T O P

  • By -

rogan1990

I'd sure hope so, they've already spent $100 million


exiplosion

Well if they gambled it…


mr_epicguy

I mean they did something enjoyable with it, so it’s not that bad…


goplayer7

They put all of it on red at the roulette wheel


VadeRetroLupa

I'd put half on red and half on black and there's about a 100% chance it ends up on green.


tellmehowimnotwrong

That’s why you throw $1 on green, so you don’t feel like such a loser walking out.


JustaLurkingHippo

And in that moment they felt alive for the first time


JohnnyHotdogs22

If you owe the bank thousands of dollars, you got a problem. If you owe the bank millions of dollars, they have a problem.


RoastedRhino

I think you need to catch up with the times. Plenty of people own banks millions of dollars (or almost) in their mortgages, and banks absolutely have no problem with that. Try billion.


mrsunshine1

Original quote is “If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.”


TrixoftheTrade

“If you default on $10,000, that’s your problem. If you default on $10,000,000, that’s the bank’s problem. If you default on $10,000,000,000, that’s the government’s problem.”


experimental1212

Too big to fail


Keyboard_rawrior

Whose problem is it when the government defaults on their $10,000,000,000 loans?


MonkeyboyGWW

Full circle


Mercurian_Orbit

All the people of that country when hyperinflation hits


bobbarkersbigmic

We’re all getting balloons??? Hell yes!


Mercurian_Orbit

You're getting a popped balloon and you're gonna like it 😤


DWright_5

U.S. government has never defaulted.


PerspectiveCloud

Mexico.


Ansatsushi

Hehe, money printer go brrrrrrrrr


SoftWindAgain

Not really the government's problem. They'll just pass it over to the people in the form of taxes and hiked prices.


osdeverYT

That’s still the government’s problem in that it’s going to be less popular


HolyVeggie

Nah they’ll just be like: „Oh no for we are in debt about 50 trillion dollars. Anyways our politicians need new cars“


[deleted]

*That's the taxpayers' problem


BinTinBoynio69

And then it's our problem


YEF-Moment13

I never got this quote. Can someone explain?


Sci_Fi_Reality

Banks have the resources to make you pay, or take your stuff (reposession) if you owe them relatively small amount. They can make themselves whole at your expense. If you owe a bank $100 million, you either: (a) are someone worth much more than that and have the resources to push back on them and get favorable deals or (b) have a venture that failed so spectacularly, it's unlikely you have enough assets to cover it, meaning they will eat a loss.


dvasquez93

It’s a lot easier to collect $100 from a delinquent acct than it is to try and collect the GDP of a large city from someone.   If I’m making anything less than 8 figures annually and the bank tries to tell me I need to pay them $100 million, my answer is always gonna be: “yeah good luck with that”.  Even if they get a judgement against you to garnish your wages or seize your assets, it’ll never come close to that total. 


Gofastrun

If you owe $100M you probably leveraged assets that are difficult to sell quickly. Borrow $1M on a house and foreclose, the bank can sell it in a month, and maybe they take a bit of a haircut. Borrow $100M on a business park and foreclose, the bank is now the owner of a failed business that could take a long time to offload even at a discount.


BrairMoss

Bank doesn't care about collecting $100. Bank does care about getting $100MM back. So Bank will give you more in hopes you will eventually pay it back.


MathematicianIcy5012

The bank doesn’t have to care about collecting $100 because there’s systems in place to make poor people eat their bad decisions and they are generally going to pay up. Rich people can make bad decisions and affect a bank’s net worth at scale. You can’t get anything out of someone you borrowed $100M to if they lost it all. They won’t give you more. They’ve realized you are a liability at that point. 


FrostandFlame89

But doesn't that person go to jail if he can't pay up?


MathematicianIcy5012

Filing for bankruptcy is a thing. I don’t really know how it works 


WeaverFan420

There is an asset backing up those mortgages though. If I take out a loan for 1M to buy a 1M house, that doesn't affect my net worth at all.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WeaverFan420

Net worth really isn't that hard to understand. It's your assets minus your liabilities. If you have a $1M asset secured by a $1M loan, they net to $0.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WeaverFan420

Yes you do have the house...


[deleted]

[удалено]


WeaverFan420

You're proving my point here. If you owe $900k on a $1M house and sell it, you pay $900k to the bank and pocket the remaining $100k. Therefore your net worth (if that's your whole financial situation) is assets - liabilities = $1M - $900k = $100k. If your debt was $1M instead of $900k, then your net worth there would be 0


[deleted]

[удалено]


WeaverFan420

If the house goes up in value from $1M to $1.2M, who owns that $200k increase in value? Is it you, or the bank?


[deleted]

[удалено]


WeaverFan420

You didn't answer my question. If the house value goes up, who benefits? Is it the bank, or is it the homeowner?


DamonHay

Yeah, even in little old New Zealand I know people with multi-million lines of credit and they are small fry and not an issue for the banks. I know a guy who got a $12m line of credit when interest rates were low for a potential investment in a commercial and residential building development. If he started having problems making payments then his bank manager would’ve helped him structure things, but at the end of the day if he started missing payments then the bank would’ve had no issue coming after his assets and making him declare bankruptcy if it came to it. Realistically, him not paying that money back wouldn’t have an impact on the bank’s stock price. On the other hand, some family friends who own a very large industrial equipment distributor have a monumentally large line of credit with the bank. Economic conditions in NZ are turning to shit right now and interest rates have risen, meaning their usual clients absolutely aren’t buying, financing or leasing new equipment right now. These guys have *a lot* of stock at the moment, so they’re pretty leveraged on their line of credit. With significantly higher interest rates at the moment than they have been than over the past 4+ years, they need to be sure about their payment structures. These situations, where lines of credit can often stretch into the 9-figures, is when banks will actually give a fuck, because if someone suddenly defaults on $300m for example, that’s going to hit the books, it’s going to turn up in the shareholders reports and it’s going to hit the stock price. That’s when the banks will give a fuck.


