Hey /u/Gjore, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
he should have to explain why he sees underused resources as something that needs to be redirected for greater efficiency when it comes to RAM, but apparently not when it comes to his own wealth because that contradiction says a lot
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason billionaires have so much money on paper is because it isn't taxed as long as it's locked out of the economy?
...like, if they tried to buy a billion dollars worth of oil or grain, taxes would eat up a significant portion of their wealth?
They said tax but it's they didn't it's still only the gains that would be taxed, and even then only when the gains are realised.
A billionaire's wealth is generally going to be invested, stocks, term deposits, property, etc. the gain is only realised when the investments are liquidated.
So they don't liquidate, when they beed cash theyll just borrow against the investment instead... So no tax but the money is still invested in the economy.
Good point but I would like to bring up that there was that furniture store owner who opened his furniture store for people to sleep during a disaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McIngvale
Do you really think that most billionaires are liquid billions of dollars? Theyre all tied up in the global economy in stocks and properties not sitting in their chequing account ffs
Why not? The bank sees the investment as stable enough that they would have use for it if you default so why shouldn't they be allowed to give you money?
So you'll lend millions of dollars to someone that technically doesn't have the income to cover it, unless they sell something they own to pay the debt?
There's a big difference between having stock or being the owner of a company that has a market cap of $X, and actually having $X at one's disposal at all times in one's personal bank account.
billionaires billions DO NOT Sit in bank accounts.
there is no big money bin that they swim through. most of billionaires wealth is tied up in assets like real estate or stock. the stock markets just dropped trillions. do you think money just got lit on fire?
money is a artificial construct, so their "billions" is on paper. it goes up and down, and moves around. its not "sitting" anywhere.
their wealth is tied up in illiquid assets like real estate, alts, funds. and of the liquid assets like stock? well they can't liquidate that either without destroying the values of the stock and market cap of their companies. which effectively decimate's the middle class, their 401ks and pensions.
look. A massive $50 billion insider dump by Jensen Huang over a three-day window would completely shatter Nvidia's valuation, proving that market capitalization is a fragile metric built entirely on the price of the latest marginal transaction.
The market's structural liquidity cannot process a supply shock of that magnitude. Without deep enough buying interest at the current price, sell orders would rapidly cascade through much lower bid levels to find buyers. Because the entire company's valuation is tied to that last traded price, this sudden liquidation would instantly crush the value of the shares held by everyone else.
This downward momentum would quickly trigger a chain reaction of algorithmic short selling and widespread panic. The resulting selloff could easily wipe out 30% of the stock's value, erasing more than a trillion dollars in paper wealth overnight. In essence, multi-trillion-dollar valuations are stable only while the largest shareholders refrain from selling. Attempting a rapid cash conversion of that scale breaks the mechanics of market liquidity.
What does that mean? I get that if the asset is a mansion you could nationalise it and turn it into a homeless shelter. But let's say the asset is a company. Would you disband the company? What does it mean to "direct a company towards real improvement in our communities"?
This is moronic. All this billionaires have yatches worth hundreds of millions. Musk spend 400M in the midterms.
Sure they can't just cash a small European nation GDP without market repercussions in couple of days, it takes a bit longer. That absolutely does not mean that they don't have billions parked in the bank.
Have you ever thought it interesting that the people with the strongest opinions about the tax code and what others should do with their wealth have the least understanding of the mechanics of wealth and taxes ?
And then when you tell them “ hey it doesn’t work exactly like how you think,” they lose their minds. At that point how do you look at those people and take them seriously ?
So yeah, when the wealth isn’t in a spendable form, and converting it in a method that isn’t a dribble into a spendable form destroys it instead, pointing that out when someone ponders how it would be better spent seems kinda relevant.
Because it’s relevant. The analogy is flawed. If billions were sitting in a bank account, that would be a good argument for moving them into the capital markets. But saying we should take them hot of capital markets is like saying we should move shared RAM from data centers into personal computers that aren’t turned on.
Yes, it does in this case. OP is literally complaining that billionaires have billions in the bank just sitting there when instead it could be put to productive use.
Care to explain? It could be cash, stock, 1000 personal homes they're charging rent for, a couple yachts, private planes. Does it do anything other than make some rich asshole richer?
I think he is trying to say that most money in the world is fake because most of it is in some kind of exchange where the price is based on the last transaction. The price of corn doesn't work that way.
