[gryfft]

Yes, they lose more. They lose proportionally less. They're not winding up on the streets. It's disingenuous to pretend that it has anywhere near the impact on their lives as it does the other 99.9% of the participants in the economy.

[almost_usual]

They definitely can end up in the streets. Some of the wealthiest people suffered the most during past crashes, most killed themselves before taking the streets. Read Devil Take the Hindmost.

Edit: I’m not going to search through this book to find sources that fit some criteria you’re looking for. Get off HN comments, read a book, and learn some financial history lessons.

[gryfft]

I haven't read it, but I have a feeling we're not talking about the same people. I'm not talking about successful investors and millionaires. I'm talking specifically about net worth north of $200M in today's dollars. Not the people who jumped from their windows during the Depression. The ones who bought their stock and waited it out.

Edit: I've now read a few reviews and summaries of Devil Take The Hindmost. Its subtitle is "A History Of Financial Speculation," and it appears that its subject matter is not focused on ultra-wealthy persons with diversified portfolios being ruined by market corrections, but specifically speculators and frauds. At a glance, it doesn't look particularly relevant to this conversation.

[almost_usual]

Some of the _wealthiest_ people in modern history have lost it all. A recent example is Eike Batista.

[gryfft]

Batista is currently under arrest and has been sentenced to 30 years in prison for bribing disgraced Rio de Janeiro governor Sérgio Cabral, in order to secure public contracts, according to Wikipedia[0].

I'd prefer an example that isn't somebody who wound up in prison.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eike_Batista

[almost_usual]

Read the book then because I’m not going to search through it to cite a rich person who lost it all that fits your changing criteria.

[michaelmrose]

Citing an entire book as a source is quite frankly a ridiculous suggestion. You are suggesting that the poster should spend hours proving your position for you when you wont spend a few minutes.

[gryfft]

My criteria didn't change. I was talking about people who were ruined by the market, and your example seems to be someone who was ruined by his own crimes.

[Frondo]

I would like to know of one ultra-wealthy individual who ended up possessing nothing and was made homeless; I don't intend this to be callous but while committing suicide is a tragedy but it does't mean some rich person was going to end up homeless. Being homeless means you're at a point where no one can or will take you in, and I have a very hard time imagining a hedge fund billionaire in that position.

[DataWorker]

The poor rich people “who suffer the most” is a great point ironically. Loss is harder for those who have never had to face it.

[almost_usual]

Honestly this is why I never want to be wealthy or even rich. Living middle class with a roof and food is plenty.

[geggam]

Odd isnt it ?

They can declare bankruptcy and be free from all debt whereas your average college student cant escape.

Should we expect to see students jumping off of buildings soon ?

[scottlocklin]

IMO schools should stand surety for students. Would solve many, many societal problems by putting their skin in the game, rather than using government subsidized loans that can't be defaulted.

[navigatesol]

>They lose proportionally less. They're not winding up on the streets.

Yes, but the implication of OP is that these ultra-wealthy are crashing the system so they can then buy up everything around them. Where is the data to support this? The rich suffer during a recession too; no one is claiming they end up on the streets.

[zaro]

> Where is the data to support this?

Have you checked the Oxfam reports? When you take a look at the last years, there is very clear trend. If it continues like this probably in few decades the richest one percent will own as much as the rest 99%.

[gryfft]

>The rich suffer during a recession too;

I believe we're thinking of different definitions of the word "suffer." The qualitative difference to which I refer is that for one class of people, the "suffering" is restricted to numbers on ledgers going down, and for another class of people, said suffering can literally involve ending up on the streets.

Furthermore, someone else in these very comments is claiming the ultra-wealthy can wind up on the streets as a result of market forces.

[engineeringwoke]

Debt is usually involved. That makes your calculus a little naive