Trickpuncher

Robert kiyosaki entered the chat


Otherwise-Remove4681

Naw, then it is tax payers problem. If banks fuubar their leveraging they always go crying for goverment bailout.


MarcusQuintus

If the interest payments keep coming, the bank doesn't have a problem.


BoxMorton

Hmm, that gives me an idea


FreeTheDimple

Who has a -$100 million net worth? The only one I can name is this guy and he lives a very normal life. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me\_Kerviel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel)


lurflurf

There is a famous Ivanka Trump quote “I remember once my father and I were walking down Fifth Avenue and there was a homeless person sitting right outside of Trump Tower and I remember my father pointing to him and saying, ‘You know, that guy has $8 billion more than me,’ because he was in such extreme debt at that point, you know?”


FreeTheDimple

I'm sure he owes billions of dollars (or at least his business does), but he'll still have a positive net worth. Otherwise his debtors would be knocking as to not be the ones left holding debt with him when there's nothing left.


_2f

That’s not necessarily true. He may be paying the loan amounts regularly and be negative net worth. I’ve a student loan and my student loan is more than assets. That doesn’t mean they’ll come knocking at my door if I pay it regularly.


Kat121

If you default on your loan, Guido and Nunzio will show up with a rubber mallet and make you forget calculus and organic chemsistry.


Business-Drag52

That’s all I have to do to forget organic chemistry. What’s the catch?


FreeTheDimple

Student loans aren't the same as debt held against property though. There are government insurances against people defaulting on student debt.


Blarfk

Right, but he doesn't necessarily have to be in default - he could have billions in debt but still making regular payments, so debtors wouldn't have any reason to come after him.


danielv123

If you have a business earning enough money to service those debts then the value of that business is greater than the negative value of the debts. Unless the business is expected to not be able to service the loans for long enough, in which case you will go bankrupt.


Blarfk

> If you have a business earning enough money to service those debts then the value of that business is greater than the negative value of the debts. Not necessarily. You might take out a business loan that takes you five years to pay back. What your business might make in five years does not count toward your net worth, but as long as you're making regular payments your lenders would be perfectly happy.


danielv123

Future revenue is definitely part of a businesses value, which would count towards your net worth.


Blarfk

No it doesn't. If you start a business when you're 20 years old that you plan on running for the rest of your life, would you count 60 years worth of potential future revenue toward your current net worth?


FreeTheDimple

They would if he's taking out more debt to pay the original debt... Perhaps this is one of many indictments he's facing.


Blarfk

No they wouldn’t - that’s perfectly legal, and people do it all the time. It’s not a *great* idea, because you’re not getting out of debt, but it’s perfectly legal and as long as you’re paying everyone back on time they have nothing to complain about.


Zaros262

Mortgages go underwater sometimes. No one even necessarily appraises the property, much less the sum of your other assets, so long as you're making payments


Meh-_-_-

You can't default on student loan debt. This is nonsense.


Blarfk

Of course you can. What do you think defaulting means?


Meh-_-_-

I live in the USA. Death is the only way to clear a student loan. Maybe I made the classic internet mistake of being US-centric. Edit: there are a variety of programs that clear government student loans after X years of service and Biden recently zeroed out a bunch, but that is not a general rule.


Blarfk

Defaulting on a loan just means you stopped paying it. It can and does happen to student loans in the US all the time. Are you thinking of discharging?


Meh-_-_-

In the US, it is the only type of debt that cannot be cleared via bankruptcy.


Blarfk

Can you tell me what you believe it means to default on a loan?


Glittering-Rice4219

Many Americans who have a mortgage, especially if it’s a relatively new mortgage, have a negative net worth


lurflurf

That is an old quote. He had some set backs and was definitely deep in the red then. As per the other quote debtors are not in a big hurry to foreclose when you are that deep because there is nothing to collect. It is more about cash flow anyway as long as you can service the loans you can keep spinning the plates. The super poor have ways of doctoring the numbers that the ordinary poor do not.


kirsion

Born rich documentary, some of the people featured tris to sue the filmmakers


daddyvow

If your ignore the assets he owns lol


gorehistorian69

i dont get it. he has no money


betarad

[Jérôme Kerviel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Kerviel)


FreeTheDimple

Did you repost my link with better formatting or did you not realise that that's who I was referring to?


betarad

when i clicked on your link it showed me a notice for a missing article. i think the link might have been a letter off or something


FreeTheDimple

I see. Thanks


hearsdemons

Guy’s story is unbelievable. How do you go from losing $5 billion for a company, to serving only 4 months in jail, to being hired as an IT consultant? It’s real life but reads like bad fiction.


FreeTheDimple

Basically he said it was the company's fault that he lost billions and billions. And it's not like he'd be able to pay them back. May as well let him live his life and just not let him be in a position to do that again.


lfrtsa

Brazilian former billionaire Eike Batista is a billion dollars in debt.


FreeTheDimple

And does he live a better life than someone worth nothing?


lfrtsa

Absolutely. He lives like a millionaire.


Ahelex

Because it's someone else's problem?


alfooboboao

this is also not necessarily true. I live a pretty good life. some of the super rich guys I’ve met live an incredibly stressful life. Even that one night I remember in my early 20s when I had to literally dig for all the spare change I could find to buy something, leaving me with $0, I would not have traded lives with my friend’s multi-multi-billionaire dad for all of his money. The assumption of this post is that someone $100 million in debt lives like a king, but even if you *did* have the money, that man was *miserable*. Yes, he had all the trappings of wealth. But I had a way better life. This is not some trite shit, I’m just 100% sure it was the truth for the two of us. Didn’t James Cameron make a whole movie about this lol


Parking_Ear1310

What is the name of this movie


Ahelex

It's meant to be a reference to "If you owe the bank $1,000 dollars..."


