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.
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.
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.
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.