Comments
ChickenEnthusiast OP t1_j2cno8s wrote
Thanks. But speaking a bit more philosophically, do we non-millionaires and -billionaires gain anything when the super rich lose great deals of "on paper" money?
azuth89 t1_j2cp7n8 wrote
If anything we tend to lose more. They shuffle around on the "richest person" charts while regular folks take a big hit to their 401k. It's all pretend money UNTIL you're an average Joe trying to cash out some stocks to live through retirement. Then that shit gets REAL.
Not-your-lawyer- t1_j2ctget wrote
Not directly, no. Anyone invested in the stock market will lose alongside them, too.
As for whether we "gain" anything indirectly from having less-wealthy wealthy people, that's arguable. And even on the bits that are arguable, it's going to depend on why their wealth decreased and what, if anything, the government does in response.
But again, we don't directly gain anything from having less-wealthy wealthy people. And the hold the wealthy have on political action—"influence," whatever—means the sort of policies that would allow the general population to benefit from their loss are mostly nonstarters.
In the ideal version of capitalist competition, their losses would spur them to redouble their efforts to make their companies competitive, lowering prices, raising quality, hiring workers to improve overall production... etc... But that lowers the dividends their stocks will pay out, and in our current reality, that's also a nonstarter. The goal is to raise the value of the stock, not to build a stable company. (See, e.g., comparisons between Tesla's market cap and the combined market cap of Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, and the next five largest automakers.)
21_MushroomCupcakes t1_j2dbe16 wrote
They keep the gains, we share the losses.
They'll squeal when tax season comes, you and I will pick up the tab on whatever losses they feel entitled to.
When they get rich we get poorer, and when they don't we still get poorer.
Even philosophically, we gain nothing.
kittenbomber t1_j2dnvg8 wrote
All that’s going on is they own something (often a company they created) that has an estimated selling price, but they aren’t selling it so it doesn’t really matter. Their situation doesn’t change much because they weren’t selling it anyway. The comparison to houses was apt.
sudoku7 t1_j2e1o2f wrote
Not really. Those gains and loses haven't been actualized.
In a practical sense for the rich it means that they are less able to take out loans using that 'paper-value' as collateral.
KoastPhire t1_j2cnsei wrote
No, if anything we lose more. Usually this comes with a recession and job cuts which we are seeing now.
ChickenEnthusiast OP t1_j2cnxuf wrote
So do we really want to have billionaires get richer, on paper? Sounds crummy.
KoastPhire t1_j2co4ue wrote
No we want the mass populace to be richer and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes.
valeyard89 t1_j2fuyw7 wrote
Taxes are only calculated when you sell the stock (realized gains). You don't get taxed on your net worth. So Melon Usk could have 200 billion in net worth but only sell 1 billion of stock... the taxes would be on the 1 billion.
DrewsBag t1_j2duydg wrote
Don’t listen to the commies on here. Yes, we do. The billionaires wealth is tied up in stock ownership. Usually, when their wealth goes up, it’s because the general stock market is gaining value. Those is us who have our retirements tied up in the same stock market, want the stock value to go up. Also, a growing market also indicates a good economy, which pushes wages and work opportunities. The bullshit about ‘fair share of taxes’ is a red herring.
KoastPhire t1_j2eeimp wrote
I'll take you up on this, comrade.
If the only options are "We want Billionaires rich so we can eat the crumbs" or "We want Billionaires poor so we can all suffer" then there is merit in choosing to eat crumbs. We're proposing a third option for Billionaires to still be rich and pay their fair shares of taxes. Why is this a red herring?
DrewsBag t1_j2ezpn1 wrote
The red herring is the % that billionaires pay in taxes. As almost all of their wealth is held in stock, it’s not income. It can all go away tomorrow because it isn’t real until someone gives you cold hard cash for it. They still pay capital gains taxes on what they sell, sales tax on what they buy, and property taxes on their possessions. The us tax system is progressive and the wealthy already pay the vast majority of taxes.
