Top 10 billionaires make nearly $64B in post-Trump election stock surge Yesterday's stock market bounce after the election of Donald Trump has added billions to the pockets of the tech elite, although apparently Mark Zuckerberg failed to cash in. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the top 10 wealthiest people on the planet saw a total increase of nearly $64 billion in their combined …
"A tax is something that poor people pay so the government can give the money back to rich people."
The rich do pay a lot of tax. That they still have money left over is what rankles the masses. For most people, the cost of the basics eats up the lion-share so there isn't a lot left over. For somebody making more money, there's often a higher standard of housing, cars and food, but those with real saved up wealth don't go too crazy so there's a fair bit left over that can be put to work to earn even more and so on. The Vimes boot story comes into play as well. If you have the money, you can save money by buying very good quality and never needing to buy that item again. I do that with many of my tools and I've had plenty of them for decades.
The wrong lizards always get in so it's long past time to stop voting for lizards. Umm, I mean professional politicians.
I don't think "That they still have money left over" is that big of a problem. The issue is how extreme the disparity is between "average worker" and "average CEO". A large difference is essentially how capitalism works, but when it gets to "I can't spend all my money if I spend $1000/hour for 1000 years" (which is 'only' around $9billion) maybe it's gone a bit too far.
(I'm well aware net worth != cash, but it would be fairly simple for most extra-billionaires to convert it without losing too much money in the process)
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. - Ronald Reagan (1986).
He said that long ago to make people laugh but it seems to be today's world.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. - Ronald Reagan (1986)."
It's gone past even that. Why should municipalities be bidding to get Amazon to locate a new office block in their town? Why did Tesla wind up with a billion dollar factory space in upstate NY for $1/year? (now valued at around a tenth of that or less).
DO you mean you arent sure ?
Are you confused into thinking that having laws like murdering being illegal is a good or bad thing ? Or whether traffic lights and road rules are good or bad ?
You dont seem to realise your life would be worth nothing without a big brother looking out for you, you can be sure big corporations care for you far less.
"They've heard of tax, right?
It's just click-bait headlines making claims regarding unrealized gains. My house is "worth" twice what I paid for it. Not that it means anything since I don't plan on selling. Out of touch politicians have been making noises about how they'd like to tax unrealized gains, "to make sure the ultra rich pay their fair share", whatever that means.
The stock price of Tesla has gone through the roof (again) with people thinking Elon's cozy bromance with Don will get his ventures all sorts of bennies. I'm wondering if that might backfire given inside dealing laws for government employees. He may need to do without any governmental largess to avoid the appearance of feathering his own nest. It also means he'll have far less time to look after Tesla. Perhaps that's a good thing for the company, but somebody competent will need to be able to cover and not have every decision they make countermanded throwing operations into chaos.
If "unrealized gains" are allowed, you would pay income taxes on the increased value of the house even though you didn't sell it. If if the value crashes to below what you paid for it next year, you won't get that money back. If the value recovers to what you paid for it the 3rd year, guess what, you now have to pay income tax on *that* value increase even though you never sold the house. This is why "unrealized gains taxes" are evil.
It's always useful to remember that stocks aren't real money.
I had a friend who became quite wealthy (by most standards, though in a different league from Musk et al) when they sold their startup to a major corporation.
They got their payout in stock.
The stock then proceeded to tank and never recover, thanks to incompetent management and economic head winds, and they ended up working for minimum wage in a shop.
As Roosta puts it in Part 7 of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, "I prefer hard cash. If you can't scratch a window with it I don't accept it."
I recall watching a programme on the DOT COM crash - a guy decided to sell some stock and buy a house, he found it quite a difficult decision at the time, but he was sure glad he had when the crash came.
So Roosta wouldn't take a Triganic Pu then since they are made of rubber.