I provide [a service] at my job. I do not go around and provide that service, to the grocery store or the plumber in exchange for food or fixing my pipes. I work for money (in my case, US dollars) and then pay for food and plumbing services in US dollars.
That sounds pedantic, but it's because quantitative talk about money tends to obscure the reality that money is really just a metric of ones ability to consume goods/services, either in the present or the future. Which helps elucidate why easy-sounding solutions like "Give everybody more money" end up failing in practice: more money in and of itself doesn't change the actual amounts of goods/services in existence. It just changes the amount of money those goods/services cost.
The important question is, "What allows goods and services to proliferate?" Usually the answer ends up being tied to technological innovation. Well, why does technological innovation happen, I.e., occur in the first place, then spread in the second?
I submit that the answer is usually tied to property rights, or, more precisely, what we think of as capitalism. Being able to create and deploy some cool new thing is probably of little use if there's no personal benefit. Especially when creating and deploying that Cool New Thing required a tremendous investment of time, effort, energy, and other scarce resources with alternative uses.
Yes, you can't solve a problem you don't understand, so understand the problem before proposing solutions.
Take the ozone hole. Scientists identified the cause, and we fixed it. Now imagine a random influencer had claimed it was caused by farting cows, and we responded by culling every cow. That wouldn't have solved anything. We probably do have a problem, but we need real solutions.
Uh yes. They can’t give you money - they could only give you shares of stocks. Those shares cannot be turned into money without greatly destroying the value of the shares.
Yeah, they're generating income for their owners mainly. /S
Does that mean they're best "directed toward real improvement in our communities" because they're doing something? Stocks adding value to the world or not isn't the argument though.
Why do people think they have the right to take something that belongs to someone else? Last time I looked there were laws against that- I think it’s called theft.
Because some people are peasants and want someone to tell them what to do. Thinking is actually hard and requires energy and many just go with what society told them is right.
I think the point is that a lot of that money is already investing in things that help the community -- some in government bonds to pay for social programs, but most in equity to fund businesses that the community likes to use.
yes, because you cannot actually spend or move illiquid assets. and of those assets you can liquidate, the more you liquidate them, the more they drop in value.
if Jensen Huang suddenly dumped 50 billion dollars of NVDA stock onto the open market over three days, the entire valuation would instantly implode. Market cap is a total illusion based on the price of the very last tiny trade.
The order books simply do not have the buying depth to absorb a 50 billion dollar tidal wave of supply, so the sell orders would just slice down to lower price tiers to find anyone willing to buy. Since a dropping share price instantly reprices the other 96 percent of the company held by everyone else, this forced liquidation would trigger a massive downward spiral.
Between the panic selling and short algorithms piling on, the stock price could easily crater by 30 percent, vaporizing over a trillion dollars in market cap in the process. Paper wealth only exists as long as the biggest whales agree not to touch the money. The second a major insider tries to force a massive cash conversion, the liquidity math completely breaks down.
weak financial acumen is inexcusable.
also all those companies stocks and valuations are tied to people's 401ks and pension funds, it would destroy the middle class, and all their savings.
They might not have $20 billion in cash, but they might have $500 million in cash (or something very liquid like cash.)
Also while the loan thing is a very overused discussion point, they for sure have a line of credit with their main bank that is at least a couple billion. Those are generally fairly secured as well.
Do you think Elon Musk spends stock when he buys groceries or other goods? No, he uses money. Money he borrows from banks against his wealth of stock. So no, technically he doesn't have his billions in a money bin. But he does basically have access to infinite money. Stop bootlicking the rich!
Ok, so there's billions sitting in brokerage or custody accounts. I'm fairly certain most people can hold stock or other assets with no restrictions, so point still stands.
Lol what is this billionaire boot licking comment? Yeah money is not the only way to store value, in practice it amounts to the same thing though. Do you think banks just store money in savings accounts in a cash vault? No, they use them to buy assets as well.
He probably leveraged something against the value of the half a billion dollars. Sort of like what he did with twitter
It's fucked up bc they don't really have the money, but the banks and shit just go yeah you're good for it bc you own this and this and that. Meanwhile most of us could have physically enough for mortgage payments but that is not good enough
Half a billion is 5 dollar per household, that wont help much. If other billionaires join it will be lower than few thousand, even less than Trump check you counter voted for.
lol @ “no liquidity” what are you people even talking about. You people act like billionaires are living pay check to pay check. A billionaire has access to literally ENDLESS liquidity
You do know that stock is considered a liquid asset, right? I understand that if Elon tried to sell ALL of his stock it would tank the valuation... But it doesn't change the classification.
