Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke • Hacker News Board

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#871

Post by strbean » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:40 PM UTC

postingawayonhn wrote: post #598

strbean wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what portion of new investment goes into IPOs, additional issues, VC, etc., compared to the portion that just changes hands between fellow 'savers'. If I buy $1mil of MSFT, I didn't contribute a cent to their payroll. I didn't create jobs, or grow anything. I just transferred $1mil to another investor, who will probably use that money to invest in AAPL. Seems to me a huge portion of investment is just mov…

By buying $1mil of MSFT you helped set the market price for their stock and therefore value the company. Based on that value Microsoft can then go to the market and raise new capital.

That is presuming that MSFT ever issues more stock. They haven't appreciably done so in the past 15 years, and the same trend applies for most of the DOW.

If MSFT never issues more stock, what then? Furthermore, helping to determine the value for possible future issuance seems like a very marginal benefit relative to the overall volume of stock trading.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#872

Post by strbean » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:43 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #765

strbean wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there is the age old goal of leaving the next generation better off than yours Hopefully we can strike a balance between leaving only your direct descendants better off and leaving everyone in the next generation better off. > I would always be hesitant to tax money that in theory was already taxed when earned This is incompatible with having an income tax and any other tax . Although, income tax isn't exactly…

>Hopefully we can strike a balance between leaving only your direct descendants better off and leaving everyone in the next generation better off. You're thinking that taxing the wealth of a billionaire is guaranteed upon death. Therefore from your perspective there are two options: taxing the wealth or not taxing the wealth. Except taxation is the exception, not the rule. If you know your wealth will disappear then…

I was just thinking in terms of the morality / virtuosity discussion there. In practical terms, there are of course massive problems with enforcement and the flight of wealth, for both estate taxes and wealth taxes.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#873

Post by clinta » Tue, Sep 29, 2020, 11:26 AM UTC

mactrey wrote: post #497

clinta wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who "hoard" wealth do not do so by filling a swimming pool with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. They invest in companies that provide jobs and the goods and services that the rest of us enjoy. Yes that is virtuous.

Sitting on billions of dollars in stock in a publicly traded company isn't really all that different from having a swimming pool full of gold coins. The day-to-day functioning of that company is not going to be affected if the billionaire sells shares to pay taxes rather than giving the shares to their children. An initial investment in a company is virtuous but once you have billions keeping that money in the family…

Investing in companies is contributing to society. Government is not society. Investing in Walmart so that the rural poor have more access to affordable goods is virtuous. And a whole lot of the contributions to government are absolutely not. Like the money that goes to build bombs to kill people in Yemen, or the money that funds your local police department's efforts to suppress protests against their unaccountable violence.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#874

Post by clinta » Tue, Sep 29, 2020, 11:34 AM UTC

MichaelGlass wrote: post #347

clinta wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who "hoard" wealth do not do so by filling a swimming pool with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. They invest in companies that provide jobs and the goods and services that the rest of us enjoy. Yes that is virtuous.

Those who "invest in companies" need somewhere to put their excess money. That demand for credit is likely responsible for downstream financial crises. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40854-019-0136-2 I like Milton Friedman too, he had a cool show on PBS, but history isn't going to be good for that guy.

Do you mean supply of credit? Because additional money wouldn't drive demand for credit, it would drive supply as those with money look for places to lend it.

If you are saying an excess supply of credit leads to financial crises, I agree with you. But the federal reserve that intentionally pumps money into the big banks to make credit easy is a far bigger contributor.

I agree that Milton Friedman had his flaws, one of which is this very topic, he never properly connected the federal reserve, money expansion and easy credit to economic instability.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#875

Post by clinta » Tue, Sep 29, 2020, 11:45 AM UTC

TheIronYuppie wrote: post #842

clinta wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who "hoard" wealth do not do so by filling a swimming pool with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. They invest in companies that provide jobs and the goods and services that the rest of us enjoy. Yes that is virtuous.

This also implies that only the person investing would provide that function of providing goods, jobs and services. Since he government does the same (produce goods, jobs and services), does that the government is also moral? Why is one more moral than the other?

Not all jobs or service contribute to society. But if you invest in a company that provides goods and services that people don't want, that money is lost and you lose your ability to invest further.

When government provides a service that people don't want, that service can continue indefinitely, especially if the few who benefit can contribute back to the politicians who keep it going. Lockheed Martin and Boeing can contribute to some politicians to make sure that wars continue and they reap back way more than they contributed from the taxpayer who's only option is to vote between two pro-war candidates. Those jobs making bombs for Saudi Arabia to drop on Yemen don't contribute to society, they are a determent to society, yet they continue without end because nobody loses on that investment as long as the taxpayer can be forced to pay for it.