You called him a boomer, made fun of him for selling.
Now look at you. Stuck bagholding during a once in a century dump. Value based investing is the ONLY sound strategy. Anything else is hype, copium, and mania.
He will slurp at the bottom, rest assured.
There would be nothing better than Buffett becoming #1 at the end of Trump's second term
I don't think anyone sleeps on buffet, bro
nobody was doubting buffet or his stack of cash. most were just curious what he was going to do with it
the real question is will it be worth buying the brk drip when he croaks or is it ogre at that point
must be nice to have so much cash you can sit out for years at a time. but those numbers are not really fathomable.
He or Bill Gates would already be #1 if they didn't give away so much of their wealth already.
btw...wtf happened to carlos slim...he spent it all on whores didn't he
he's only 4x'd in 25 years
Looks like he just stopped making money for 10 years.
btw...wtf happened to carlos slim...he spent it all on whores didn't he
He's a morbidly obese mexican who got super rich by purchasing landline telephone networks. To this day he refuses to use a computer
Perez got fired by Red Bull
I don't mean to hijack this thread but I didn't want to create a separate thread.
Why do people insist on there being some type of massive wealth disparity in the US and that supposedly it is increasing? I'm not exactly saying that people aren't rich and that billionaires don't exist, but the fact is that generational wealth is exceedingly rare in the US. There's been studies about this subject and for the most part people who inherited any type of wealth usually squander it all within 3 generations and have to start from scratch. Unless you come from a family considered some of the richest in the world, generational wealth is not something that actually lasts that long. And not only that, but trust fund babies completely lack the ability to actually generate wealth as their predecessors might have. Basically it being almost a non-factor in most cases. This entire talk about how rich people have it so good doesn't actually have any realistic and real foundations if you take into consideration the fact that most who come from moderate wealth have a massive tendency of never being able to reproduce what their predecessors did. There are definitely exceptions to this, but for the most part, inheritance doesn't exactly mean that the entire lineage will be wealthy forever.
Buffets still in USD which is going to fall even harder than the stock market when things really get fun with the bond market.
On the one hand it sucks that I'm losing money, but on the other hand I literally only just started DCA on January. This is looking quite good for me,
USD is still the ultimate safe haven.
Link?
Retail investors generally miss the irrational pump after a dump so they are the biggest losers when these events happen.
I hope that explains why people say they get poorer and the wealthy get wealthier.
One of the bags im holding is getting bought up by the previous owner's family, so my votes for directors wont matter in the shareholder meeting in a month
didnt cryptobro hate him
You need to update your programming. Trump has torched 3 centuries of accumulated US credibility in a few months. This shit is the last straw. It's clear Trump is going to rugpull the US debt and even the dollar itself, everyone wants out they're just figuring out how to do it. There's no point to anyone holding as a reserve the currency of a country that no longer trades with the world. I'd rather be in US stocks now than hold dollars and foreign holders of US debt and dollars will be thinking the same: all that exported inflation is about to rush back into the US all at once but without any stimulating effect it will be thermonuclear.
Done forget to say thank you.
Wealth disparity issues aren't based on inheritance and permanent classes. They're based on the wealthy (people and corporations) having a corruptive and self-serving influence on democratic norms and general well-being. Take housing - when large firms buy up housing as an investment, this prices out many people. Or when a chemical manufacturer poisons a local river and kills all aquatic life in it, wealth often allows them to lobby their way out of consequences while those affected can do nothing. Or even something as simple as roads - a large trucking firm may cause 95% of the damage to any given road through the weight of its trucks, but everyone is taxed for road upkeep. Why? Because trucking firms wield influence through wealth and the withholding of it.
Maybe you're right, I think Trump eventually backs down and the same goldfish memory investors have displayed for the last 10 years kicks in again.
Because it’s true. Tell me this, without looking, how do you think wealth is distributed in this country? How much in the top 0.1%, 1%, 10%, 20%, and bottom 50%?
What do you think the ideal numbers should be?
People don’t know how much semi truggs damage asphalt.