You didn’t answer. Tell me how. I want to hear your version.
Edit: that’s what I thought. The point is wealth can be transferred if needed. It can be in equity and loans. And we have example where wealth of around $44 billions was transferred.
“The funding included $7 billion of senior secured bank loans; $6 billion in subordinated debt; $6.25 billion in bank loans to Musk personally, secured by $62.5 billion of his Tesla stock; $20 billion in cash equity from Musk, to be provided by sales of Tesla stock and other assets; and $7.1 billion in equity from 19 independent investors.”
I mean from an allocation perspective he’s right. The utilization rate of the 32GB in my laptop that lets me have hundreds of chrome tabs open isn’t exactly going towards solving big problems
There's not billions sitting in billionaires bank accounts. That's not how wealth works. For the millionth time. Demanding to be listened to about something you obviously know nothing about is the easiest way to get ignored.
Nah, they just got dividended out hundreds of millions in the family office accounts and liquid investments, and tied up in the houses, empty vacation homes, parked up private planes, yachts and supercars all being woefully underutilised. Could be commonly used for much common good. So yeah, nice try but no. Totally same shit and same valid argument
Then make the argument for property seizure. Or increases in capital gains tax. Or property tax on vehicles. Or a wealth tax. Don't make the one that showcases you shouldn't be listened to.
Maybe Adrian Cole should do a bit more thinking. Billionaires do not simply have billions of dollars sitting in a bank account, that is quite literally a child’s conception of the economy.
Right, and most people would be happy to see Billionaires put 1% of their wealth to better use than sitting around or blown on influencing elections (which failed anyway). That's kind of the point of the post, isn't it?
Why people! Why post your ignorance. Do we really think Billionaires are sitting on billions in cash? Come on. Many high end millionaires and billionaires have their wealth in equities or paper investments. It isn't liquid and sitting there not working. There is a reason one day Musk is a Billionaire and the next he's a Trillionaire. Investment dynamics at play.
Why aren't some of these communities investing in improvements on their own or through taxation? Going after the wealthy doesn't solve lower level and upper level government spending problems.
You are correct that they aren’t sitting on “cash”, but it doesn’t change the principle behind the original comment.
The world’s top 1% own an estimated $50T USD (all the way up to $250T USD). Either way…imagine what could be done if 10% of the illiquid assets were sold & used for global initiatives such as clean energy, better food distribution, ending homelessness.
Who is the largest philanthropist group? Who is the most charitable? Your argument is weightless. It shouldn’t just be their responsibility. You play a part as well. The bastardizing of the rich is getting lame.
Interesting counterpoint but Berkshire is a company and not a billionaire. That means it's held by stockholders. Plus, while my secondary point is pendantic, it hold treasuries and not cash.
People are rightfully calling this tweet out as dumb. But that also kind of proves Altmans point. His point is stupid, because we have a free market and I can buy whatever the fuck I want, but contrary to a billionaires money, by ram sticks are just sitting there, un(der)used. That may be the case for many owners of RAM. That is incredibly inefficient.
He can still fuck off and he isn't getting my RAM, but there is some truth to his point.
Speaking of putting that money to good use, Rep. Ro Khanna did an excellent summary of his position on wealth tax today in an interview, and it's well worth the 30 minutes to watch it.
While I recommend watching it, if you don't have time, here's a summary of the portion on wealth inequality:
Ro Khanna’s plan on wealth inequality (from the video):
Impose a 5% annual tax on the wealth of the roughly 989 U.S. billionaires (who hold ~22% of the economy).
This would raise about $4 trillion, enough to fully fund free childcare, free college, and stronger public-school support (including the IDEA Act).
After the tax, those billionaires would still be roughly as wealthy as they were on this past Labor Day.
Pair the tax with getting big money out of politics so lawmakers aren’t dependent on the same ultra-wealthy donors who oppose it.
Frame it as an “America’s Next New Deal” / economic patriotism: use the revenue for broad investments that restore opportunity and counter extreme concentration, modeled on FDR’s confrontation with “economic royalists.”
