cgTemplar

Well I won't tell you that!

I don't know, it just feels very convenient that wealth is considered money whenever is useful to the rich, and turns back into "wealth" a second later.

What I find unacceptable is the double standard. I'll keep the Musk example: a few banks and a few private companies made loans (which need to be reimbursed with real money) for Musk buying Twitter. A part of the exchange money came from the value of his own shares of Twitter (deducted from the 44b). Before that he has sold lots of Tesla shares which apparently gave him $20b in cash

Why do we accept that this not-money money can be turned into real money whenever convenient, but cannot be taxed the rest of the time?

There's a problem with how we accept to think of financial money. If it can't be taxed, then out shouldn't be defined as being an equivalent of real-economy money. Or maybe it should be evaluated in a more realistic way?

Not saying I have easy answers, but there's clearly a problem IMO.

It's also real money, otherwise Musk couldn't have bought Twitter for $44 billion. He sure didn't have that amount on his bank account but he still bought it all the same, thus giving him a substantial soft power through information.

It will set you apart from the other doormats.

I saw it countless times as a child and still felt scared for the cat every time I saw that scene.

Just listened to an episode! It's pretty cool, they summarize the chapter than offer different levels of analysis, and they connect new informations together with those of other chapters/POVs. Definitely subscribing to it.

Just started Martin Eden after a friend told me about it.

I've been told that the idea behind the law was (at least among other things) a matter of fair competition. That if a shop started discounting like crazy on just one item, folks would get inside for it and eventually would be shopping there only. And most times, the bigger store has an easier making those discounts because they have a safer profit margin where the loss will largely be compensated by the variety of items a single customer can buy in a single visit. Now it doesn't mean that there isn't other mecanics that could invalidate this reasoning, but it's the main argum that was appare put forward in the discussions.

In Belgium we have a law stating that no commerce can ever sell at a loss. Yet we still see 70% discounts, in stores for every budget range.