> but it appears to be very stressful from what I can tell.

sounds like there is a win-win in there somewhere. I wonder what that would look like.

for real though, what are we talking about here? 30k a day is not enough because ... habits? plus, it's incredibly hard to spend that much. that's exactly why, after a certain point, it's basically impossible to get rid of wealth.

What does enough mean? That's why I didn't use that word. Beans and rice is enough, but I'm glad I can afford nicer food. I don't need as large a house as I have and yet my house is modest by modern standards, and I would like larger.

I'm not arguing your idea that there is a point where you no longer can find anything to spend money on. However that point is different for different wealthy people and I don't know and you don't likely don't know either where your limit is or my limit would be. It would not surprise me if I personally had the money and decided to buy a yacht and then later sold it when I realized that while it sounds good I wasn't actually using it. But I don't know. Maybe if I had the money to afford a nice yacht I would use it all the time. Similar for those mansions. Would I live in a mansion or would I buy one first test symbol and then realize I didn't actually care and downgrade? I know someone who has made a lot of money remodeling the mansions of rich people who have decided downsize. For them downsize includes a master bedroom that is bigger than my entire house. And there were other bedrooms in that mansion, but it is still a down size.

Well, maybe we need to decide as a society what exactly enough means. I'd argue that anything above 100m is excessive, especially while other people are literally starving. But sure, let's say anything up until the first billion.

I can't argue the point as well as educated economists can. I'd like to point you to Gabriel Zucman, for instance. What really got me in the end is this: he proposes a 2% wealth tax. It's not a number out of thin air, he actually reasons very well how he got there. You know how much the average billionaire wealth increased over the last years, annually? It's 6%. So it's not even suggesting "you need to have less". It's suggesting "you should accumulate more a little slower than before".

Also, sorry, I really can't emphasise with people who got so used to having a yacht that they cannot imagine life without one anymore. It's peak consumerism, individualism, capitalism. My take is that we need to rethink _some_ things.

> winning at life

What a take. Of a character that is, albeit incredibly entertaining to watch, not displayed in a good light at all.

Alternatively, he's everything that's wrong with the system. He's certainly not generating any value to society.

But yeah, in a purely individualistic take, he's certainly winning at life. While making everyone else's a bit worse.

Talk about frustration reading these comments. People knee-deep in Kool-aid, thinking this is the only and god-given way things should be.

Making crazy changes like squeezing out every last dollar out of your existing, loyal customers (looking at any PE firm ever) certainly affects the wind I'd wager.

Absolutely, and plenty of companies have made that mistake.

But the point is locking up money in a 3% margin business doesn’t impress investors.

So you either need to improve the margin with lower costs or higher price (or both). Or bail from the market entirely and put your money in something that makes more money.

What makes more money? The investment is all in AI because TINA - There Is No Alternative. There's too much money in the system to cover all reasonable investments, so it fills up all reasonable investments and many unreasonable ones too.

While AI may seem like it’s sucking up all investment, the retail trade industry was 2x the entire IT industry investment according to the BEA

No? By that logic you sell a dollar for 103c and that's not enough to quench your greed.

Obviously both statements are gross oversimplifications. But I could not help myself and let that slide just like that.

Just to add to your comment, people do sell dollars for $1.07, they are called mortgages. I've heard it's a pretty big business.

What they do is they sell a dollar for 1.07$ future dollars (and, realistically, less than that because of defaults but whatever).

It's a lot more than $1.07 future money, a mortgage is more like $2 or these days $5

If you're offering even 25 year 75% LTV mortgages at such a low interest rate it's $1.07 future money you're going bankrupt. And these days people are taking 30 year, 95% LTV or even asking for 40 year 100% LTV which is fully batshit.

It's always been a catchy propaganda slogan. Nothing more.

they can hardly imagine a world outside SV, let alone the US. I'm not holding my breath

got em

tbf the east-west split never really stopped haunting Germany. its not like it came suddenly. there are a lot of systemic errors that lead to this.

Yeah, I don't agree with a single point. I know we're all in our bubbles, but none of what OP listed seems left-wing to me. I know I've never thought these things to be true.

If anything, the left-wing promotes men to be vulnerable and seek help if they need it. At least where I'm from that's the case. I'm stumped how different our views are on this.