The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.
The “Net Worth” figure is deceptive, because it’s the exchange value and not the use value. Sitting on tens of millions of vacant real estate units, many of which are underwater on their purchase price, shows up as far less on an individual balance sheet than the material benefit of not being homeless accrues to a homeowner.
The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.
If that was true then taking all their capital and distributing it would be more than $31k/person/year for each individual receiving their share of the 8.4 Trillion.
So it doesn’t change anything. You get $30k and yes that $30k is worth more because it can generate maybe $3k in investment income for you a year. It’s still only $30k.
I honestly don’t know what you are arguing about. If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100. If they give you that $100 you now have that $100 which is also technically worth more than $100. It’s the same $100 + unspecified future value either way.
If you argue the $8.4 trillion in net worth of Billionaires is worth more than the $8.4 T, then if that $8.4 was taken from them it is also worth more.
If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100.
If someone buys a house for $500k it’s worth $500k. But it’s also a place to live, which makes it invaluable to a person without a home.
If the value declines to $400k then the net value is -$100k. But, again, the house has value as a place to live that humans need. Being underwater on your home isn’t the same as being homeless. And owning a million homes that lose value is very different than being broke.
Use value and exchange value are different things. And saying you have $8.4T on paper means something very different than saying you control properties, equities, and IP that other people need, but can’t have, because you’re hoping to flip it for a profit.
The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.
The “Net Worth” figure is deceptive, because it’s the exchange value and not the use value. Sitting on tens of millions of vacant real estate units, many of which are underwater on their purchase price, shows up as far less on an individual balance sheet than the material benefit of not being homeless accrues to a homeowner.
If that was true then taking all their capital and distributing it would be more than $31k/person/year for each individual receiving their share of the 8.4 Trillion.
Yup.
So it doesn’t change anything. You get $30k and yes that $30k is worth more because it can generate maybe $3k in investment income for you a year. It’s still only $30k.
It does, in fact, change things
I honestly don’t know what you are arguing about. If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100. If they give you that $100 you now have that $100 which is also technically worth more than $100. It’s the same $100 + unspecified future value either way.
If you argue the $8.4 trillion in net worth of Billionaires is worth more than the $8.4 T, then if that $8.4 was taken from them it is also worth more.
If someone buys a house for $500k it’s worth $500k. But it’s also a place to live, which makes it invaluable to a person without a home.
If the value declines to $400k then the net value is -$100k. But, again, the house has value as a place to live that humans need. Being underwater on your home isn’t the same as being homeless. And owning a million homes that lose value is very different than being broke.
Use value and exchange value are different things. And saying you have $8.4T on paper means something very different than saying you control properties, equities, and IP that other people need, but can’t have, because you’re hoping to flip it for a profit.