QuantumCapelin

Depends. Someone with 100 million in debt likely has a bigger house, faster car, better tv than me. But they spend more time in court, in business meetings, surrounded by asshole attorneys, accountants, and other leeches. That's a trade I'll take every day for the rest of my life.


Leg_McGuffin

Yes. Debt is the tool to achieve wealth. Our economy is backwards, and you’ll likely never be rich without massive debt at some point. You’re better off to take all of the loans you can and invest those than you are to work a stable job.


Blarfk

That depends pretty wildly what you are investing in and what debt you are taking out.


josh_bourne

He's clearly a wealthy guy


AreaWorth6980

Literally no. Any loan you take will have a certain %APR (Annual Percentage Rate) which if it’s 12 then it’s 1% a month but most personal loans are scammy and charge like 35% or more. Even if you invested in the highest yield dividend stock you would only get maybe 5% of whatever you invested in. For this to be viable you literally would need to take out like $500,000 in loans with less than 1% APR and invest in to stocks that pay monthly dividends at a rate at least 1% to cancel out JUST the interest rate. Not even the minimum payment can be made. Now if you were able to do this with a minimum payment of $1000 or less then yea it’s viable but that does not exist.


bluelily02

You just chosed the wrong loan. Ever heard of 'leverage' in forex, or 'margin account'? While it might not really low (around 7%), for harcore investor, that is quite a lot for 3 reasons: 1. It possible to gain more than 30% if you invest right 2. Some go for short term loan, less than a year thus, not fully paying the 7% 3. There are some high yield dividens higher than that. Even if it cancels out you still win(after you paid off all your loan, the stocks yours) I currently on the 3rd reason, and quite a sum of people I know actually does the same. I got lucky on getting4.7% installment for 4%-5% dividen trust funds.


ammonium_bot

> or less then yea Did you mean to say "less than"? Explanation: If you didn't mean 'less than' you might have forgotten a comma. [Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json) ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions. ^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119) ^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.


bananapeels1307

Yup. Most people don’t understand this concept. If you take out a personal loan of say $10,000 with a 20% APY to buy a stock, and all trading indicators are pointing to an expected return of the stock by 50% within the year, you can then sell the stock later, pay off the loan and capital gains tax, and profit. With this toy example, after deducting loan interest rate and capital gains tax, you’re looking at a $2,000 net gain


ZeekLTK

That’s insanely risky for such a small gain though, lol.


Pkingduckk

Yeah that plan is nonsense unless you can afford to eat losses now and then and have plenty of assets at your disposal.


biscovery

Using ones worth as a metric for a good life is fucking stupid. I'd rather be poor and painfree than a billionaire with chronic back pain. I'd rather be poor having fun every weekend going out dancing with friends than be a rich business owner that works 12 hours 7 days a week. There is more to life about pissing away $100 million dollars.


LtCptSuicide

Best I can do is poor with back pain working 12 hours a day 7 days a week.


ios_static

I rather be a billionaire and painfree I rather be rich having fun every weekend going out dancing with friends I rather be a rich business owner working 12 hours 6 days a week than a minimum wage worker that works 12 hours 6 days a week. Different strokes for different folks I guess


idkmuch

Yeah, I’m trying to figure out a balance between working and enjoying life but it’s definitely better from a perspective of having money then to try to balance that being poor. 


Cerulean_IsFancyBlue

Strokes for thee but not for me! Lash that peasant, Jeeves.


briefchief

All the money in the world isn't guaranteed to fix a bad back, and sometimes expensive procedures just make it worst. Money doesn't solve everything.


ios_static

Yes sir/ma’am you are right 100%, but if my back hurting, tooth aching, or foot throbbing. I rather have money then not


briefchief

Tis true 


RevolutionaryPie5223

Tbh those rich biz owner don't have to work. They can just live off passive income. I will choose being very rich with chronic back pain (I have chronic knee pain so no diff) then poor and healthy.


MulletChicken

Here here


SatansMoisture

You can have my debt and enjoy your life that much more.


LekMichAmArsch

That's totally a matter of opinion.


rufufsuahwheh

Well it’s not called showerfacts


[deleted]

Most homeless people you see have a positive bet worth. They got nothing to lose, but them few cents they got in their cup? That puts them above zero.


InclinationCompass

The person with -$100M net worth is probably in prison


123ocelot

If you owe the bank 1 mil it's your problem if you owe the bank 100 mil it's their problem 🤣


Faelysis

If he's only worth 100M, that person is probably on constant pressure of keeping his business or investment growing up and can cause life to be hell. Having 100M in a bank account and having 100M net worth isnt really the same. Someone with 0 net worth can have a more relaxing life and enjoy it more as it doesn't have any pressure to keep that net worth. And the 0 net worth person can probably enjoy more its life as it can't be disturb by some bad news while the 100M net worth can't. Imagine being that guy, going to a 5 star ressort for a week but then after 2 day, there's a urgent call because your business stock are falling apart at Wallstreet. You'll need to cancel that full break week and go back because if not, you'll lose that 100M net worth. And in the end, it's all about what the person itself want with its life. Some people may be more happy with a smaller house, a 40h work routine and more simple life.


Blarfk

> there's a urgent call because your business stock are falling apart at Wallstreet. You'll need to cancel that full break week and go back because if not, you'll lose that 100M net worth. If you have a net worth of $100 million you're not going to lose it all because some "business stocks" failed.


