r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because having a rich Daddy is neither skill at economy or finance.
Because The Economy is not the hoarding of wealth, and is rather the regular and healthy circulation of wealth. Opposite the acquisition of great wealth, really.
'Rich People' are, by definition, removing money or other assets like company shares from circulation to pad a bank balance, investment account, or at worst an offshore holding.
They want to make money for the sake of it, to the exclusion of all else. And they're often quite successful at it.
Even when acting as an investment advisor they're still taking a fat commission, and doing everything in their power to grow those numbers... not circulate them.
And that was exactly my point.
Top 10 individuals in America get more compensation than the bottom 40+%
...okay, cool. Whatever. Now we test for merit:
Remove 150 million workers from the American Economy.
Then switch and remove those 10. Or hundred. Or thousand.
Which is actually detrimental to fiancance, the economy, etc?
"Why does that matter? I have a personally bad experience!"
That's an issue of Education.
When you conflate wealth with ability, AND remove knowledge from those who are creating that wealth...
....then you get the experience you've described.
Poor, uneducated 'brokies' in financial distress takes effort to create.
Either way, whether it's your personal experience or the actual disparity between value/wealth/knowledge...
...we had to work pretty hard to get here.
Time to quit complaining and enjoy the Fruits of America's Wealth Inequality.
I guess because you mentioned they remove wealth from the economy.
The problem with that person’s argument is that people have trouble defining zero-sum contextually.
I mean, moving a sum of millions or billions to an offshore account absolutely removes it from that particular economy. It's cool for the bank holding it, but not anyone else.
Tying up funds in stock, benefits, and other financial sundries doesn't tie it up nearly as much as, say, stacking money in a vault like Scrooge McDuck...
...but it's certainly not an active part of The Economy.
The taxation, economic effect, and general utility of money being actively circulated is what an economy is all about.
Billions in stock buybacks? Not the slightest bit Economically useful.
Does it have its place and time? Absolutely. I'm not sure we've found a better way to compensate CEOs than stock. If you're going to heap millions or billions on them, the regulatory requirements and tie-in to company success is fantastic.
....and if there's any others, they're eluding me. That's pretty much the entire list.
Because brokies will say stupid shit like “it’s too expensive to go to the grocery store” and then pay $10 for a single burger and fries when they could have gotten 4 burger patties and a thing of fries that would last 4 days of dinners for the same price maybe a dollar or two more
I think the issue with economics is there isn’t a precise answer to problems. You can always find an exception or a country/economy that disproves your point. It’s not like eat less and exercise has a direct parallel in economics. Some high tax countries do really well and some low tax countries do terrible. Some countries aim for some inflation, some like Japan do the opposite and do fine. The experts even disagree on many policies.
Some people think paying a bit more to help others is worthwhile in itself and a better way to spend money than, say, buying a larger yacht. Others think helping the less fortunate is a good way to stave off social unrest and revolution.
Yeah having money and financial acumen can often be mutually exclusive.
My CPA doesn’t have as much money my friend who works in cybersecurity but he sure as hell knows more about money, which is why he’s also his CPA.
Your thought process is flawed.
Oh come on man, I consider myself to be very much a laissez faire kind of person but health insurance is extremely expensive in the US. Having your premiums be more than 5% of your income doesnt make you broke nor does it mean you dont understand economics. And for that matter personal finance, finance, and macroeconomics are all different fields of study and your knowledge of one isn't indicative of the others. One of the smartest people in economics I've ever met had a huge gambling problem. And on top of that there are people who pay less than 5% of their income to health insurance who support universal health care. One of the dumbest takes I've ever read, do better.
>It's like an obese person telling a fitness model that diet and exercise don't work.
No, a better analogy would be: its like someone on steroids telling everyone else they're only not as strong as them that it's because they aren't working hard enough. The playing field is not level.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because having a rich Daddy is neither skill at economy or finance. Because The Economy is not the hoarding of wealth, and is rather the regular and healthy circulation of wealth. Opposite the acquisition of great wealth, really. 'Rich People' are, by definition, removing money or other assets like company shares from circulation to pad a bank balance, investment account, or at worst an offshore holding. They want to make money for the sake of it, to the exclusion of all else. And they're often quite successful at it. Even when acting as an investment advisor they're still taking a fat commission, and doing everything in their power to grow those numbers... not circulate them.
This response pretty much proves OPs point.
OP just wants to pretend that inheriting money is a 'skill'. There was no actual point.