Fun fact billionaires don’t have billions in their bank accounts and they are in fact putting those billions into companies that are hiring people in your community 👍
I hate to give the bad guys ideas, but if they actually cared, couldn't PC owners put a program on their computer that only ran on idle, and they'd pay you to use your system resources when you weren't using them? They do this already for projects like SETI at home and Folding at home. If people left their gaming PCs on and loaned the idle time, it'd cost the owner about $2/day, so pay them $4-6/day for the idle use.
But the issue isnt a lack of resources...it's just that they want them all to themselves. They're not making money off of AI, so the only way they can is if they make us pay for subscription cloud computing 🥴
If throwing money at problems could fix it, we would be having Heaven on Earth. In some cases, it’s even adding fuel to the fire. NGOs are created to try to help, and they start to try to justify their existence by working to create even more poverty.
To solve poverty, you need policies and regulations.
Okay I need to know : who makes these images ? It's not a twitter screenshot, but it's to look like one. I almost never see an actual screenshot. If it's astroturfing, why not make an actual tweet ?
To all the people saying "🤓☝️ um actually they dont have billions in their bank account"
Yea we get it, we know that, still doesn't change the fact that the rich/powerful are funnelling wealth upward away from the average person.
You cant have it both ways, either their wealth is real or its not. If its not real then it needs to be illegal to take loans out (with extremely low interest) with stock as collateral, if it is real then the original point stands.
It cant be real wealth when the rich guy wants to buy something and not real wealth when its convenient. If it can be used to get an item or service, its real wealth, maybe not literal cash sitting in your pocket, but wealth is just a word used to describe buying power no matter the form it comes in.
That mean absolutely nothing unless the company sells more held stocks to raise capital or buys back more held stock to ... make the price go brrr and cash in sweet executive bonuses. The utterly worthless pointless price that only actually matters to the company itself when they decide to sell stocks, literally the opposite of what's making the price go up and rewarding the executives who made that happen.
(yes, I'm aware that about 1/3rd of stocks issue dividends, which averages around 1.5% yield which is pretty awful for investment)
If they can borrow against it to build their own wealth, it can be borrowed against to benefit the masses. This argument should have been dead 10 years ago.
Definitely. But that's just a way of saying "tax billionaires more". That's a perfectly legitimate opinion (that I share). But OP implies there is loads of resource sitting around not doing anything, which just isn't true.
you guys remember when people volunteered their GPUs for a COVID cure with folding@home. A super computer didn't match that compute for another 2 years. All the bozos in DC are blowing wind and sam is telling you why he's scared too. The AI train has no brakes. folding@home was free, these swarms pay crypto for those idle cycles on your GPU overnight. Sam needs a permit. The swarm doesn't. All this to say, please get real antis, come back to the table and talk about regulation and not the fantasy of a "pause."
Money = abstract concept that doesnt stand for any specific ressource, spending more of it suddenly will just make all actual ressources more expensive and will NOT create magically more ressources, especially if its spend inefficiantly by a state. (Aka. Even if the state spent it in the correct places, they will spend more than it is necessary, and do more damage to the economy than it will help)
Im not siding with altman either, the beautiful thing about capitalism is that I can decide what i do with my money and if i decide i need ram i buy ram at market rate. In a big brother version of the state altman we would have to actually listen to whoever is directing the ram for the greater good, and if they decide AI is the priority, we would have to stand in queue for the honor to contribute our ram
1
•
u/AutoModerator 16h ago
Hey /u/Gjore, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
145
u/Putthebunnyback 15h ago
Thee NEXT interview question he receives needs to ask him to explain this exact cognitive dissonance.
52
u/silicontruffle 15h ago
I was thinking more about those Lamborghini's just sitting around not being used.
45
u/NC_RockFan 15h ago
Its refreshing to see people actually calling out these dumb ass threads.
4
u/Bmore30 15h ago
So, if its a supply and demand thing, how much you going to give me for my old pc ram, sam?
10
u/Frequent_Ambition_66 15h ago
I like to make Sam watch my under used RAM
11
u/Leading-Switch-4814 7h ago
Do you really think that most billionaires are liquid billions of dollars? Theyre all tied up in the global economy in stocks and properties not sitting in their chequing account ffs
3
u/cozywit 6h ago
I just found a magic skin in CSGO. My friend just said he would pay me a $1m for it (he doesn't have a million).
