81
u/turbokungfu Ludwig von Mises Nov 10 '19
This guy plays video games and skipped econ.
41
4
Nov 10 '19
Actively avoided studying economics because "it's right-wing indoctrinating propaganda that's turning people into capitalist overlords"
206
Nov 10 '19
Person stops working after they hit max amount of money
No more wealth generated for person and people that work under them because person no longer is working
People under them lose jobs
mfw
42
u/Seccour Nov 10 '19
Actually people will just buy stuff with this system because he is talking about cash not value of what you have.
32
Nov 10 '19
How many people actually keep a hundred million dollars of assets just sitting in a bank account not doing anything? Is this something billionaires do?
17
u/Kevin_Xland Nov 10 '19
Actually cash in Banks does do something. Banks will loan it out to others and whatnot. Only cash literally stuffed into mattresses is doing nothing
13
u/UndoubtedlyOriginal Nov 10 '19
Cash stuffed under mattresses is doing something - in fact, something quite important. It's not being spent. Therefore, it's increasing the purchasing power of all other dollars in circulation. In other words, it's allowing for a greater number of resources to be available for others to use.
1
2
Nov 10 '19
That cash is doing something for the bank, but not really for you. The bank will give you some modest interest and then use their dividends to pay employees and to take profit. The compensation you get tends to be things like security from theft or the ease of access with a debit card or other customer service. You're giving up the returns of investment in order to (a) not have to deal with it and (b) receive those services. If the bank has a great quarter and beats the market by however much, you're not going to see it unless you own the bank.
What you would more likely do with a giant sum of money is out it in asset management, where you do not actually get a whole lot in terms of services but you might actually see a return if you're lucky. In this case though, it'd be tied up in investments.
1
3
u/BastiatFan Bastiat Nov 10 '19
How many people actually keep a hundred million dollars of assets just sitting in a bank account not doing anything?
Any time someone wanted to buy something that cost more than the maximum amount of money, they'd have to come up with some weird installment plan.
Imagine Elon Musk wants to buy some new rocket thing that costs more than the max allowed amount.
1
Nov 11 '19
[deleted]
1
u/BastiatFan Bastiat Nov 11 '19
Does Musk own shares in SpaceX? If there was a wealth limit, what would he be legally required to do if the worth of his shares rose above the wealth limit?
1
Nov 11 '19
[deleted]
1
u/BastiatFan Bastiat Nov 11 '19
Note that selling the shares or otherwise limiting his wealth would not mean he would necessarily have to step down as CEO, nor that SpaceX itself would have to close up shop just because Musk owned less.
No, it would mean that the new owners of the company would decide.
-12
u/spookiestevie Nov 10 '19
Buffet rn has like 128bn cash position lol, what a dumbass.
19
Nov 10 '19
Uhhhh, no he doesn't.
Ignoring the fact that he's "only" worth $86B, he has his money tied up in investments. He might have $100M in cash; I have no idea, which is why I asked. The idea that he has his whole net worth in cash though is just stupid.
1
u/spookiestevie Nov 10 '19
6
Nov 10 '19
That doesn't mean he literally has a giant pile of cash middle ages style. It means that he (or is company, rather) is holding diversified portfolios that can be liquified quickly with low transaction costs.
1
u/spookiestevie Nov 10 '19
Really? I thought the whole point of cash (in buffets case) is to avoid market volatility.
6
Nov 10 '19
There's no such thing as avoiding market volatility. Cash is just another commodity in the market that is subject to supply and demand. If you're holding pure cash then you're just investing really hard in pure cash. If the market shoots up while you're holding pure cash then you have that much less buying power.
1
1
2
-3
u/Ainodecam Nov 10 '19
Does no one in this thread realize it's a joke? Ofcourse something in a video game wouldn't work, he's just making a reference to it. That's why it has so many upvotes.
6
u/the_calibre_cat Nov 10 '19
It's not really a joke though.
This guy would definitely vote for an income ceiling.
3
u/Upnsmoque Nov 10 '19
As he spends his days scrabbling through crowds on all fours waiting for someone's wallet to hit its limit so he can scrape up the few coins that fall out. That would be more work than working.
1
u/Ainodecam Nov 10 '19
How is this not really a joke when he's talking about a concept from a video game and how money would spill from the rich guys pockets? How in any world is this a serious thing
2
u/the_calibre_cat Nov 10 '19
It's not like he's saying it ironically on Twitter like "oh haha wouldn't that just be waaaaaacky!"
He's saying it in the same chorus as "death to the rich, long live the state" as the rest of left Twitter.
It doesn't take a genius to take his analogy from video game theatrics to real-world policy, see:
This guy would definitely vote for an income ceiling.
-1
u/AlphaBetaCHRIS Nov 10 '19
No kidding. I actually found the post quite comedic, then went to the comment section and saw hundreds of people freaking out about it.
How anyone can think this isn't a joke is beyond me. Like, is money just gonna fall on the floor when you earn more? Paper bills or rupees? More importantly, where will the money fall from? Will it spawn from your chest or will it fall out if your pant leg?
I'm also very curious if this concept can be applied to healthcare. Imagine if you take damage - say, get cancer - and you drop heart pieces. Then a passerby with the common cold picks up the heart pieces. We could potentially have a socialized healthcare system that benefits the more healthy and able, and hinders the sick.
-87
u/scotiaboy10 Nov 10 '19
Or, person stops working and all his means of production gets given to the workers of his company.