KoastPhire t1_j2f4fss wrote
Say I have a start up. Series C funding is valued at 3 billion dollars and I own 1/3. I use my stock to secure a credit line worth $250M at the prime rate, and I go and buy 10 houses, a yatch and a plane. I haven't sold anything, but I have $200 million in assets without paying a single dollar in taxes. Why am I able to access it and spend as if I paid taxes on that? Cherry on top is that the stock is still in my name, if Series D makes my stock value 5x, not only did I spend the money, but I'm worth more.
Explain where is the "fair share" here?
I have more scenarios on how the rich avoid taxes, if you like to engage more.
Crepuscular_Oreo t1_j2f9igv wrote
You also have $200 million in liabilities, so at this point your net worth has not increased.
The good news is that a lot of construction workers, boat builders, and airplane builders have jobs.
KoastPhire t1_j2f9vs6 wrote
>You also have $200 million in liabilities, so at this point your net worth has not increased.
It's not about the networth if you read what I typed. It's about having these assets without paying taxes first.
>The good news is that a lot of construction workers, boat builders, and airplane builders have jobs.
So your logic is that they get a pass because $20M of the $200M goes to the worker? Or did you assume the workers get $200M of the spending? Did you factor that the workers for yatchs and planes aren't in the US?
hh26 t1_j2cqdgr wrote
Billionaires mostly get richer by creating value. If they lead a company that creates $100 billion of goods (ie, the value of their product is worth $100 billion more than the value of the raw materials), and they scrape $1 billion off the top and use the remaining $99 billion to pay employees and taxes, then they are $1 billion richer. And everyone else is $99 billion richer (divided among all of the employees and customers and government, so each only sees a tiny fraction of the created value). But yeah, the billionaire got richer and you should be mostly happy about it because you're richer too. If you've ever bought a smartphone, you gained something of value (the difference between how much you like the smartphone minus the amount you paid for it), and you enriched a billionaire who owns the company that made it simultaneously. Oops oh well, at least smartphones exist and you get to buy one if you like them. Sometimes capitalism works and nobody loses (only sometimes, there are like a million caveats, but billionaires existing in theory is not one of them)
KamikaziAvalanche t1_j2dwn0o wrote
To quote Luke Skywalker, "Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong."
TheJeeronian t1_j2cqe1k wrote
The value of these persons' imaginary money doesn't really matter to you. It really doesn't matter for most people.
Do we want rich people to get richer? Generally no. Does it mean you're losing money as they gain your (former) money? Also no.
alternatex0 t1_j2dcmgm wrote
It matters for pensions doesn't it?
tsiike t1_j2cws4k wrote
wouldn’t we (retail investors) gain by getting cheaper (stock prices) tickets to the show?
Gladianton t1_j2cnilq wrote
They didn’t actually lose it. The more accurate way to say it is “the current market value of their assets decreased” by $400 billion. It’s called an unrealized loss.
If they sold their assets at the deflated vale it would become a realized loss.
ChickenEnthusiast OP t1_j2cnt7c wrote
That's a good phrase to keep in mind, current market value of assets decreasing. Thanks.
BurnOutBrighter6 t1_j2cq1ag wrote
Yes, this. It's like if you had a trading card and one day someone offered to buy it from you for $100. Nice! You don't sell though, maybe you'll get an even higher offer some later time.
The next day someone finds a whole sheet of that same card, and now the most anyone would pay for your card is $5. The value of your card has decreased by $95. In a sense, you lost $95 of value (because you could have sold it in the past for $100). But you didn't actually lose money. No cash has changed hands. It's just the agreed-upon worth of something that has changed.
That's what's happening when billionaires "lose millions". No money is changing hands, it's just the agreed-upon (aka "market") value of their assets changing.
ChickenEnthusiast OP t1_j2cqdyb wrote
So it's like we should stop talking about "the richest/wealthiest person" and start talking about "the person with the highest valued assets as dictated by the market", lol.
Is there ever a metric/list of the biggest hoarders of cash or gold in the world - something that is a bit more consistently and constantly valued with fewer fluctuations? Like a real-life Smaug? I always hear talk of Apple having ridiculous cash reserves, but never a particular person... maybe a sheikh or the Saudi king...