You're focusing on some cases where there are corporations that do ethically questionable things, which is a fair example, but doesn't actually address the underlying cause for there to be such a massive discourse on the concept that supposedly the wealthy are directly undermining society for those that aren't part of the wealthy club. The examples you listed are definitely valid, but I am referring mostly to the sense of injustice or some type of projected guilt onto those that might be affluent in the minds of most that aren't. The majority of the issue people grapple with when it comes to the subject of wealth disparity is that people often assume that rich people are essentially taking away wealth from others by being rich, which is not the case at all. I think the main issue lies in the fact that this is a common assumption for most people who consider wealthy people to be a massive problem. The issues you've mentioned could as well take place in even a country that is non-capitalist and doesn't do the justice of really putting some type of ideological shortcoming on what I assume you would refer to as a capitalist system. If the subject of disparity is related not to how wealthy people are taking away from the poor by being wealthy, which is not the case, then the issue might be related to how the richer have become exponentially rich instead of the other classes turning poorer. And if that is the case, that people are ''poorer by comparison'' then I really don't see how it is such a massive issue.
what if he calls for negotiations ?, what if the markets close up tommorow? At current time S&P futures are rising.
based
The poor have gotten poorer, while the wealthy have gotten wealthier. Look at housing costs and education costs vs wages. Night and day from 50 or even 20 years ago.
this whole list is absolute bullshit. where is the british royal family? where are the rothschilds, rockefellers, etc?
how do i value invest?
...what century are you posting from?
Queen Liz wasn't even the richest woman in the UK when she popped her clogs, let alone anywhere in the global lists.
Why do people insist on there being some type of massive wealth disparity in the US and that supposedly it is increasing?
Because all the stats show that that's the case? Maybe it's because of that, you fucking idiot.
the majority of the issue people grapple with when it comes to the subject of wealth disparity is that people often assume that rich people are essentially taking away wealth from others by being rich, which is not the case at all
I partly agree with this. I think it's the push and pull of the wealthy as job creators vs. "not paying their fair share" in taxes/upkeep/wages. In America for instance, people's lives have generally improved due to technology advances since 1970, but have they gotten wealthier or more financially secure? Not really. Costs have gone up at a faster pace than wages, inflation hits the less wealthy harder, industries shift without care for human well-being, government bureaucracies demand larger and larger payments, etc. Meanwhile the rich have become increasingly rich and influential as a whole.
Still, I think my argument still holds up that people being poorer by comparison remains an issue. The poorer a group is, the less organized it can afford to be, so their voices can't be heard as easily as Elon Musk's. It doesn't help that the Elon Musks of the world are often totally out of touch with reality on the ground (and have delusions of grandeur). So if there's to be an election, and an Elon Musk donates $25,000,000 to one candidate who backs his own interests, how are poverty-stricken people to match that even en masse for the opposing candidate who furthers their own interests? "Just hope a variety of ultra-rich people will back the interests of all classes" is not a reasonable request. Plenty of candidates throughout history seeking to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable end up as duds because they didn't have moneyed interests supporting them, meanwhile Elon grows ever richer.
Aristocracy arent counted in the lists
what the fuck are you smoking?
There are richfags not on the list, but it’s the Sultan of Brunei, royals from the House of Saud, etc. People whose net worth cannot really be accurately measured
Not the fucking British royal family
Look up how land the Crown owns and calculate the value of that land. Think you’ll find she was very wealthy, as is the new king now.
posts a picture that says he's the 3rd biggest loser since the ranking was last updated
Wow what a genius
so you believe musk has more money than the royal british family? I am absolutely certain that the networth of the royal british family is miles above musk
Are they even rich? They can't exactly sell all the shit they "own" because there's legislation in place preventing from doing shit with it. The queen can't exactly sell the BuckingHAM palace can she, it's basically just a nice prison
they own tons of land, dont they even own the fish in the seas around england?
yeah ok, they probably cant sell the buckingham palace but its still their property. imo they are way richer than musk and they arent the only family that is way richer than musk
The combined wealth of the Rothschild family across all its branches is estimated to be $15.7 trillion
newsweek.com
Don't tell me what to do with my money. I'll keep holding my SUI and ETH for the long term.
LINK? Lmao nah, I dumped most of that dinosaur** to ape into CETUS and AAA on SUI. Stay mad.
You bought into the USD a century ago, now the USA rugpulls you.
once in a century dump
Zoom out retard