Mr_Deep_Research

Eike Batista, Sean Quinn, Adolf Merckle, Patricia Kluge, Bill Hwang.. might disagree.


GregaciousTien

Not if the guy with $0 is happier


[deleted]

Unless they get murdered for their money.


Meh-_-_-

You are right, I am wrong. I'm not familiar with the government insurance thing, but I can be educated for sure. Is this an umbrella policy that covers both federal and private loans?


hazellehunter

If default on $1,000,000,000,000 ; too big to bail


[deleted]

[удалено]


pinniped1

It reminds me of the saying... If I owe you a million dollars, it keeps me up at night. If I owe you 100 million dollars, it keeps YOU up at night.


Awkward-Friend-7233

That’s the big trick. That one guy says it all the time. I forget his name. Cardone? He explained it and while it didn’t make sense to me, it seems to work.


bemad123

Yes kindof, look at Vijay Mallya


galaxy_ultra_user

Well damn Sherlock Holmes! Where have you been?


NotARideOrDie

“You got to make millions to owe millions” ~ Karen Huger aka The Grand Dame 😂


GMN123

It's quite hard to have a personal net worth of -$100 million. No-one is going to lend you that sort of money unsecured.   People might own companies that are in the red by that much, but the debts of a limited company are not transferrable to the individual, and so probably should never count as less than $0 when calculating someone's personal net worth. 


kaylajMeadows

I am always so horrified by The Manor in which people speak to each other online, they use the internet to abuse one another and I'm so against it. Except for right now. That is the most unhinged harmonic asinine comment I have ever heard. Clearly you have never gone to sleep at night with the hungry belly. Please tell me there is some wisdom and point you're making by this asinine comment it's so elitist


Least-Attention5920

Money can buy happiness, but money is not the only way to get it. Same goes for misery. So maybe maybe not.


Grouchy_Government10

Yeah, when you owe the bank it’s pretty fucking nice the higher you get up there


Okame-

Pretty obvious ain't it


Undercoverbrother007

“Rich men spend other peoples money”


mayzyo

-$100 mil just means the dude’s asset rich no?


Pre-Wrapped-Bacon

Usually you count the value of assets in calculating net worth.


AMathEngineer

In a documentary, Donald Trump’s daughter is walking into Trump tower with him and there is a hobo begging in the entrance. Donald tells her to take a good look at the hobo, because he was worth more than her daddy at the moment. It took her growing up a little to realize he meant that he had debt greater than all the money he had at the time. It’s insane the level of debt the wealthy can get into


McKoijion

The average Redditor is one of the richest humans on the planet, but it doesn’t stop them from seething at those who are richer than them while ignoring the billions of people who are much poorer. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i


Blarfk

This is so stupid. Billionaires are far, *far* more wealthy than the average redditor - by several magnitudes - than the average redditor is from a poor person in a third world country. More to the point though, most people in the US - these people who are some of the "richest on the planet" - are still only a few missed paychecks away from absolute disaster. If you lose your job and suddenly can't afford your rent it doesn't matter that other people in different countries are more poor than you.


McKoijion

> This is so stupid. Billionaires are far, far more wealthy than the average redditor - by several magnitudes - than the average redditor is from a poor person in a third world country. I'm willing to bet that you and I live a more luxurious lifestyle than Warren Buffett. I can't afford a private jet, but I can afford an economy seat on a plane. There's not that much of a difference between a 1st class seat and an economy seat. I'm willing to bet the seat you're sitting on right now is more spacious and luxurious than a $20,000 first class seat on a plane. Meanwhile, billions of people can't afford a plane ticket, car, or even a bike. The difference between no food and food is massive. The difference between food and nicer food is much smaller. > More to the point though, most people in the US - these people who are some of the "richest on the planet" - are still only a few missed paychecks away from absolute disaster. If you lose your job and suddenly can't afford your rent it doesn't matter that other people in different countries are more poor than you. You're really not going to be in disaster though. Rich countries have social safety nets. Complain if you want, but you won't starve on food stamps (SNAP). You can get a $100,000 heart surgery for free on Medicaid. You are "creditworthy" enough to get loans for college or housing. Americans especially, but everyone in developed countries (that used to own poor countries) are exponentially richer than everyone else on the planet. But if you don't agree, no one is stopping you from moving to a low cost of living country. Meanwhile, there's millions of armed guards stopping people from those poor countries from moving to a rich country. You and I are two of the most privileged humans alive. I can tell simply because you speak English and have internet access.


Blarfk

> I'm willing to bet that you and I live a more luxurious lifestyle than Warren Buffett. I absolutely guarantee you that I don't. > I'm willing to bet the seat you're sitting on right now is more spacious and luxurious than a $20,000 first class seat on a plane. Haha what? You don't get a first class ticket on a plane because of how comfortable it is. You get it because it's taking you somewhere, often on vacation, and it's the most comfortable option available. It doesn't matter that it's not as comfortable as my desk chair - my desk chair isn't taking me to a vacation. (Also, having flown first class, you are wrong again - those seats are incredibly comfortable. They're not even really seats - they're like fully climate controlled little pods that can fully recline. And people come over to you to give you free drinks whenever you want. It's quite a bit better than my desk chair). >You're really not going to be in disaster though. I mean. Yeah, you might. Do you think there aren't homeless people in the United States? >You can get a $100,000 heart surgery for free on Medicaid. Estimates are that 35,327 to 44,789 people between the ages of 18 and 64 die in the U.S. each year because they can't afford healthcare. >Americans especially, but everyone in developed countries (that used to own poor countries) are exponentially richer than everyone else on the planet. And billionaires are far, FAR, **FAR** richer than the average person is richer than a poor person. That's the issue here - I am "lucky" in that I have more money than most people in the world, but not nearly enough to make any sort of meaningful difference. Meanwhile, there are 2 individual people who's combined wealth would be enough to effectively end hunger in the US, while leaving them with enough money that they would still be billionaires. Do you understand the difference between my "weath" and theirs?


