I think the problem is a sort of self-correcting one though because when the cuts start to bleed deep enough that people can no longer afford food or basic amenities that's when people start to get violent. Unfortunately that also tends to be very bad for economic outcomes.
I think we'll just see benefits slowly ramp up until most people are on benefits, with lots of consternation around government waste along the way.
Certainly not in Texas.
A single person, who makes $910/month before taxes, rent, transportation, clothes, and insurance, could spend a lot of time and energy on paperwork, and then net $24/month.
https://www.hhs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/snap...
As long as the economic system can absorb it (and there are plenty of places with >20% inflation rate that survives,) you're right. But if it makes people feel they have "nothing to lose" on going against the rich, GPs scenario will kick in. Ray Dalio (and the Fourth Turning book) suggests this debt cycle is overstretched, and that we should _expect_ an uprising soon that resets it.
You can see this most dramatically in Las Vegas right now: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LHwU4lQ46nA
Screw ups where that kind of thing has happened like the Irish potato famine, which was mostly a result of crap British governance are mostly avoided these days.
At this point I assume even a hard economic crash pioneered and gleefully supported by the rich isn't enough of a cold water splash. I think that mentality is too locked in for a large subset of Americans. Musk has been increasingly getting more and more rancid and that doesn't seem to deter his supporters at all.
1 - 2 million people are homeless!
What next mr south african, will go for 100 trillion?
Both of those problems can be solved if you just do it slowly in a pre-announced manner. A trillion is a thousand billions, so you could cash out 1 billion dollars annually until the 30th century assuming zero growth/inflation. So unless you're really worried about the optics of selling 0.1% of your holdings, or plan to spend more than 1 billion a year outside your business, you're not really constrained.
Everything is liquid in a long enough time horizon. It just depends on what you mean by liquidating. Like do I have to sell my house today? In a week? Months? More flexibility = more value.
For Musk the situation is definitely more extreme though. Since a significant part of that valuation is attached to him owning it, he would definitely take an abnormal level of haircut. Probably an unknowable investor sentiment question though.
The world has lost the ability to critically think.
Bold of you to assume it ever did.
A reminder that deciphering Linear B was the work of a number of people and a brilliant book by John Chadwick discusses the statistics, and the application of numerical/statistical methods to the analysis That Chadwick and Ventris used, from the ground breaking work of Alice Klober.
The problem with Linear A and the Phaistos disc, is that there isn't enough material to apply these kinds of methods. I believe most Linear A is tally records.
Making money is the incentive we have in capitalism for individuals to create value. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system we know of. In systems where we don't allow people to become rich (in theory) we typically produce less value and end up with most of the value concentrated into one dictator (e.g. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia). We can argue about taxation etc. but fundamentally this is the system that has proved to be the best for everyone. We can argue about checks and balances as well but again in practice having rich people and western democracy correlates with better outcomes for everyone historically. If you propose we get rid of this system you need to make a reasonable argument for an alternative that is better. If you're arguing that life isn't always fair and luck plays a role- well yeah.