And besides "the Triganic Pu doesn't really count as money. Its exchange rate of six Ningis to one Pu is simple, but since a Ningi is a triangular rubber coin six-thousand, eight-hundred miles long each side, no one has ever collected enough to own one Pu. Niginis are not negotiable currency because the Galactibanks refuse to deal in fiddling small change. From this Basic premise it's very simple to prove that the Galactibanks are also the products of a deranged imagination.1"
__________________
1 With thanks to both the late, great Douglas Adams, may his towel always be handy, and my partner, who got me a copy of the radio scripts and who, though she sometimes misplaces her towel, is a hoopy frood nonetheless.
If you get your payout in stock, and it has a lockup period, you needed a better lawyer to negotiate your deal. Now if you're selling to a startup you may have no choice because they don't have cash to give you and their stock isn't traded so it isn't easily sold, but if you sell to an established company there is no reason to accept both a stock deal and a lockup. Either have them pay you in stock you can sell immediately, or in cash that's held in escrow for the lockup period (e.g. if you're supposed to work for them for a while as part of the deal)
I knew someone who sold his startup to MCI in the heart of the dot com boom for $20 million, but it had a two year lockup. By the time it expired, the stock was worth less than $1 million.
Your friend was not very smart. He should have taken an internal company loan against the stock value first and let the buyout company sort it out later.
Unless it was after 2002 when this became illegal (Sarbanes / Oxley), albeit with loopholes. Because of course, loopholes.
Unfortunately he didn't consult an attorney or financial advisor for this deal, because he's like Trump in that he thinks he's smarter than the experts in every subject. Yes, I said "thinks" because he was still that way even after getting burned on that deal and probably still is today (haven't talked to him in about 10 years now)
Very few do. You only hear about the few successes, not the millions of them ending up on minimum wage, dole or jail. It's easier to find a sack of money. See also lottery big winners vs profits and the number wasting their money. It's a tax on the poor.
See also writers/authors. UK median income for full time published authors with no other job is £7000. Most don't even get published. Making money at the races might be easier.
J.K. Rowling had luck.
See also Fifty Shades of Grey, pumped by media and most people didn't finish it.
Most of the net worth counted is in stocks and real estate. Both of those are quite easily converted into ready cash, though doing it all at once would be at a huge loss.
"Just numbers on a spreadsheet", but when they're that high, selling a bit for even the largest day to day expense is a rounding error. Getting a loan to purchase [large website here] is only slightly more difficult.
Especially Musk's Tesla. Overvalued maybe by x10 due to speculation and profits in the era when they relied mostly on selling carbon credit to "traditional" auto makers.
I'd like to see a list that only includes realisable assets, they are more real that stock which after IPO are not investments but speculation.
"I'd like to see a list that only includes realisable assets, they are more real that stock which after IPO are not investments but speculation."
A consolidated balance sheet is readily available if you want to have a look. You don't get the fine details, but it scares me enough to keep me from buying their stock. Ford may be a dinosaur, but they pay a decent dividend and have loads of tangible assets. Most of our family trust's holdings are in companies you'd never have heard of. Boring as hell, but constant earners that mostly make the things that go into the things that go into finished products. My mom handles that since she's retired and in a nice senior community filled with retired professions that have a gazillion years of combined experience and she gets their wisdom for free, mostly. We hog-tied the CPA that helped her set up the family trust and forced him to take money for the help. At a big discount to normal rates, to be sure.
"The stock then proceeded to tank and never recover, thanks to incompetent management and economic head winds, and they ended up working for minimum wage in a shop."
Ooof, that was taking a huge risk. It would have been safer to take a fair chunk in cash as a hedge. There's plenty of examples of even big companies that go on a buying binge, over-leverage and fall flat on their face.
Poor guy will have to console himself with the $100+ billion he's already worth.
Too bad there isn't a way for someone that rich to truly lose everything and go bust down down to a level where he has nothing. Maybe they would take fewer risks with the lives and welfare of others if they knew screwing up badly enough could really backfire on them.