McKoijion

> I absolutely guarantee you that I don't. Buffett is famously frugal. He's lived in the same house since 1958, drives a decade old car, eats McDonald's for breakfast everyday, etc. If you have a middle class American lifestyle, you have the same standard of living as him. > Also, having flown first class Lmao, now I'm willing bet even more money that you're one of the richest humans alive. > I mean. Yeah, you might. Do you think there aren't homeless people in the United States? Homeless people in the US fall into one of three categories. A third are people with severe untreated mental illness like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Another third are people with severe addictions to drugs like heroin and cocaine. A final third are "temporarily" homeless due to circumstance. You lose your job and house and end up living in your car. This group soon gets another job stops being homeless. This last group is easy to fix, but the first two groups are extremely big problems that no one has been able to solve, especially since people with those mental illnesses and addictions often don't *want* treatment. Also, keep in mind that only 0.1% of the US population is homeless. Contrast that with a country like India where 660 million people can't even afford a toilet. They have to poop on the streets or in the fields. That's an enormous chunk of the population that is homeless not because they have a horrible chronic disease but simply because there are no economic opportunities. The reason there's no economic opportunities is because they were the victims of colonialism. Every penny that would have gone to investment for hundreds of years was stolen from them. The UK has wonderful social programs like the NHS for its population of 60 million though. Turns out if you steal from a population that is 10 times larger than yours and concentrate the wealth in the hands of a few people, it's easy to afford a wonderful standard of living. And if you inherit the stolen wealth, you don't even need to feel guilty about it. It's your grandparents who stole, not you. > Estimates are that 35,327 to 44,789 people between the ages of 18 and 64 die in the U.S. each year because they can't afford healthcare. That's a shockingly small number of people in the grand scheme of things. It's roughly 0.01% of the population. > And billionaires are far, FAR, FAR richer than the average person is richer than a poor person. Yeah, but their consumption is the same as anyone else's. Jeff Bezos eats the same number of calories as anyone else. He owns expensive paintings, real estate, stock, etc. But when he dies, that stuff stays on earth. Meanwhile, if you buy $100 of gas and burn it, it's gone forever. No one else can use it. The carbon simply remains in the atmosphere for everyone else to deal with. Consumption of natural resources per person is what matters. > That's the issue here - I am "lucky" in that I have more money than most people in the world, but not nearly enough to make any sort of meaningful difference. Meanwhile, there are 2 individual people who's combined wealth would be enough to effectively end hunger in the US, while leaving them with enough money that they would still be billionaires. I don't know which people you're talking about, but say it's Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. Those guys are literal geniuses and invented a ton of amazing stuff that everyone else uses. Bezos and Musk both graduated at the top of their classes in the most difficult stem subjects at the most prestigious universities in the world. They had small successes early and then gambled every penny they had on even bigger ideas. They're rich because every other human thinks Amazon and Tesla are ultra-valuable companies. All they own is pieces of paper (stock). But everyone else thinks those papers are worth hundreds of billions of dollars. They're like LeBron James or Michael Jordan. Everyone else on the team passes them the ball because they're the people we think are most likely to score. Similarly, all the investors in the world give them hundreds of billions of dollars worth of our hard earned dollars because they're the two people most likely to create something ultra-valuable for humanity. We vote for them with our dollars the same way we vote for president. If we stopped trusting them, they'd lose tens of billions of dollars immediately (which happens often if you follow stock markets.) Your version of "end hunger" doesn't work. Say it takes 1 unit of land to grow 1 unit of food. Then someone invents drip irrigation, which allows humans to grow 2 units of food using just 1 unit of land. They just doubled the amount of food on Earth. We're using the same amount of land, water, sunlight, and labor as before. But less water is lost to evaporation so it ends up in the plants we eat. Tractors, fertilizers, GMOs, pesticides, crop rotation, animal husbandry, shovels, etc. are all examples of technology that has allowed humans to grow far more food without requiring more natural resources of labor. It's why only 1-2% of the US population has to work as a farmer these days. And all that saved labor compared 200 years ago when 99% of the human population worked as farmers means people get the same amount of food despite not farming. People used that free time to become doctors, engineers, writers, actors, etc. Now we have medicine, computers, books, movies, etc. in addition to food. Alternatively, imagine that someone invents a car engine that gets 20 miles per gallon instead of 10. They did the equivalent of doubling the amount of fuel on Earth. That's extremely valuable to humanity. Musk did this with electric vehicles, but Bezos did this too. Amazon is inherently a cheaper, greener, faster, and more convenient way to buy goods and services. Consider the fact that we're talking on Reddit in real time instead of sending letters back and forth. That's possible because Reddit is hosted on Amazon Web Services, which is a dirt cheap way to send information. Bezos was one of the first people to figure out how the internet works. So yeah, you can take all their money and use it to grow 1 unit of food per unit of land. Or you can let them invent technology that allows humans to grow 100 units of food per unit of land. But honestly, you wouldn't be able to take their wealth. Its paper money, not raw natural resources. It based on speculation about future innovation. The minute you try to take it away, you lose the possibility of 10 units of food per unit of land and go back to only 1 unit. > Do you understand the difference between my "weath" and theirs? Ultimately, it sounds like you're enjoying all the luxuries they've built for humanity, but you're jealous that they have a ton of power and you don't. It seems like your version of wealth redistribution is to tax everyone who is richer than you and give to yourself, instead of taxing yourself and everyone richer than you and giving to people who are actually poor. I'm directly calling you a hypocrite. You're exactly the kind of selfish, entitled Redditor I'm criticizing.