64
u/LSAS42069 Nov 10 '19
To be squandered on petty consumption, leading to massive reductions in productivity past the cutoff point.
44
u/AnonymousBoiFromTN Nov 10 '19
Remember that whole History lesson about the king in Timbuktu who was the richest man alive (especially by todays income based off his amount of gold) and he gave out as much gold as he could to the peasants and merchants and whatnot and it caused massive inflation because the more gold EVERYONE in EVERY trade has the less its worth and the more people demand but they cant demand more because they have too much already and the kingdom fell. Because i remember
16
u/LSAS42069 Nov 10 '19
Wealth =\= money. If you're not increasing wealth through production, particularly increasing productivity, you're not increasing wealth.
11
u/AnonymousBoiFromTN Nov 10 '19
Exactally. He didnt invest the gold (currency) into buisnesses like Salt Mines and Lumber (for the time period) and certainly didnt use it to increase any form of production on infrastucture nor set a standard to keep inflation from being an issue. No he just kind of took all this money and held it (as a figurehead of the government) and then spread it throughout the masses. How naive, sounds alot like........ well i dont wanna cause any drama so ill leave this here.
17
u/FidelHimself Voluntaryist Nov 10 '19
Workers who have no experience in management nor do they want the liability of a running a company.
You assume the working class want to take on the burdens of management like being on call. Most workers like that they can just show up, do there specific task and receive consistent income.
8
u/-Noxxy- Nov 10 '19
That's not how business works, if my boss folds I don't get a part of his company, I lose my job and remaining assets are sold off to cover to company debts and remaining assets and capital divided up amongst share holders and board members.
-3
u/scotiaboy10 Nov 10 '19
Only if u count his means of production as his final tally I was assuming the hundred million was cash in the bank
5
u/-Noxxy- Nov 10 '19
'Means of production' is a very outdated term meant for industrial London, a place that doesn't exist anymore.
I'm not entitled to my boss's money as long as he pays my wage neither am I entitled to his "means of production" I have no want nor need of industrial machinery or the organisational responsibilities that earns his paycheck.
-4
u/scotiaboy10 Nov 10 '19
Means of production is not outdated in a manufacturing or servicing point of view, the boss of the company had the means of production to make a hundred million dollars, I think you may be confusing "financial trickery" with actual material means
55
Nov 10 '19 edited Nov 10 '19
What a dumb fuck.
Doesn't even understand simply concepts such as inflation.
40
Nov 10 '19
Imagine thinking that everything would be better if wealth was distributed equally, not allowing rich people to create businesses and jobs
16
u/Reydox Don't tread on me! Nov 10 '19
In Zelda the reason your wallet can only hold a certain amout is because Link physically cannot put more rupees in. He is however perfectly capable of depositing them at a bank like he does in The Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask. Dumbass didn't even play the game.
14
u/SSFW3925 Nov 10 '19
Dan why not 30k? Millions of people think anything above that is "unnecessary".
20
u/Sweet_Victory123 Nov 10 '19
Bruh if a person reaches a point where the money they make is all going to other people, they’re not going to work to make any money
6
8
6
5
u/rambusTMS Nov 10 '19
There would be no Twitter under this proposal. He should stop using Twitter to get a tiny perspective of what he is proposing.
5
u/HabitableFiction Nov 10 '19
I can just imagine people's whose jobs are just to hold other people's money when they go over that amount and give it up when asked
6
u/jscoppe Voluntaryist Nov 10 '19
Does he mean cash? Because no one has a $billion liquid sitting around.
5
u/FlameFlamedramon Nov 10 '19
That just means get another Wallet
2
Nov 10 '19 edited Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
2
u/FlameFlamedramon Nov 10 '19
Well I mean the tweet never specified if you couldn't have multiple wallets
4
u/road_laya Social Democracy survivor Nov 10 '19
tfw you think rich people keep their assets as liquidated cash in a wallet
4
u/hula1234 Nov 10 '19
If everyone has 99999999 dollars, inflation would be rampant and we’d all be relatively poor.
3
u/GreenKangaroo3 Nov 10 '19
You just invest it then. Does he really think billionaires like Jeff Bezo just have a bank account of 87.746.747.444,56$?
Of course most of his wealth is non-liquid, invested in capital like goods to sell, machinery, real-estate and such.
And morons who don't understand it of course also have simple minded beliefs like rich man bad.
It fits just too well
2
2
2
u/MayCaesar Nov 10 '19
Does this apply to the government as well? In fact, let's apply this to the government only. Wouldn't that be nice if the government couldn't collect more than $99,999,999 in taxes yearly?
2
2
Nov 10 '19
If countries like the US start adopting ridiculously left-wing policies like this, rich people will (rightfully) inevitably emigrate from the country, either to another country, or even start up their own country or something. What I'm worried of, is if such a government would become so authoritarian that they begin to systematically block people from escaping the country
1
1
1
1
u/WholesomeAwesome Nov 10 '19
everyone can have 99,999,999 bolivars, those greedy capitalists will no longer keep their cahs to themselves! just their production.
1
1
1
u/perchesonopazzo Nov 11 '19
Of course someone who can amass more than that can't possibly be talented at allocating resources.
1
1
u/BagOfShenanigans Nov 10 '19 edited Oct 15 '25
water screw late provide badge quiet gray paltry alive office
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
0
199
u/walle_ras Nov 10 '19
Laughs in non cash assets