this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
657 points (98.4% liked)

News

23268 readers
2862 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Key Points

  • The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter.
  • All of the gains came from stock holdings thanks to an end-of-year rally.
  • Economists say the rising stock market is giving an added boost to consumer spending through what is known as the “wealth effect.”

The wealth of the top 1% hit a record $44.6 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter, as an end-of-year stock rally lifted their portfolios, according to new data from the Federal Reserve.

The total net worth of the top 1%, defined by the Fed as those with wealth over $11 million, increased by $2 trillion in the fourth quarter. All of the gains came from their stock holdings. The value of corporate equities and mutual fund shares held by the top 1% surged to $19.7 trillion from $17.65 trillion the previous quarter.

While their real estate values went up slightly, the value of their privately held businesses declined, essentially canceling out all other gains outside of stocks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theotherverion@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don’t necessarily see Elon's billions harm me. I see that limit can be limiting when the individual wants to buy, let's say, a company.

That’s why I see a hard limit like this wrong.

Far better approach would be to sanction shenanigans like private flights for 100 kilometers, uselessly huge yachts, etc. These luxuries actually make my life worse. They fuck up the air I breathe.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Society is harmed because these people can buy up news and TV companies, donate unlimited amounts to politicians, and generally fuck with the economy. No one can tell them what to do because they have so much money.

It seems like an aristocracy, which is very un-American. Once people run out of things to buy, how is their life affected by having more money? It essentially appoints them to a job they haven't earned.

There's no reason why Elon should run Twitter. He has no experience in Social Media. Imagine someone you work with just purchased their position and didn't have to interview or know anything about the field. Would you respect that person? Do you think they would do the job well? It would affect you, the company, and your customers negatively.

[–] theotherverion@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I get your point but that would be genuinely impossible to implement it.

Imagine you would have to know how to bake before being able to buy a flour. Monitoring what can/cannot people buy based on their profession does not make a lot of sense.

Also, the person didn't have to go through the interview process but he had to go through the process of earning that money.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Once you have over $100 million dollars, earning money is not a matter of skill. It's an inevitability. Compound interest will make sure you and your family are wealthy for generations, unless you pull an Elon.

What I'm telling you is many of these people are bad stewards of capital. Gilded Age robber barons sucked for many other reasons, but they at least understood their industry. Carnegie or JP Morgan would have slapped most of these nepo-babies across the face.

Imagine a sports team composed based on the amount of money people have. It would suck because people are not chosen based on skill. That's how we're choosing executive leadership in America right now, and it's honestly stupid.

[–] theotherverion@lemmynsfw.com -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well yes, such a team would suck and they would loose all matches. Just like a company would collapse if a billionaire chose to run a business he has zero clue about.

But it’s his money. He would lose it and I think he should be free to lose his money. And that’s the beauty of free market. If you are cunning, you win and if you are an idiot, you loose.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So your point is, you think someone should be able to buy a successful enterprise that's important for society and run it into the ground? And you think that's an argument in favor of billionaires?

I'm saying the opposite. You should not be able to lose more than a billion dollars. Bets like that should rely on the judgment of many investors, hopefully people who have expertise in the industry.

We don't allow doctors or lawyers to practice without being educated and licensed. There need to be requirements for strategically important companies too.

[–] theotherverion@lemmynsfw.com -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Even as a someone with no experience, I can be accepted as a "lawyer" by a law company. But no would ever accept me because they it would harm the company very much.

Same thing applies for companies. There is already a motivation for their leaders to lead them in the best way possible even without limited maximum amount of money. In addition, there is no such a company that is so critical that its crash would destroy the world.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There's no real impact on anyone's standard of living. Literally no one's life is worse off, and the country is better off. What's the downside?

[–] theotherverion@lemmynsfw.com -2 points 7 months ago

Because it is simply limiting what a person can achieve. Hence why I would rather see sanctions on specific actions.

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Where did that gap of the median 99%'s assets and the assets of the 1% come from? Could it have come from wages that could have been yours if excess profit was based on how much you contributed to the organization's productivity?

[–] mycathas9lives@mastodon.social 1 points 7 months ago

@littlewonder @theotherverion

I quit working for the establishment and corporations about 8 years ago. No more.