Are tech billionaires technically rich since they don't own shit

>>59252434

most of their wealth comes from overvalued stocks

What would happen if Bill Gates sold all his shares at once?

>>59252454
>Big holder pulls out of the market completely.
Everyone would panic, because they'd think that the market is about to tank like a motherfucker.

>>59252434
Tech billionaires are billionaires because an idea.

And i fucking love that.

>>59252454

he actually doesnt have many shares

i read once that he has less shares than balmer

>>59252513
>he actually doesnt have many shares
So his money IS tangible after all and the quote in the OP isn't relevant at all?

>>59252531
The quote is still relevant Gates doesn't own anything. He transferred his Microsoft shares to whatever the fuck cascade is doing

>>59252531

Bill Gates will become the first trillionaire this year

hes so rich its unbelievable tbqh ... idk what your definition of tangible is but i'd say it seems tangible cause he really could care less about microsoft at this point

>>59252579

nvm he will be the first trillionaire if he stays alive

not this year

>>59252576
This.

>>59252593
Doubtful, the first one is probably going to be Jacob R., if he already isn't

>>59252434
>owns knowledge
Actually they own debt, if producers stop making stuff to pay debts their fucked

So debt owners are the most invested into keeping the world market (capitalism) rolling

Yet they try to sell us their "revolutionary potential", the best marketing scheme up till now

I love the fact that technological advancement means they could literally become poor overnight

File: just-one-more-episode-netflix-just-one-more-page-just-2929493.png (74KB, 500x645px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x645px

>>59252829

>>59252434
>Are tech billionaires technically rich since they don't own shit
You got it the wrong way around.

They're technically broke, since they don't own shit. Which is why they pay nothing in taxes.

But they're filthy rich as fuck.

>>59255348
He clearly meant to say technically *not* rich

>people don't judge success by how many cows they own
TRULY REVOLUTIONARY

>>59252454
depends

if he made a deal with large investors (banks, hedge funds, etc) then basically nothing, otherwise it would go down a little but not much because investors are vigilant

>>59252434
He could buy land, gold, and oil if he wanted it.

>>59252579
>could care less
*couldn't care less

why do people get this simple thing wrong?

>>59253315
Wasn't capitalist democracy the one system that wasn't perfect, always failed "because of human nature, not the system itself" AND even then you still had to give it one more try?
Isn't this what happens every election?

Kek, capitalists.

>>59257352
switch capitalist democracy for socialism/communism and you got a correct statement

>>59256317
>>59252434
Bill Gates pays $1,000,000 in property taxes for his main house alone.
I'd consider that "owning land".
http://info.kingcounty.gov/finance/treasury/propertytax/RealProperty.aspx?Parcel=q1iPffuHa3QwtdeWBZ5Z6w%3d%3d

>>59252531
the quote isn't about his money.
it's what he sold....software. something that isn't tangible but something that can be infinitely created.

he got rich not by selling something tangible but by selling some 100MB file that was duplicated millions of times.

>>59256666
>why do people get this simple thing wrong?
Because they parrot stuff they've heard others say. Many people have a library of stock expressions they've mis-heard from TV, movies etc.

>>59258707
Are you even reading what you write?

Name one instance where a communist blames human nature for their mistakes

File: Vocative-comma.jpg (17KB, 400x276px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x276px

>>59256666
A shocking number of people are seemingly unaware of the vocative case comma. It's nearly impossible to browse a social site like 4chan for more than 5 minutes without encountering this error.
Driving a car is similarly painful. It's virtually impossible to drive for more than 15 minutes without witnessing a minor traffic violation.

>>59260275
>dangling gerund participles
stfu faggot

>>59253315
>just one more time encoded as a jpeg

>>59260334
The post contains only 1 gerund, and that is not dangling.