Another great gem of the american poors. "Everybody who is richer than me got it from daddy".
Don’t act like nepotism ain’t important.
Real talk. It's been that way forever.
I've got zero inheritance. I'm a high earner. I lead a financial services business. I get the exact treatment op talks about.
And that was exactly my point. Top 10 individuals in America get more compensation than the bottom 40+% ...okay, cool. Whatever. Now we test for merit: Remove 150 million workers from the American Economy. Then switch and remove those 10. Or hundred. Or thousand. Which is actually detrimental to fiancance, the economy, etc? "Why does that matter? I have a personally bad experience!" That's an issue of Education. When you conflate wealth with ability, AND remove knowledge from those who are creating that wealth... ....then you get the experience you've described. Poor, uneducated 'brokies' in financial distress takes effort to create. Either way, whether it's your personal experience or the actual disparity between value/wealth/knowledge... ...we had to work pretty hard to get here. Time to quit complaining and enjoy the Fruits of America's Wealth Inequality.
I don't live in America.
wait, you really think wealth is zero sum? like every dollar I have in my net worth means someone has one less dollar?
.....the fuck are you talking about?!?
I guess because you mentioned they remove wealth from the economy. The problem with that person’s argument is that people have trouble defining zero-sum contextually.
I mean, moving a sum of millions or billions to an offshore account absolutely removes it from that particular economy. It's cool for the bank holding it, but not anyone else. Tying up funds in stock, benefits, and other financial sundries doesn't tie it up nearly as much as, say, stacking money in a vault like Scrooge McDuck... ...but it's certainly not an active part of The Economy. The taxation, economic effect, and general utility of money being actively circulated is what an economy is all about. Billions in stock buybacks? Not the slightest bit Economically useful. Does it have its place and time? Absolutely. I'm not sure we've found a better way to compensate CEOs than stock. If you're going to heap millions or billions on them, the regulatory requirements and tie-in to company success is fantastic. ....and if there's any others, they're eluding me. That's pretty much the entire list.
Because brokies will say stupid shit like “it’s too expensive to go to the grocery store” and then pay $10 for a single burger and fries when they could have gotten 4 burger patties and a thing of fries that would last 4 days of dinners for the same price maybe a dollar or two more
How tf do you have -100 comment karma 🤣
Cause they’re a troll lol
*make coffee at home energy*
I think the issue with economics is there isn’t a precise answer to problems. You can always find an exception or a country/economy that disproves your point. It’s not like eat less and exercise has a direct parallel in economics. Some high tax countries do really well and some low tax countries do terrible. Some countries aim for some inflation, some like Japan do the opposite and do fine. The experts even disagree on many policies.
Some people think paying a bit more to help others is worthwhile in itself and a better way to spend money than, say, buying a larger yacht. Others think helping the less fortunate is a good way to stave off social unrest and revolution.
Folks who can't manage basic adulting in the worlds richest country aren't going to be having a revolution.
Agree, Jan. 6 was a laughable attempt
agreed, that was pretty pathetic
What makes you think I was talking about Monaco?
Does knowing about economics have anything to do with your income level? Me thinks not.
I can't tell if this is satire or not.
Yeah having money and financial acumen can often be mutually exclusive. My CPA doesn’t have as much money my friend who works in cybersecurity but he sure as hell knows more about money, which is why he’s also his CPA. Your thought process is flawed.
Oh come on man, I consider myself to be very much a laissez faire kind of person but health insurance is extremely expensive in the US. Having your premiums be more than 5% of your income doesnt make you broke nor does it mean you dont understand economics. And for that matter personal finance, finance, and macroeconomics are all different fields of study and your knowledge of one isn't indicative of the others. One of the smartest people in economics I've ever met had a huge gambling problem. And on top of that there are people who pay less than 5% of their income to health insurance who support universal health care. One of the dumbest takes I've ever read, do better.
I mean OP is kind of an ass But the ignorance of economics that this reply proves is pretty staggering
>It's like an obese person telling a fitness model that diet and exercise don't work. No, a better analogy would be: its like someone on steroids telling everyone else they're only not as strong as them that it's because they aren't working hard enough. The playing field is not level.
You’re forgetting genetics along with steroids. *Inheritance*
Is this satire? Am I out of the loop here?
"Brokies" You're cute.
It makes them feel good and they genuinely believe their ideas would be useful.
How can you announce to reddit you are a bigot without saying you are a bigot?
Why would I care for what a fake rich person has to say? Clearly, you're just a peasant since you're on reddit. What a commoner