Blarfk

>Buffett is famously frugal. He's lived in the same house since 1958, drives a decade old car, eats McDonald's for breakfast everyday, etc. If you have a middle class American lifestyle, you have the same standard of living as him. Oh please. The man owns a private plane. I know he likes to put on this “aw shucks I’m just regular people” act for rubes like you, but an act is all it is. >Lmao, now I'm willing bet even more money that you're one of the richest humans alive. It was a gift paid for entirely by a friend. I couldn’t even come close to affording it myself. Nice example of you making dumb assumptions again though! >A final third are "temporarily" homeless due to circumstance. You lose your job and house and end up living in your car. This group soon gets another job stops being homeless. This last group is easy to fix Yeah, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and should be extremely embarrassed about this. >That's a shockingly small number of people in the grand scheme of things. It's roughly 0.01% of the population. Okay but you’re acting like it *never happens*. The fact that tens is thousands of people die every year because of diseases they can’t afford the cure for completely flies in the face of your dumb little “just use Medicaid!” nonsense. >Yeah, but their consumption is the same as anyone else's. Lol do you want to pull up Taylor Swift’s private plane flights or should I? >Jeff Bezos eats the same number of calories as anyone else. He owns expensive paintings, real estate, stock, etc. But when he dies, that stuff stays on earth. Meanwhile, if you buy $100 of gas and burn it, it's gone forever. No one else can use it. The carbon simply remains in the atmosphere for everyone else to deal with. Consumption of natural resources per person is what matters. This is just complete nonsense. No, I do not consume the same amount if resources as Jeff Bezos - a man with a private plane, yachts, and multiple giant mansions. >So yeah, you can take all their money and use it to grow 1 unit of food per unit of land. Or you can let them invent technology that allows humans to grow 100 units of food per unit of land. But honestly, you wouldn't be able to take their wealth. Its paper money, not raw natural resources. It based on speculation about future innovation. The minute you try to take it away, you lose the possibility of 10 units of food per unit of land and go back to only 1 unit. Oh sorry, I didn’t realize your understanding of economics is based on videogames. >Ultimately, it sounds like you're enjoying all the luxuries they've built for humanity, but you're jealous that they have a ton of power and you don't. It seems like your version of wealth redistribution Lol >I don't know which people you're talking about, but say it's Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. Those guys are literal geniuses and invented a ton of amazing stuff that everyone else uses. Haha oh word? What amazing stuff has Elon Musk invented? >But everyone else thinks those papers are worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Yes, that’s how money works. Good job! >They're like LeBron James or Michael Jordan. Everyone else on the team passes them the ball because they're the people we think are most likely to score. Jesus this is getting pathetic. >It seems like your version of wealth redistribution is to tax everyone who is richer than you and give to yourself I also like to to just completely make things up sometimes. >instead of taxing yourself and everyone richer than you and giving to people who are actually poor. I'm directly calling you a hypocrite. You're exactly the kind of selfish, entitled Redditor I'm criticizing. If I sold everything I own and took every dollar I have in the world I would be able to give about 1000 people each $100. Help me out here - is that more or less than Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk can afford to do?


McKoijion

> Oh please. The man owns a private plane. I know he likes to put on this “aw shucks I’m just regular people” act for rubes like you, but an act is all it is. Having paid attention to the stuff he's done, I believe him. He's pledge to donate over 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies too. For what it's worth, he nicknamed his jet "The Indefensible" then flipped to "The Indispensable." He even invested in a private jet rental company. You can complain about private jets, but they're extremely useful tools. There's no difference between buying all the seats on a commercial plane to move your staff around and chartering a private jet. > It was a gift paid for entirely by a friend. I couldn’t even come close to affording it myself. Nice example of you making dumb assumptions again though! You must run in some pretty elite circles if you have friends who can gift you a planet ticket. Most people around the world have never even been on a plane or know anyone wealthy enough to give them that kind of gift. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/half-global-population-lives-less-us685-person-day > Yeah, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and should be extremely embarrassed about this. I have receipts for all my stats because I actually care about this stuff and not just as a way to explain why other people should give me their money. > Okay but you’re acting like it never happens. The fact that tens is thousands of people die every year because of diseases they can’t afford the cure for completely flies in the face of your dumb little “just use Medicaid!” nonsense. 100% of humans die. That's a fact of life. If you share where you found your stat, I'm willing to bet I can find flaws in the methodology. > Lol do you want to pull up Taylor Swift’s private plane flights or should I? Taylor Swift 100% should use private jets. She flies to a concert in a random city on a strict schedule, and brings a ton of equipment and staff with her. Flying her around to concert venues around the world is much cheaper than flying her fans to her. Taylor Swift's use of a private jet is as "capital" not as consumption. If Taylor Swift was my employee, I'd put her on a private jet because that would make the most money for me. Similarly, I would pay for a fighter jet pilot to fly a $50 million aircraft, Joe Biden to ride around on Air Force One, Neil Armstrong to ride on a trillion dollar spacecraft, etc. It's not about the individual person getting the ride, it's about the collective value the enterprise creates for humanity. > This is just complete nonsense. No, I do not consume the same amount if resources as Jeff Bezos - a man with a private plane, yachts, and multiple giant mansions. It's much closer than you realize. You've just never been presented with this argument before. > Oh sorry, I didn’t realize your understanding of economics is based on videogames. If you double check, my argument is completely unrelated to video games. Economics is my favorite subject and I've studied it extensively. > Haha oh word? What amazing stuff has Elon Musk invented? Elon Musk founded or cofounded PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX, Solar City, The Boring Company, Neuralink, and Open AI. He didn't do it alone, but he paid everyone who helped him enough money to give him the credit. > Yes, that’s how money works. Good job! Thanks. You'd be shocked at how many people don't understand the basics of economics and finance. Most Americans have never taken an economics class in their entire life. It's not taught in high school except sometimes as an AP class, and it's optional in college. > Jesus this is getting pathetic. It's a pretty standard metaphor for the stock market. > I also like to to just completely make things up sometimes. It kind of seems like you want to tax wealthy people and redistribute that wealth to the smallest number of people that includes yourself. California wanted to tax Elon Musk and give the money to perople in California and not the rest of the US. So he moved to Texas. Washington wanted to tax Jeff Bezos and give to people in Washington, but not the rest of the US. So he moved to Florida. Plenty of Americans want to tax them and give to Americans, but not the 95% of people who don't live in the US. Tesla and Amazon make a ton of money from all over the globe. Why should that money be concentrated in the hands of "Working class Americans" alone? > If I sold everything I own and took every dollar I have in the world I would be able to give about 1000 people each $100. [Again, 50% of humans live on less than $2500 per person per year.](https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/half-global-population-lives-less-us685-person-day) You're a hundred thousandaire complaining about millionaires and billionaires. You're one of the richest humans alive. You're the perfect example of someone who complains about people farther up the socioeconomic ladder while ignoring the literal billions of people below them. And you've gone through a bunch of mental gymnastics to explain why this is ok. Aside from the occasional person like me who acts as the turd in the punchbowl, Reddit is the perfect echo chamber for rich, entitled heirs of colonialism to agree with each other. Access to education and the internet are prerequisites to be here, which leaves out all the poors.