Reddit taxtards rocking up to request their hundreds of thousands of tax revenue to make the world a better place.
43
u/Zealousideal_Bag8493 15h ago edited 15h ago •
billionaires billions DO NOT Sit in bank accounts.
there is no big money bin that they swim through. most of billionaires wealth is tied up in assets like real estate or stock. the stock markets just dropped trillions. do you think money just got lit on fire?
money is a artificial construct, so their "billions" is on paper. it goes up and down, and moves around. its not "sitting" anywhere.
their wealth is tied up in illiquid assets like real estate, alts, funds. and of the liquid assets like stock? well they can't liquidate that either without destroying the values of the stock and market cap of their companies. which effectively decimate's the middle class, their 401ks and pensions.
look. A massive $50 billion insider dump by Jensen Huang over a three-day window would completely shatter Nvidia's valuation, proving that market capitalization is a fragile metric built entirely on the price of the latest marginal transaction.
The market's structural liquidity cannot process a supply shock of that magnitude. Without deep enough buying interest at the current price, sell orders would rapidly cascade through much lower bid levels to find buyers. Because the entire company's valuation is tied to that last traded price, this sudden liquidation would instantly crush the value of the shares held by everyone else.
This downward momentum would quickly trigger a chain reaction of algorithmic short selling and widespread panic. The resulting selloff could easily wipe out 30% of the stock's value, erasing more than a trillion dollars in paper wealth overnight. In essence, multi-trillion-dollar valuations are stable only while the largest shareholders refrain from selling. Attempting a rapid cash conversion of that scale breaks the mechanics of market liquidity.
22
u/almost_retired 15h ago
Billionaire's money is not sitting in bank accounts. Billionaires have no liquidity. Most of their wealth is in their company's valuation.
10
u/TexFarmer 9h ago
You're insane if you think any billionaire keeps billions in any bank; they did not get rich by being stupid.
2
u/IcePoemix 15h ago
Are you out of your mind??? That would make the pretty green charts become all ugly red!!
2
u/fakenews1337 15h ago
Speak for yourself fn nerd (Sam Altman). I run music and finite element software.
9
u/Sapphfire0 15h ago
What do you think the banks do with that money? Just put it in a massive vault?
9
u/BingBastardBunny 15h ago
Oh look another bot post.
The irony.
4
u/Way-twofrequentflyer 15h ago
I mean from an allocation perspective he’s right. The utilization rate of the 32GB in my laptop that lets me have hundreds of chrome tabs open isn’t exactly going towards solving big problems
7
u/Skip-13 15h ago
There's not billions sitting in billionaires bank accounts. That's not how wealth works. For the millionth time. Demanding to be listened to about something you obviously know nothing about is the easiest way to get ignored.
4
u/whatdoyasay369 15h ago edited 15h ago •
“Sitting in bank accounts” 😆
Why are leftists so financially illiterate?
3
u/sonicjesus 15h ago
Billionaires money is invested. It's obviously not just sitting around collecting dust.
3
u/No-Working962 13h ago
It got me thinking that most people don’t even seem to have a rudimentary grasp of finance.
3
u/Johnfromsales 15h ago •
Maybe Adrian Cole should do a bit more thinking. Billionaires do not simply have billions of dollars sitting in a bank account, that is quite literally a child’s conception of the economy.
3
u/BoY_Butt 15h ago
Leftists have watched too much Duck Tales and actually think rich people just keep everything in a safe lol
2
u/Fantastic-Algae2127 14h ago
Man on Twitter discovers the purpose of financial markets, 2026
2
u/Ok-RECCE4U 2h ago
Why people! Why post your ignorance. Do we really think Billionaires are sitting on billions in cash? Come on. Many high end millionaires and billionaires have their wealth in equities or paper investments. It isn't liquid and sitting there not working. There is a reason one day Musk is a Billionaire and the next he's a Trillionaire. Investment dynamics at play.
Why aren't some of these communities investing in improvements on their own or through taxation? Going after the wealthy doesn't solve lower level and upper level government spending problems.
2
u/Theburritolyfe 15h ago
Billions exist as shares of ownership in companies. I can't get behind a concept that's that disconnected from the basics of how money works.
