His wealth is much more imaginary than, say, Warren Buffett’s.
If Musk starts selling off all his stock, well, he’s the majority shareholder of his own companies, so the prices will collapse. He’ll be lucky to get 200-300 billion out of his trillion dollar valuation. I chose Buffett as a comparison because his company holds shares in tons of other companies, so it’s much more diversified and the value is not nearly as dependent on one single shareholder not selling much
Wait wait wait hear him out! If gaining a trillionaire had no effect on us, then losing one probably won’t either.
Gee, what effect could a trillionaire, who frequently meddles in politics, in a country where money=speech, and therefore political spending is unlimited, possibly have on my life?
Kill the rich, save the poor. Taxation, is not enough for the current era. There must be justice for the crimes committed. Once they are dead, then we can figure out how to run the world without capitalism. Untill then, the elimination of the ultra-rich by any means should be the goal. Everything else is noise.
Brian sounds like a dumbass
It is enough to buy 100 billion hours or more of minimum wage labour in many regions! I wonder what effect that could have!
Let’s compare two of the richest men in history
Rockefeller’s charitable giving began with his first job as a clerk at age 16, when he gave six percent of his earnings to charity, as recorded in his personal ledger. By the time he was twenty, his charity exceeded ten percent of his income.
Vs
Elon Musk and the Musk Foundation have disbursed over $1.1 billion since 2010. However, the vast majority of his recent philanthropy—including a record $474 million in 2024—primarily funded his own personal entities, specifically schools and donor-advised funds closely linked to his business and personal interests
Rockefeller recorded it in his own personal ledger?
I’m sure it was all on the up and up. Just like I paid taxes on all of my tips when I was getting paid cash for waiting tables.
(A joke, I realize Rockefeller did contribute quite a bit to the common good, at least once he was mind bendingly wealthy.)
what is your point? should elon musk just donate 10% of his wealth and all is well?
He needs to be put to death.
99% of his wealth should be taxed
We’re would the money come from to do this?
10% is the VAT of food in my country.
Your average citizen pays more than 10% of their food budget in taxes. This nazi’s wealth is bigger than the yearly production of most countries. 10% is nothing.
EDIT: he’s a nazi, not a dude.
I’m not saying Rockefeller is the benchmark, but being a historically rich man (600bn in today’s money) he is a benchmark. One which Musk is not meeting.
a benchmark in what way? you should just not be able to be that rich. he isn’t a benchmark, he didn’t work for his own money.
I’ve just compared Musk to Rockefeller. He’s a benchmark whether you like it or not.
you should just not be able to be that rich
That’s a problem for society. Nothing to do with benchmarking.
he didn’t work for his own money
No capitalist does. Even people earning interest on their 401k.
This much wealth concentrated into one person is very wrong. Wealth leads to power and no one person should have that much power.
Sure. But that doesn’t mean you can’t compare musk to Rockefeller or use him as a benchmark.
Using someone as a known benchmark doesn’t mean they were good or bad, just that they’re an established quantity. Rockefeller was wealthy beyond normal levels of wealth. It makes sense to use him as a comparison.
Yeah totally. I was referring to the wealth in general which applies to both of them.
Totally agree. But that’s the corporate sponsored capitalism that the US has voted for.
Karl Marx predicted that free-market competition would inevitably result in monopolies and the concentration of massive productive forces under a single capitalist.
Maybe not perfectly well, but it would be better
it would technically be better, but still not achieve or solve anything
I makes me terrible stressed to know the richest person in the world is a sick soulless, zero empathy person.
how couldn’t they be exactly that?
Now now, let’s not forget the valuable work DOGE did with screwworm eradication.
https://www.newsweek.com/doge-biden-new-world-screwworm-blame-12049389
These poor screwworms have been having sex with sterile partners and their chance at the American dream has been stolen from them.
Simping for the mega rich will never not blow my mind.
It’s the idiots deluding themselves into thinking they’ll be rich one day
This is exactly it.
Got JoeBob from the trailer park arguing for more tax breaks on the rich while he shits in his 5 gallon bait bucket cause the toilets broken and he cant afford to get it fixed, because hes convinced he’ll be a millionaire one day and its only fair for him to be able to do all that cheaty millionaire shit too.
As someone from the exact opposite of the planet, it makes politician drooling even more and want his investment coming into the country more, and you know what this mean: resource hungry AI datacenter that destroy vulnerable community and nature, and also carbrained people wanting the ugliest car for the display of wealth. This will happen because Melon Husk will force it to happen.
As someone from the exact opposite of the planet
Are you from space? Space in some ways is the opposite of a planet. Or maybe a black hole?
