The initial comment was on how the stock market transfers wealth from poor people to rich people over time.
Yes. And it doesn’t.
If there was no stock market, poor people wouldn’t be any less poor. There was literally a lot more poverty before stock markets existed.
But, once the valuation is realized…
Which it hasn’t, in the case I’m referring to, where it’s being claimed that net worth increases = equivalent decreases in others’ cash reserves.
The notion that the world’s wealth is zero sum (which is required to believe the foolishness above), when it’s exceedingly obvious that new wealth is created constantly, is a display of blatant ignorance of basic economics.
Your baseball card became worth more because more of them got lost or destroyed over time so it got more rare.
Assumption. That can happen because the athlete has a very good season, or even becomes famous/infamous for an unrelated reason.
In other words, you’re assuming it’s because supply went down, but it can also be that demand went up. Or a combination.
But that’s beside the point, which is that its value changing has zero impact on what’s in others’ wallets. Because it’s a price tag. Not an amount of actual money.
Your point?
The stock market is just a way for people with more money to slowly take money away from people with less money
A stock price isn’t “money”. It is, literally, a price tag. The price of a stock going up does not take actual money out of anyone’s wallet.
If my $5 baseball card becomes worth $100 as time passes while I continue to possess it, do you seriously believe I’ve now done the equivalent of stealing $95?
Right now, the S&P 500 is 6,448.26 and the Dow Jones is 45,271.23, lol—both higher than the “6 months ago” figures.
Wonder what day “today” actually is. This is an especially egregious example of making a meme that will age badly, literally giving itself a natural lifespan under 24 hours with “today”.
In any case, boo to you for spreading false info that you could have fact-checked extremely easily.
What do you think of this particular peculiarity (I think it’s peculiar, anyway)?
I’ve got a worthless degree i deeply regret
Meanwhile, not far from this comment is someone claiming no one regrets getting their degree, lol.
Stay mad that in 30 seconds, I was able to directly contradict that stupid generalization with facts.
All that needs understanding is that sweeping statements like those shouldn’t be made, as they’re basically always inaccurate.
You must be the only person living in America, correct?
I replied to a comment about the entire US, so showing it to be false anywhere in the US refutes it. Don’t make/support generalizations if you don’t like it, and don’t want to be full of crap.
Are you saying they mismanage the wealth by selling the assets, therefore not paying capital gains, but also using the cash to fund their lifestyle?
I’m sure it’s not exactly the same in every circumstance, but overall, I imagine some flavor of ‘heirs don’t have the same financial savvy as those they inherited from, and so they spend the wealth instead of preserving it’.
Just looked on Zocdoc and there are 2 PCPs who are:
https://i.imgur.com/xKanonX.png
You’re full of crap.
Edit: Aww, do the ideologues not like having their talking points instantly debunked?
Speaking of “paycheck to paycheck”:
I certainly have compassion for people who live paycheck to paycheck because they’re struggling to make ends meet, but not those living “paycheck to paycheck” who have the ability to save, but choose not to. And, despite popular belief, the majority of people in the “living paycheck to paycheck” category are actually the latter. But it’s easy to assume the former meaning (it’s more intuitive, after all), so those two ‘subsets’ are almost always (basically everywhere other than within the depths of the methodology of the research that yields the figures) conflated, and so “living paycheck to paycheck” is often used to great effect in rhetoric as a result.
The fact is, on average, Americans have more of an overspending problem, than an underearning one. Did you know that 48% of consumers earning over $100,000 a year, and over a third earning over $200,000 are “living paycheck to paycheck”? Meanwhile, 25% of those earning less than $50k aren’t living paycheck to paycheck (a demo I was part of until I eclipsed $50k a few years ago)—maybe it’s time to more closely examine what those people are doing, and follow their example.
It’s absurd that anyone making less than $50k a year is saving more money than someone making $200k.
deleted by creator
I guess the cycle continues if you will the stock to your children.
In the US at least, there is what’s called a “step-up in basis”, where when you do this, they receive the stock as if they had just bought it, instead of ‘inheriting’ the parent’s accumulated capital gains. In other words, if I bought a stock for $10 and it becomes worth $100, then I sell it, I’d pay capital gains tax on the $90 I made. But if the stock goes to my kid while it’s worth $100, it’s treated as if they bought it when it was worth $100 (which, in a way, is true, it is worth $100 at the time they gained possession of it), so if they sell it right after inheriting, they would pay no capital gains.
This is probably a large part of the reason that 70% of generational wealth is gone in two generations, and 90% in three, on average.
And if the stock tanks, then I guess you declare bankruptcy.
Yeah, ultimately, it is kind of a ‘house of cards’. The only way this strategy works at all is if the market value of the assets being used as collateral continuously increases, and not just increases, but increases at a greater rate than inflation and the interest rate on the debt, combined.
Yeah, as I read this, my first thought was it being preceded with “never subjugated voice:”, lol.
What did you think about Mike Tyson’s face tattoo? Would you judge someone with 5 lip rings, 2 eyebrow rings, and their nose stretched on both sides?
I judge people based on how they act, and nothing more. You should try it sometime.
Personal choices like elective surgery make you vulnerable to ridicule.
Only deeply flawed/insecure people go out of their way to ridicule anyone (especially going so far out of your way to collect photos of them to post on the Internet for the explicit purpose of mockery) based on personal choices they make about their own appearance.
Don’t try to rationalize this infantile behavior, who do you think you’re kidding, pretending you’re justified in the least for this?
Insulting people’s appearance isn’t a “meme”, it’s just being a jerk.
Shame on you for posting this, and anyone who joined in the hypocritical circlejerk by upvoting it.
Pathetic behavior.
“Daily murder” is a sneaky rhetorical maneuver, considering it’s something influenced more by raw population size, than by capita. It’s easy for there to be a “daily murder” in a country of 340,000,000 people, even when the overwhelmingly vast majority of people do not murder.
Using “few” to trivialize/minimize the racism is no better.
Shame on you for this disingenuity.
The last panel’s wording insults the audience’s intelligence, imo. “I’d get arrested” would be enough to get the joke across.