BurnOutBrighter6 t1_j2crbq1 wrote
>level 4ChickenEnthusiastOp · 4 min. agoSo it's like we should stop talking about "the richest/wealthiest person" and start talking about "the person with the highest valued assets
Exactly! For a recent example, see Bernard Arnault (owner of Louis Vuitton) passing Elon Musk this year for "world's richest" person - not because LV sold a bunch of merchandise, but because the things Elon owns became less valuable to potential buyers due to his damaging of them. In the earlier analogy it's like he dropped his own trading cards in the mud and "lost money" because their value decreased.
As for your second point, no I'm not aware of such a metric, but I agree that it would be useful and intriguing to see. Maybe someone else here can inform us. I imagine the problem would be where to draw the line re: "consistently valued". If gold is included, what about silver? Copper? Bonds? It could get complicated.
Economics_Troll t1_j2dq7qc wrote
Rich people (in general) rarely hold substantial sums of cash.
Cash gains you nothing, and actually loses value year to year due to inflation.
Even investing in bonds gets you 5% + annual returns right now, and if you're using leverage in new businesses you can see returns substantially above that with more risk.
This is where the "rich gets richer" theme comes from. If you've got $10 million, you can earn $500k per year (5% return) in a very low risk way. Once you have enough money, you can fund your lifestyle without touching your original money or working.
Toke_Ivo t1_j2cqy1u wrote
To add to this: Some people then say that it's not real money, and it's not like those billionaires actually have those money... But it's quite easy for them to sell they assets at some rate, like 100 million/month, if they wanted to.
So while it's not currently real money, that's like saying that you having money in your bank account is not currently real money. True, it's not, but it could easily be.
Goobadin t1_j2dc9n4 wrote
>So while it's not currently real money, that's like saying that you having money in your bank account is not currently real money. True, it's not, but it could easily be.
​
No, not at all. It's actually like saying the wages for your scheduled hours next week aren't real; it's only when you work those hours do you actually make that money.
Slammedtgs t1_j2djl58 wrote
It would only be a realized loss if they bought it for more than they sold it.
blipsman t1_j2cp8mv wrote
There is no money that goes anywhere.
Imagine you have a rare comic book and I tell you I’d pay you $100 for it, you turn me down. A week later, you need money to buy your mom a birthday present and ask if I want to buy it. But now, I only offer you $80 and you begrudgingly take it. There is no $20 of yours that went anywhere — I was only willing to pay less for something you have.
jswansong t1_j2ctuct wrote
Nobody gained anything and nobody really lost anything: the money was all theoretical so it never really existed. They owned x number of shares of a company which they could have sold for a certain price in 2021 if they wanted to. They would not be able to sell those shares at the same price now, so their "net worth" is lower. But it's all moot, nobody was really going to sell all those shares and it would be a nightmare to even try.
TL:DR - it's all stock market money which is made up anyways. Nobody ever had this money in their bank accounts.
hh26 t1_j2cp2ec wrote
The valuation is primarily founded on expected future earnings. That is, if people predict that a company will earn lots of money in the future, then its current value right now goes up because people want a share of those future earnings.
Importantly, future money is also a gamble in some ways, because it's uncertain. If a company has a 50% chance of giving $200, but a 50% chance of giving $50 next year, then it's worth an average of $125 next year (risk averse people might discount it further because they don't like risky gambles).
So, if you think a company has the above 50-50 shot, then you would value the company at $125, and buy stock for that much. If you knew for sure it would grow, you'd buy it at $200. If you knew for sure it would shrink, you'd only buy at $50. But if you're unsure then $125 is a reasonable price. If, after buying, more information comes out that it's actually going to be unlucky and be $50, then suddenly the value of your stock will drop from $125 to $50. What happened, where did the value go?
From a certain perspective, it was never there to begin with. In some sense the company was always destined to be worth $50 next year and your valuation of $125 was incorrect based on imperfect information. It was always truly worth $50 and you simply overestimated it.
From this perspective, the investor lost $75, which was gained by whoever sold them the overpriced stock, because they sold stock which was truly worth $50 for the price of $125, and got out of the market before the truth was discovered.