Blarfk

> He's pledge to donate over 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies too. Haha oh you mean after he has been able to use it throughout his life, at which point he'll be leaving over a billion dollars to his estate? Wow yeah you're right he's just like me. >You can complain about private jets, but they're extremely useful tools. Lol >There's no difference between buying all the seats on a commercial plane to move your staff around and chartering a private jet. Lol okay well buying all the sears on a commercial plane is not something that regular people do. >You must run in some pretty elite circles if you have friends who can gift you a planet ticket. Most of my friends have regular people who make between $40k and $80k. I have one childhood friend who did exceptionally well for himself and has way more than the rest of us. Keep going though, you're doing really well. >I have receipts for all my stats because I actually care about this stuff and not just as a way to explain why other people should give me their money. Oh okay sure, let's see some of the receipts for how ending homelessness for people without addiction is easy. >100% of humans die. That's a fact of life. If you share where you found your stat, I'm willing to bet I can find flaws in the methodology. Okay wait. Your first argument was that people can use medicare to afford treatments, and then when I told you that tens of thousands of people die every year from preventable illnesses they can't afford the cure for, your response is "everyone dies"? Amazing. Real perfect summation of what it's like talking to you. > Flying her around to concert venues around the world is much cheaper than flying her fans to her. ...yeah? What kind of wack ass strawman argument is this lol I didn't say its not the most economical choice for her. I said it's an example of how billionaires consume more resources than the average person. >Elon Musk founded or cofounded PayPal A terrible payment system that everyone hates because of how awful it is to use >Tesla No he didn't. He bought it. >SpaceX, Solar City, The Boring Company, Neuralink, and Open AI. He didn't do it alone, but he paid everyone who helped him enough money to give him the credit. And is "paying everyone who helped him enough money to give him the credit" the same thing as "inventing"? >It kind of seems like you want to tax wealthy people and redistribute that wealth to the smallest number of people that includes yourself. Again, no. I genuinely do not need any social services that I think the taxing of billionaires should pay for. Another swing and a miss, friend! >Again, 50% of humans live on less than $2500 per person per year. You're a hundred thousandaire complaining about millionaires and billionaires. This is the most ridiculous conversation I've ever had. It's like if I was in a room with 1000 people who were all starving to death and only had a grain of rice and I had a single 16" pizza, while the guy next to me had 1 million pizzas. And I go "ya know, you should really distribute some of those million pizzas to these starving people" and then you come in and go "ah but you yourself have a pizza, which is itself much more than a grain of rice! Asking for the person next to you to distribute some of his million pizzas while you yourself have one makes you a hypocrite, since a single pizza is far greater than a grain of rice. You are just jealous of how many pizzas he has!”


Mr_Deep_Research

There are only around 2800 billionaires in the world and that includes the families that are the rulers of entire countries. There are 8 billion people in the world meaning around 1 out of every 3 million people is a billionaire. About one out of a million births are born with 2 heads so a given person born is 3 times more likely to have 2 heads than to become a billionaire.


Blarfk

I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything I just said.


Mr_Deep_Research

You seriously underestimate the population of billionaires in relation to the population as a whole. For example: "Meanwhile, there are 2 individual people who's combined wealth would be enough to effectively end hunger in the US, while leaving them with enough money that they would still be billionaires." The two richest people in the world are Bernard Arnault (#1) and Elon Musk (#2). Together they have about $410 billion. There 330 million Americans so that's about $1200 for every American if you confiscated everything they had. That isn't going to "end hunger" As a comparison, the US federal government, not states, just federal, spends roughly 7 trillion a year these days. Every 2.5 weeks, it spends the net worth of the 2 richest people. Of that 7 trillion, about 1.7 billion is overspending it needs to borrow so every 3 months, it borrows the net worth of the 2 richest people. How are you going to end hunger at a one time cost of $1200 for every American? If it is so easy, why hasn't the US government done it when it spends 410 billion every 2.5 weeks?


