted; not the revenue of the brokers.
I think in your wanting to make capitalism immoral, which it is, you are holding a private definition of these things. It is also confusing as these definitions can be somewhat similar to each other and used interchangeably (like mass and wight, have you ever said something weighs 10kgs?).