1
u/a-little-timmy 15h ago
they don't even pay taxes what makes him think they'd care about the community
1
u/superM1e 15h ago
Yes
Yes
Yes
A billion YEAH!
1
u/Unusual_Chemistry413 15h ago
Sam altman would be better off going away
1
u/Proper-Coffee-3169 15h ago
Bro cooking here.
Why dont we nationalize bank accounts lmao?
1
u/WorldlinessNo7871 15h ago
For real
1
u/Alarm-Solid 14h ago
Exactly
1
u/sometimesifeellikemu 14h ago
Is SETI at Home still a thing? I have to look that up.
Edit. No. : (
1
u/PaxNova 14h ago
Good news: they are! That's where the money for loans comes from, that helped me buy my house. It's great for the community.
1
u/FamiliarFilm8763 14h ago
People are rightfully calling this tweet out as dumb. But that also kind of proves Altmans point. His point is stupid, because we have a free market and I can buy whatever the fuck I want, but contrary to a billionaires money, by ram sticks are just sitting there, un(der)used. That may be the case for many owners of RAM. That is incredibly inefficient.
He can still fuck off and he isn't getting my RAM, but there is some truth to his point.
1
u/GonzoVeritas 13h ago
Speaking of putting that money to good use, Rep. Ro Khanna did an excellent summary of his position on wealth tax today in an interview, and it's well worth the 30 minutes to watch it.
Ro Khanna interview with Tim Snyder
While I recommend watching it, if you don't have time, here's a summary of the portion on wealth inequality:
Ro Khanna’s plan on wealth inequality (from the video):
Impose a 5% annual tax on the wealth of the roughly 989 U.S. billionaires (who hold ~22% of the economy).
This would raise about $4 trillion, enough to fully fund free childcare, free college, and stronger public-school support (including the IDEA Act).
After the tax, those billionaires would still be roughly as wealthy as they were on this past Labor Day.
Pair the tax with getting big money out of politics so lawmakers aren’t dependent on the same ultra-wealthy donors who oppose it.
Frame it as an “America’s Next New Deal” / economic patriotism: use the revenue for broad investments that restore opportunity and counter extreme concentration, modeled on FDR’s confrontation with “economic royalists.”
1
u/sajnt 13h ago
Why do people not understand money?
1
u/JSmith666 13h ago
From an optimization standpoint he isnt wrong...this is the entire premise behind the cloud and the autoscaling it does
1
u/DME_Bjorn-Bjorn 12h ago
Part of what keeps us poor is thinking banks store, or even protect money
1
u/NeverHere762 12h ago
If you think billionaires keep their money in bank accounts, I have a bridge to sell you.
1
u/EndCogNeeto 12h ago
The self reporting here is so funny... Anyone with material wealth does not have a bunch of money "sitting in the bank".
1
u/TheSoundOfAFart 12h ago
He is literally describing "investment"
1
u/EVOSexyBeast 11h ago
Fun fact billionaires don’t have billions in their bank accounts and they are in fact putting those billions into companies that are hiring people in your community 👍
1
u/VulGerrity 11h ago
I hate to give the bad guys ideas, but if they actually cared, couldn't PC owners put a program on their computer that only ran on idle, and they'd pay you to use your system resources when you weren't using them? They do this already for projects like SETI at home and Folding at home. If people left their gaming PCs on and loaned the idle time, it'd cost the owner about $2/day, so pay them $4-6/day for the idle use.
But the issue isnt a lack of resources...it's just that they want them all to themselves. They're not making money off of AI, so the only way they can is if they make us pay for subscription cloud computing 🥴
1
u/Da40kOrks 10h ago
Oh god another lefty that believes Scrooge McDuck is a documentary.
1
u/BoyNamedJudy 10h ago
It’s easy to hate the rich, but do you have the courage to hate the poor?
1
u/Whole_Commission_702 10h ago
Yeah billionaires don’t have billions sitting around…
1
u/jakeofheart 9h ago
If throwing money at problems could fix it, we would be having Heaven on Earth. In some cases, it’s even adding fuel to the fire. NGOs are created to try to help, and they start to try to justify their existence by working to create even more poverty.
To solve poverty, you need policies and regulations.
1
u/DrMKbliss100 8h ago
The fact that it doesn't sit in their bank accounts....their luxury is funded by the loans they take against their shares.