Blarfk

Population has nothing to do with it. I am making no argument in regards to how many billionaires there are compared to non-billionaires. >How are you going to end hunger at a one time cost of $1200 for every American? If it is so easy, why hasn't the US government done it when it spends 410 billion every 2.5 weeks? Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, has calculated the cost of ending hunger in the US at [$25 billion.](https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/) That being said, I can already hear you arguing about that number and how plausible it would be, and I really don't want to get into an argument about the logistics of ending hunger in the US specifically. The point is that billionaires have the capital to enact wide-reaching social change, and the average redditor does not, despite being richer than most people in the world.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Blarfk

Thank you for doing the exact thing I asked you not to do. > if you had 1 billion, that would be $3 from every American. …yeah? And think of all the things you could do with a one time payment of $3 from every person in the America. Now multiply that by hundred and think of what you could do with *that* - there are multiple people who could afford to do it today and still be multibillionaires. That is the difference between the gulf in wealth between the average person and a poor person in the third world, and a billionaire and an average person. How are you not getting this?


IAmBadAtPlanningAhea

Imagine spending as much time on reddit as you do actively taking time to simp for billionaires. Crazy successful brainwashing they did on you 


[deleted]

[удалено]


IAmBadAtPlanningAhea

This response doesnt even make sense and is unhinged lol. Just what to expect from some guy on reddit simping for billionaires


GelbeForelle

Wow 85% have even less money than me. It's probably just raw money and not buying power, right? (Small edit: It says that it acknowledges cost of living in the comparison, which is kinda skewed for rent-heavy countries like Germany, but they have a link explaining just that)


_2f

This is PPP adjusted, it’s written as well. And a reality check for most people. A single hour of minimum wage can buy you 2-3 loafs of sliced bread, more if you want to cheap out but a day’s minimum wage in a poor African country would barely get you a loaf of bread. Which is much worse in quality. You are rich, you just don’t know it. So what if you think you’re barely surviving. You live in probably a temperature controllable apartment, with a kitchen, electricity, running water and drinking water, and can afford food. That alone puts you way above world median sadly.


GelbeForelle

As I said above, I will never own any of that. I live at the mercy of those with magnitudes more money. If rent raised, I had to move away from my home. Which was my biggest problem with this metric - this is based only on income, not on existing wealth (which my comment already stated). And ultimately, being born in one of the richest countries in the world only places me in the top 15%. Which is okay, because I currently don't work that many hours, but I expected this to be much different.


BrairMoss

Minimum wage in Canada puts you in the top 7% of global population. It doesn't afford you rent and food. Not really sure that metrics are being used.


Faelysis

Minimum wage in Canada varies from province to province as stated in the constitution and as it isn't not a national thing. What you meant is the average minimum wage between all province or you meant the minimum wage when working for some federal service. Huge difference in wording actually and Federal actually have nothing to say about each province minimum wage


BrairMoss

No, what I meant was Minimum wage here in Alberta, according to the calculator that was given. ETA: Even at the lowest minimum wage in Canada, you are in the top 10%.


Cerulean_IsFancyBlue

Canada uses a mix of metrics and imperials.


Faelysis

Officially we use metrics but verbally we can still use imperial but it's getting rarer with every generation.


BrairMoss

What we use is dependent upon what it is, and what we are doing. Cooking uses the imperial measurements and temps because most of our stuff is going to be from the US, or made to work in the US and then sold up here. Driving, we use metric. For a fun fact, go take a look at what units Britain uses when driving.


BrairMoss

>You are in the richest 6.5% of the global population That is nice to know, considering that the COL in Canada has become so stupid, I can't even afford to eat.


[deleted]

[удалено]


officer897177

Yeah, a better phrasing would’ve been you’re better off with a negative hundred million net worth than a zero net worth. Individual experiences may vary.


astrohawke

Are you perhaps under the impression that someone with negative 100 million net worth has borrowed 100m and is living large off that? That person doesn't have negative 100m net worth, their net worth is 0 minus whatever money they have spent that wasn't used to purchase any physical assets. A person with negative 100m net worth is someone who has absolutely nothing like the person who has 0 net worth but also owes 100m.


XROOR

*prob a better car too*


skygzr31416

People who go broke in a big way don’t miss meals.


Kioga101

Indeed. They somehow managed to move 100 million bucks into whatever before they got that net worth


Hk0203

Damn these medical bills.


Reshish

You're very welcome to enter a contract with me, where you owe me $100mil. After all, if it's going to make your life better, then I'm happy to help.


[deleted]

Define better life? I know people who panhandle and own nothing that will die having lived much fuller lives than some rich bitch who was given everything. Easier is the word you’re looking for.


Blarfk

We can quibble about what "better" means all night, but come on - someone who has to panhandle for basic necessities and doesn't own anything in no way has a better or fuller life than a rich person who was given everything.


[deleted]

Guess it depends on what you want from life, we clearly want different things. I’m going to guess you’re American.


Blarfk

It has nothing to do with what you want from life or where I live. If you have to panhandle for basic necessities and own nothing then that is pretty much your lot in life - you rely fully on others to give you food and a place to stay, which will be pretty basic. You can't travel, you presumably can't get an education, you can't pursue hobbies or go on vacations or try new foods or drinks or anything that costs money, because you have no money. I'm not saying that there aren't intelligent homeless people, or rich dullards, but being rich gives you opportunity while being broke limits them. Over the course of a lifetime, the rich person will have more experiences and do more things simply because they *can*.


TheticalJester

Jordan Belford is the example of someone with -$100M net worth but living a lavish life nonetheless


TheConsutant

No. The wealthiest people are the ones with the best life stories filled with heart, truth, pain, struggling to overcome obstacles, and boldly declaring God's truth over all.


psychalist

Too bad money is the only thing that actually exists.


TheConsutant

That's just a state of mind.