Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by DamnYuppie 480 days ago
Well rich people already own most assets. Why would they want their holdings to lose value? Market crashes hurt HNWI's the most, as they have the most exposure.

I am not sure if you feel the second point follows on from the first or stands on its own? I will respond to it as a separate issue and I take it to mean the economy as a whole and not just residences. That being said I agree it is the goal of companies to move that way as they will always push for more control and recurring revenue, but that’s just corporate incentives at play, not global a shadowy plan imho. If we the consumers push back and demand our DVD's and CD's (yes I still use those) there will be players who come forth to take our money for them.
2 comments
edoceo 480 days ago
Market crash won't hurt the super wealthy. Oh no! My assets went to 60m down from 100m!

Day to day spending pressure is what tanks. Economy depends on money flow. Most of that flow is necessities (shelter, food)

link
rsynnott 480 days ago
> Market crash won't hurt the super wealthy. Oh no! My assets went to 60m down from 100m!

This is not necessarily the case, due to leverage. For some, it can be "oh, no, my assets went to -200M down from 100M". In particular, it's somewhat common for rich people to fund their lifestyles, and sometimes fund business ventures (this is really playing with fire, but it happens) by borrowing against the stuff they own, which is usually mostly equity. In a really big crash, this can unwind rather messily, as some overstretched super-rich discovered in the previous financial crisis.

link
milch 480 days ago
Isn't it kind of sad that 100M doesn't even count as super wealthy anymore? That's missing 3 zeros. Yes 100M is enough that you never have to work again and can basically go anywhere and do anything you want in boundless luxury, but it also doesn't even cover the cost of one (1) boat purchased by the actual super wealthy
link
MarcelOlsz 480 days ago
>Well rich people already own most assets. Why would they want their holdings to lose value?

If wealth is a function of ownership why would you care if your $500m went down to $100m if the purchasing power you cratered is well below what you lost in 'value' while your ownership increased?

link
Jtsummers 480 days ago
Because it's not just the US economy and USD. If a billionaire is over-invested in the US and USD, then a decline in the US economy and global hard and soft power (what we're seeing now) will lead to a decline in their wealth relative to global wealth.

If the global economy shrinks by 80% (using your numbers) then their relative wealth can remain the same. If the US economy shrinks by 80%, then their global wealth has substantially declined while the wealthy in other countries do not suffer as much.

link
DamnYuppie 480 days ago
If I understand your argument it is that the rich should want to crater the market because even if they lose money, their purchasing power increases?

That would only work if they have large cash reserves, we have data that shows most billionaires/millionaires don't their wealth is tied up in assets.

Because of that if the market does crater their businesses/assets may in fact get wiped out.

The rich don't want volatility or crashes, it rarely benefits them.

link