>Too bad there isn't a way for someone that rich to truly lose everything
There is if the new great leader doesn't like you
Although in return for selling Facebook to Twitter for $1 Zuckerberg will be allowed to leave for New Zealand.
This post has been deleted by its author
Sure, The White House will be too confining and for only $1.000.000 per day per Trump Property, Trump Properties are perfectly suitable for all government business. Mar-a-Largo is the new Southern White House, at a measly cost of 1 B-2 Bomber per year.
IMHO, the leaking of Trump's 'Hit List' that just happens to include the Zuck, will not have helped.
He will try to get his revenge on anyone and any organisation he thinks has slighted him since he tottered down that escalator in 2015.
Take the $3B lawsuit against CBS. If I were CBS, I'd sue him back for double that amount PLUS Attorney's fees and for a change of venue.
He can't use the Presidential Immunity thing because it all happened before he was re-elected.
Then... I'd move for immediate deposition of Trump.All CBS needs to do is broadcast the unedited tape every day for a month. Trump will fold when even that biased Texas Judge will understand that if he awards even $1.00 to Trump, it will get overturned on appeal.
Trump defamed a lot of people while he was not president. His his list will include all of them. With them all rotting in some Gulag in the middle of the Desert, they won't be in a position to fight him.
It is going to be a rocky next 20 years. Trump to get kicked out in 2 years. Vance for 10 years then 8 years of Don Jnr and by then, Barron will be of age to take over.
And no one will ever have to vote for any of them. Trump told us many times. 'You only have to vote once. Then I'll fix it."
Keep your heads down people.
MHO, the leaking of Trump's 'Hit List' that just happens to include the Zuck, will not have helped.
You probably missed Zuckerberg's testimony regarding how FaceMelta helped supress stories about stuff like the Biden laptop, or 'Zuckbucks', or the way he's now trying to reinvent himself as a libertarian..
Take the $3B lawsuit against CBS. If I were CBS, I'd sue him back for double that amount PLUS Attorney's fees and for a change of venue.
On what grounds? It may be a little late to start yet more lawfare against Trump, and there's now a chance to investigate some of those prosecutions. Jack Smith has already halted his witch hunts, but is also required to preserve records so his conduct of those cases can be investigated. And the DoJ will quite happily throw Smith under the nearest bus.
Then... I'd move for immediate deposition of Trump.All CBS needs to do is broadcast the unedited tape every day for a month.
That was all people had been asking, but broadcasting the unedited version would probably just show that CBS did edit the interview to try and make Harris look good, which would make Trump's case for him.
With them all rotting in some Gulag in the middle of the Desert, they won't be in a position to fight him.
Errm.. right. Those fever dreams would seem to show that it's going to take a while for TDS to burn out in the afflicted. But there is some good news. US wimmin of a certain persuasion have apparently sworn to join the 4B movement as a reaction to Trump's victory. This is probably great news for men, normal women and a good time to invest in wine boxes and cat food.
He got into a hissy fit with CBS because they wanted to 'Fact Check' him during the 60 minutes interview... just like they did with 'lying' Kamela.
CBS did post the unedited interview. As with every interview that is pre-recorded is edited.
Please educate yourself and find the CBS footage. Then watch the broadcast interview.
This editing practice is SOP. I used to do this at ITN for News at 10.
Stop believing everything the habitual liar spouts. It might lower your blood pressure.
CBS did post the unedited interview. As with every interview that is pre-recorded is edited.Please educate yourself and find the CBS footage. Then watch the broadcast interview.
Links would help. The complaint is that the interview was edited to boost Harris and make her look favorable, so election interference. Especially after the impact from Biden's debate performance. Trump is used to selective edits of his speeches though, eg claims he'd put Liz Cheney in front of a firing squad. What Trump actually said was if the neocons were so pro-war, they should grab a rifle and go fight. Obviously a shocking idea for the Dems.
"The complaint is that the interview was edited to boost Harris and make her look favorable, so election interference."
