> The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen.
Are you under the impression that the wealthy keep their money in a savings account?
They have more money than they can spend so they invest it, what do you think investment does?
To what degree do they really invest it? A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.
> move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating
So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? What exactly is it you are claiming? Sounds like something a populist youtuber would say.
> So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves?
The claim is that wealthy folks aren't typically interested in generating more wealth for other, non-rich folks
That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else. Capturing 100% of the value is all but impossible.
Also you didn't address what he said, possibly because it's complete nonsense?
> A lot of rich people just buy shares (other than at an IPO) and just move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating, or just swap already-existing overpriced properties around each other.
Currently it seems to be funding frenzied investment in data centers.
> what do you think investment does?
Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?
When you invest money it disappears from your control and you get a piece of paper that says you own shares in an entity.
And if you're investing in, say, a Fabergé egg, that's a (potential) problem.
If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.
> If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.
But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.
It's not really that "out of my control" if I can convert it back to cash with a few clicks of a button.
The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.
> Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that.
Liquidity doesn't matter? Huh.
That's a Nobel Prize in Economics waiting to be awarded, if true.
Liquidity is an emergent property. It doesn't change the fact that when you buy something the money moved.
And that doesn't change the fact that Jeff Bezos, fundamentally, is extremely wealthy, even if he'd have to sell or borrow against a few shares to use it.
Perhaps refer to the root of this convo branch:
> Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?
You changed the subject. Wealth wasn't it.
Again: Bezos's wealth is readily convertible to money. It is not a critical distinction for him.
Push up asset prices mainly - so locking poorer people out of (e.g.) home ownership.
Money is not a tangible thing, you can't eat or drink it. Instead it is a signalling protocol for resource allocation. If the very wealthy have many empty homes, when many people are homeless or inadequately housed, then that signalling protocol has failed (from a social justice point of view), and 'trickle down' is not working.