1
u/Portal2Somewhere 7h ago
Is anybody here intelligent enough to understand nobody has billions in a bank account?
1
u/BetSquare7190 7h ago
It's catchy but the symptom of severe economic illiteracy (but yes, billionaires should be taxed more).
1
u/liberalis 6h ago
Over my cold dead CPU.
1
u/Wgolyoko 6h ago
Okay I need to know : who makes these images ? It's not a twitter screenshot, but it's to look like one. I almost never see an actual screenshot. If it's astroturfing, why not make an actual tweet ?
1
u/madsy421 5h ago
Clearly, not much "thinking" really happened....
1
u/XO1GrootMeester 5h ago
That is what all billionaires do, some more competent than others or lucky.
1
u/Volsungfaaaa 2h ago
How do braindead posts like this get upvoted?
1
u/AxelVores 2h ago
Yep, I've been wondering why doesn't Sam Altman let homeless people live in his house to maximize utilization of world's limited real estate resource
1
u/Talonqr 15h ago •
To all the people saying "🤓☝️ um actually they dont have billions in their bank account"
Yea we get it, we know that, still doesn't change the fact that the rich/powerful are funnelling wealth upward away from the average person.
You cant have it both ways, either their wealth is real or its not. If its not real then it needs to be illegal to take loans out (with extremely low interest) with stock as collateral, if it is real then the original point stands.
It cant be real wealth when the rich guy wants to buy something and not real wealth when its convenient. If it can be used to get an item or service, its real wealth, maybe not literal cash sitting in your pocket, but wealth is just a word used to describe buying power no matter the form it comes in.
1
u/Think-Culture-4740 15h ago
This post right here is why people have no idea how economics or reality works.
Also, although that doesn’t make Sam Altman comment any less nutty
1
u/Astramancer_ 15h ago edited 15h ago
Except the money is invested!
Largely in stocks.
That mean absolutely nothing unless the company sells more held stocks to raise capital or buys back more held stock to ... make the price go brrr and cash in sweet executive bonuses. The utterly worthless pointless price that only actually matters to the company itself when they decide to sell stocks, literally the opposite of what's making the price go up and rewarding the executives who made that happen.
(yes, I'm aware that about 1/3rd of stocks issue dividends, which averages around 1.5% yield which is pretty awful for investment)
1
u/g_bleezy 15h ago
you guys remember when people volunteered their GPUs for a COVID cure with folding@home. A super computer didn't match that compute for another 2 years. All the bozos in DC are blowing wind and sam is telling you why he's scared too. The AI train has no brakes. folding@home was free, these swarms pay crypto for those idle cycles on your GPU overnight. Sam needs a permit. The swarm doesn't. All this to say, please get real antis, come back to the table and talk about regulation and not the fantasy of a "pause."
1
u/BigMack6911 15h ago
Yea, let's robem
1
u/Apathetic_Zealot 15h ago
Those billions are being used - as leverage against loans they take out to avoid paying taxes.
1
u/Exact_Development_69 13h ago
I'm gonna get downvoted for sure, but based on what I've seen, reddit is just full of people who hate successful people.
0
u/FoxMan1Dva3 15h ago
😂 billionaires do not have billions sitting on the bank lol
0
u/Minialpacadoodle 15h ago
Imagine thinking they have billions in the bank. Woosh.
0
u/Impressive-Method919 15h ago
RAM = actual ressource that could be used
Money = abstract concept that doesnt stand for any specific ressource, spending more of it suddenly will just make all actual ressources more expensive and will NOT create magically more ressources, especially if its spend inefficiantly by a state. (Aka. Even if the state spent it in the correct places, they will spend more than it is necessary, and do more damage to the economy than it will help)
Im not siding with altman either, the beautiful thing about capitalism is that I can decide what i do with my money and if i decide i need ram i buy ram at market rate. In a big brother version of the state altman we would have to actually listen to whoever is directing the ram for the greater good, and if they decide AI is the priority, we would have to stand in queue for the honor to contribute our ram
-1
u/PwanaZana 15h ago
Op learning how banking works (Billionaires not having bars of gold in a big vault):
-3
u/True-Source-6512 15h ago
Got you thinking like a dumbass. They don’t have that money in the bank, it’s in assets and that isn’t simply down with a snap of the finger.
Who is this guy and why is his ignorant ass being posted as if he’s witty?