The problem is that sort of thing has always gone on. Lot's of interviews have per-negotiated questions so the interviewee is well prepared and will appear more capable and brilliant than they really are.
Listen to the de-mumbled Tesla earnings calls and compare them to the unedited version. CSS is making Elon seem smart and well-spoken. The downside is Elon's biggest whoppers are easy to spot as they contain the most splutter.
The problem is that sort of thing has always gone on. Lot's of interviews have per-negotiated questions so the interviewee is well prepared and will appear more capable and brilliant than they really are.
Sure, but this was for an election, and an election where Harris got on the ticket after Biden's performance during the live debate. Plus I was once in a hotel where a celeb was staying and doing promotions for a new movie. So being curious, chatted to one of the crew. In which I learned about another interview trick called the 'Noddy'. Minion does the actual interview, celebrity media interviewer isn't there, records themselves asking the question and the session is edited together later. Which explained why interviewer & interviewee were never in the same shot.
But it's one of those things that I think harmed Harris, ie her lack of public appearences and her performance when she didn't have an autocue helping. Which was a little odd, given her performance during the Trump debate was pretty good and there wasn't much 'word salad'. It's also interesting comparing Trump, Harris and other world leaders. Putin was recently in Sochi and had a 4hr Q&A session on a wide range of subjects, and I doubt many Western leaders could manage the same.
This post has been deleted by its author
They want it. They are big enough to hold out, and when the recovery starts, they'll buy for peanuts all the smaller companies that went bust.
It's the plan.
https://www.newstatesman.com/business/2023/03/recessions-make-rich-richer
I suppose they've got a few months to cash in before Trump actually gets into office
To late, in the UK at least, because now they'll get screwed by Rachel Reeves's budget. It was a bummer of a month really, sell early to avoid CG tax rises, or wait in case Trump got elected. Couldn't win.
> sell early to avoid CG tax rises
Or just sit it out, as there will another government and a change in taxation in a few years.
The laugh about the Employer (secondary) NI increase (yes I know it’s not capital gains) to 15% is it less than the 15.5% Rishi raised it to for April 2022, yet there was a much smaller outcry at Rishi than we have seen with Reeves…
Or just sit it out, as there will another government and a change in taxation in a few years.
For stocks, who knows what the price will be in a few years, especially with government changes in the US & UK. So far the markets have gained after Trump's win, but will that last?
less than the 15.5% Rishi raised it to for April 2022, yet there was a much smaller outcry at Rishi than we have seen with Reeves…
2022 also saw an increase of the threshold for employee contributions to align with income tax, which limited the net effect for the lower-paid. Reeves reduced the employer threshold from 9000 to 5000, meaning that not only do employers pay a higher rate, they also pay it on more of their employees salaries. No wonder they're worried.
Maybe he means due to things like this? https://www.newstatesman.com/business/2023/03/recessions-make-rich-richer
It's so heartwarming that America's Poor should have gotten together to help America's Rich so.
And then when the new president slaps 60% tariffs on everything from China, no doubt America's Rich will help America's Poor to help once everything has become so much more expensive.
"no doubt America's Rich will help America's Poor to help once everything has become so much more expensive."
If a parasite is too vigorous, it kills the host.
The rich people want indoor jobs with plenty of HVAC and gated communities. If poor people that do actual work are pushed further away, there's nobody left to clean the house and manicure the lawn. Will they have to build homes with staff quarters below stairs again?
Staff quarters were usually only in the basement on smaller "town homes" - on larger properties they were usually in the attic, with the basement being reserved for "working rooms" like the kitchen, the servant's hall (where they ate and spent any downtime), the pantry, the larder etc etc.
On really really grand homes you'd have a whole separate wing or block of the building (usually not connected to the main building) for your staff, perhaps on several floors above the stables, but that would be when you had over 100 staff for one building etc and the attic space wasn't enough.