Wealth disparity also causes inflation - because wealthy people can and do drive up prices on goods, sometimes buying up whole markets/products. On top of this, they like to avoid taxes. Taxation being deflationary because taxes take money out of circulation, so uber wealthy people can completely, and enmass buy up select materials/property driving prices up (see the price of graphics cards and memory during the AI boom), and they halt the deflationary effects of taxation by avoiding taxes…
…and the wealthy are also likely to corrupt politics, skewing results in their favour - often shifting burdens onto the poorer classes or otherwise worsening conditions for the rest of us.
Basically: large wealth disparities are bad for the economy, bad for society in general, and bad for democracy, fairness, justice, and equality.
Taxes don’t take money out of circulation, they just give the government more to circulate
That’s a misapprehension of how taxes work. Let me put it this way: You need a currency BEFORE you can tax in that currency. So Money and Spending comes FIRST.
Money isn’t created “when the government collects taxes” not at all (it actually dies when taxes are collected, that’s a zeroing mechanism of economies). Having a “sovereign currency” means the government has the SOLE RIGHTS to printing that currency. That’s how money is created. “Tax Revenue” is when money “returns” (which is what “revenue” means - it’s a receipt of payment made) it zeros out money that was already spent.
This is because all money is debt, it’s created as debt. Taxes return the debt to the debt holder (The Government, who invested in starting the currency). Taxes are always covering things that have been done in the past.
I mean, let’s say you have a colony, it’s a small colony and doesn’t grow much, and there’s 1 million dollars in circulation. The government has a project there, that will cost 1 million dollars to complete (it’s a new colony, they want to pave roads, build bridges, and install public infrastructure). IF they JUST printed the money, and paid the trades people/workers to do all this, there’d suddenly be 2 million dollars, in a small economy whose natural growth/circulation/trade was only at 1 million dollars. This would double inflation over night. Causing massive price increases, devaluing the currency, corrupting wages, and basically pissing off everyone.
So what do they have to do? They issue a tax, that they believe will pull approximately 1 million dollars out of the system. The taxation didn’t CREATE money for the government to spend (that would increase inflation), it killed off money.
So taxation is a form of wealth re-distribution, and is where money as debt ends up (if you’re trying to run a balanced economy with a natural growth rate). So when the wealthy refuse to pay taxes, they’re cheating the system, contributing to inflation, and refusing to re-distribute any of the wealth they’ve stolen from underpaid workers and tax paying citizens.
In short, taxes don’t pay for things. Money is issued by authority of the government alone (sometimes called an “appropriation”), and then taxes (ideally) zero out over spending not in line with value/market growth.
It entirely depends upon how the government uses that money. Paying down national debt is entirely deflationary; they are literally removing money from the economy. Spending on services can be very mildly inflationary, but usually also increases quality of life for the most marginalised and therefore reduces the impacts of inflation on those who feel it most. It can also be deflationary when spent on services, especially if those monies are spent on the government shouldering costs that have been pushed onto the average citizen (single-payer healthcare, energy costs and the like).
By far the biggest upward effects on inflation are caused by corporate greed and geopolitical instability.
I see you’re on my instance so using Australia as an example - national debt is not getting paid down and is growing year on year. There is therefore no monetary deflation being applied. This has been the case since the GFC, debt has only really been growing
That’s why I specified in my first sentence that it depends upon how the monies are spent. I outlined a few different ways in which government spending impacts inflation.
Just paying down interest on national debt (as we have been doing) is just as deflationary as paying down principal, given that it’s removing money from the economy.
Where the money goes to holders of treasury bonds who then spend it again
Those who hold treasury bonds don’t tend to spend the interest on their day-to-day living costs. Those who hold treasury bonds use them as an investment vehicle, whose proceeds are usually either reinvested or invested elsewhere where the effects of investment aren’t inflationary. Many treasury bonds are also held by the international community, who by definition don’t spend those proceeds within the country whose bonds they hold. Domestic Australian retail investors make up such a small fraction of total ownership and, those that do own them in this context, tend not to use the proceeds as regular income that would be inflationary.
No
And the premise of the question is broken as well. Because what good is it for him to become a trillionaire? What is it that he was able to do after he made his first billion that he couldn’t do until he got a ton more money? Nothing. Nothing at all.
The ultra-rich try to get richer because they think that will make them more superior, but in no way could it possibly actually improve their quality of life. But we know that the money they stole from us fucks over everybody. And we know that the destruction they cause to our governments fucks over our children.
He’s still a miserable little cry-baby who whines about how mean it is when someone gets happy at Tesla stocks tanking.
I need Brian Eskow top-side
Lol fiuckoffSome of the memes actually, y know.Some of the memes actually, y know.Some of the memes actually, y know.Some of the memes actually, y know.Some of the memes actually, y know.
This is only funny because billionaires are evil