From another perspective, maybe the company truly has a real possibility of being worth $50 or $200, and even though your information is imperfect, it's not random, it's based on decisions made by the company and the economy overall. There is a possible future in which it is worth $200 next year because it genuinely produces and sells $200 worth of goods, and another future in which it makes poor decisions and only produces and sells $50 worth of goods. If the government makes some sort of regulation that cripples the business, or the CEO botches a decision, or some competitor springs up and outcompetes them, then they lose the lucrative future and gain the poor future. From this perspective then, potential value is being destroyed in the future. That is, they had $200 worth of opportunity and they lost it. Value that people thought would be created was not. If somebody creates a virus that will inevitably kill all the corn plants five months from now, the valuation of farms will plummet in anticipation of the lost value that was supposed to be created but will instead be destroyed, despite the fact that it hasn't physically been destroyed yet.
Tech is a growing industry. People expect it to make even more money in the future than it is now, and anything that changes those expectations will change current valuations immediately, because people are planning for the future and pricing it into their investments ahead of time. Investors lost $400 billion of potential value because we used to think the stuff they had was going to be super valuable and now we think it will be only somewhat valuable.
gioxzx t1_j2d14l1 wrote
It’s the possible money that could be made.
If you own an item which is $5 now, in the future increases by $10, and the value becomes $15, did you get handed a 10 dollar bill? No.
Say the item now goes down to $3
You didn’t get any money taken directly out of you, but you LOST what could’ve been taken advantage of.
ctruemane t1_j2e9otj wrote
Imagine you have a Spiderman Comic. Not even a really rare one. Just a regular old Spiderman comic. It's worth $1.
Then an interview surfaces where Stan Lee says that's his very favourite issue of Spiderman ever. Now it's worth $100.
Then you find out your copy is signed by Stan Lee himself. Now it's worth $1000.
Then it comes to light he signed ten copies of this one comic. A guy in Sweden owns the other nine. Now yours is worth $5000.
Then the guy in Sweden says that all of his copies burned in a fire. Now it's worth $10,000.
But then the guy is caught selling five copies of the comic. Turns out he made up the story to drive the price up. Yours is worth $5,000 again.
Then it turns out they weren't signed by hand, but with a stamp. Now it's worth $2,000. Then it turns out there's actually hundreds of them. Now its worth $500.
Then a story emerges that Stan Lee didn't draw any comics, or write anything, that it was all lies and self-promotion, and also he was secretly a communist and a spy for the Swedes. Every hates Stan Lee and all twenty-eight Spiderman movies currently in production are cancelled.
Now it's worth $1 again.
In all cases, your actual possessions haven't changed, but your net worth has been all over the place.
Expanded to a grand scale, that's basically how the stock market works.
[deleted] t1_j2cofp2 wrote
[deleted]
The_camperdave t1_j2dx3xk wrote
> So while he lost those funds, they still exist in the market; it just means that someone else now has access to the profits that were previously associated with his ownership in XYZ Corp.
Not necessarily. Just because the stock value of XYZ corp went down, doesn't mean anything else went up. Stock values are not a zero sum game.
PD_31 t1_j2ehox5 wrote
The "lost money" was the value of their shares in companies. Shares are "worth" what somebody is willing to pay for them so their "loss" is what they would get for selling them now versus what they would have got for selling them twelve months ago.
Nobody has gained at the moment but buyers WOULD "gain" if these shares were to be sold now, as they'd be cheaper than they used to be. It's unlikely, though, that these shares will become available as rich people tend not to sell at the bottom of the market.
javaHoosier t1_j2ekdlo wrote
Think of it like a super rare pokemon card of Charizard. That’s valued at 1 Billion. Later on people care less about pokemon cards though so the value decreases. What they lost was the value of an asset.
This can be bad for the pokemon merchandise market though as people are less interested they buy less cards and other goods.
Later the popularity could go up again and the value of Charizard could go back up.
If they ever sell the card then thats when the price is actualized.
But in practice no company can pay a trillion dollars to buy a large company like amazon. But those companies make tons of profit over their lifetime which is why they are valued so high.
KoastPhire t1_j2cn9ok wrote
No one gained it, its just "on paper". It works as the same principle as a house. My house when I brought it was 280k, it peaked at 500k so technically on paper I gained 220k. Now it dropped to about 420k and I lost on paper 80k. No one gained the 80k I lost.