So stop using their stuff! Don't buy a Tesla. Don't read this post being made via Starlink (launched on a SpaceX rocket). Dump your Twitter/X app from your phone. And go for some real spite and don't send me money via PayPal because it still has Musk's finger prints on it.
If you think it is unfair, then make their goods & services toxic to own. Crash their companies and destroy their wealth by sending their stock values to zero.
And when you are done, proudly explain to all the unemployed people that you destroyed a paper billionaire because it was unfair (~187,000 people between SpaceX, X, Starlink, & Tesla).
Tesla are going to be in trouble.
The market of people who want an EV in USA and Europe now hate Musk
Truck driving MAGA are not swapping their F150 for a model 3
China is going to respond to the first tariffs with a ban.
Fortunately if he is made America's CEO, he will have to sell his $Bn of Tesla shares to avoid a conflict. It would be unfair to force him to pay tax so we need a law exempting government appointments from capital gains. So he gets to walk away from the trash fire for free.
"Fortunately if he is made America's CEO, he will have to sell his $Bn of Tesla shares to avoid a conflict. It would be unfair to force him to pay tax so we need a law exempting government appointments from capital gains. So he gets to walk away from the trash fire for free."
Fine if he's been diagnosed with a terminal disease and will be dead within 4 years. If Elon has plans to live forever, he better have at least a 5-year plan.
It seems so unfair that billionaires have such a powerful influence over our world.
Money and fame may be fleeting. So apparently the Harris campaign raised over $1bn and ended the election in debt. The Trump campaign apparently spent $350m, won and made money for their investors. Ah, Bidenomics.
If Trump imposes the tariffs he's promised, that could make life interesting for LVMH, or Amazon given something like 70%+ of the stuff they flog is made in China.
> If Trump imposes the tariffs he's promised, that could make life interesting for LVMH, or Amazon given something like 70%+ of the stuff they flog is made in China.
Can't say I'd have much sympathy for Amazon, given their descent over the past decade into being outright sleazy profit-skimming enablers of Chinese-based sellers of fake and/or dangerous goods and self-serving driving out of good sellers in a deliberately-engineered race to the bottom.
But it'd be interesting to watch the response of the great unwashed- including countless Trump voters- if their supply of dirt-cheap Chinese made tat from Walmart, Amazon and the like was suddenly cut off, cold turkey. You know, the people who got not just used to those unrealistically low prices, but ultimately reliant upon them.
The same people who complain about the loss of American jobs, but- when push came to shove- couldn't resist guzzling up that supply of cheap imports instead of putting their money where their mouth was, supporting their own industry and paying more for US-based goods until they lost their jobs and couldn't afford to.
And for the incoming US government to do that right in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis where people have been complaining about inflation and prices going up *before* that happened? Not a chance.
Neither the government nor the people will have the guts to go through with that because the former has long-since become reliant upon that supply of cheap shit to placate the masses.
And for all the puffed-up mock-hardman talk of tariffs, a regime that was elected on the basis of populism and telling people what they wanted to hear (regardless of how contradictory it was) wouldn't have the guts- or inclination- to force that hard choice and the painful short-term consequences of actually addressing that problem onto consumers themselves and risk becoming very unpopular, even if it was ultimately the right thing to do.
Can't say I'd have much sympathy for Amazon, given their descent over the past decade into being outright sleazy profit-skimming enablers of Chinese-based sellers of fake and/or dangerous goods and self-serving driving out of good sellers in a deliberately-engineered race to the bottom.
Yep. Plus the wider impact on retailers. Or whether the tech bros will suddenly find themselves subject to more scrutiny and possibly break-up. I've hear rumors that the 'social media' giants might be given a choice of remaining a 'platform', and enjoying the s.230 protections, or if they continue to filter/censor/shadowban, they'll lose that protection and be made a publisher. Which might be good for free speech, but would cut across all the 'misinformation' legislation coming into force around the world.
The same people who complain about the loss of American jobs, but- when push came to shove- couldn't resist guzzling up that supply of cheap imports instead of putting their money where their mouth was, supporting their own industry and paying more for US-based goods until they lost their jobs and couldn't afford to.
Indeed. This is going to be the challenge of turning MAGA from a slogan into reality. The idea of bring jobs back is nice, and there's been some dabbling with stuff like subsidising semiconductor fabs in the US. But it can't get away from the US having a much higher cost base than competing nations. Trump might be able to reduce some costs, ie energy, regulatory burdens and downsize government, but it's a huge challenge. Much the same as the UK with Labour trying to pretend that their NI increases don't affect 'working people'.. apart from all the self-employed, or small businesses that say they can't afford employer NIC increases.
And for the incoming US government to do that right in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis where people have been complaining about inflation and prices going up *before* that happened? Not a chance.
Yep. Finding quick wins is going to be difficult. The markets seem to be making a few guesses, ie stock markets generally up, but sectors like 'renewables' and 'green tech' taking a beating. Energy is an obvious deflation target because energy is an input cost to everything.. But it's also not a quick fix, and some of the policies that have lead to energy increases have been implemented at the state rather than federal level. Then there's food prices, which have been linked to energy, but what levers a Trump administration could pull to bring those down. And then there's crime. That's an expense, ie retail theft and stores closing but hiring LEOs, prosecuting and jailing criminals is expensive. It was interesting to see California moving on that-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/05/california-prop-36-results
California residents voted to pass Proposition 36, a tough-on-crime ballot initiative that will enact harsher penalties for retail theft, property crimes and drug offenses.
...The state’s legislative analyst office (LAO) estimates that Prop 36 will cost the state tens of millions of dollars, increase California’s prison population and increase the workload of court employees and officials.
When California's sliding into bankruptcy, but it also fired a DA who'd been soft on crime. Interesting times ahead.
> I've hear [sic] rumors
"Rumors", huh?
Although I've noticed in recent years that the US right who for decades would have squealed like stuck pigs at government intervention in private media/enterprise that they'd have painted as being *against* free speech are suddenly in favour of it when it suits them, so I've no doubt they'll try.
Although I've noticed in recent years that the US right who for decades would have squealed like stuck pigs at government intervention in private media/enterprise..
As opposed to the US wrong who've been screeching about Trump and 'misinformation' for much of the last decade. And are now desperately looking to blame anyone but themselves for the Harris failure, or failing to read the room. Case in point-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c2e7jdjdmplt
Former US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Democrats might have fared better in Tuesday's election if President Joe Biden had exited the race sooner.
Pelosi - one of the most powerful politicians in Washington - told the New York Times, external that "had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race".
I think the Bbc has a problem with their geolocation, and mistook California for Washington, but for most of the world it was pretty clear that Biden's exit from the race wasn't exactly voluntary. As someone who seemed keen to create a legacy, I really hope he's got a book ready for Jan 7th about how Pelosi and the DNC turned on him.
> As opposed to the US wrong [chortle] who've been screeching about Trump and [etc]
That's a nice distraction, but nothing to do with the quote you were supposedly replying to...?
So you're not actually denying that the US right *has* done a 180 on its ancient opposition to government regulation of private media that it painted as an attack on "free speech" as soon as that version of "free speech" no longer conveniently suited it?
Good to know we agree on that at least.
...The state’s legislative analyst office (LAO) estimates that Prop 36 will cost the state tens of millions of dollars, increase California’s prison population and increase the workload of court employees and officials."
So, back to charging people with crimes when they do crime. I doubt there will any worry on the part of shop owners about the increased costs.
But all the Trump aligned campaigns spent a lot, lot more?
I don't know. It's always boggled my mind just how much US campaigns cost. There are rules around campaign spending though, so I guess eventually there'll be a tally of what the assorted PACs raised and spent. I did find this interesting-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/alex-soros-shocked-incumbent-political-order-being-crushed-around-globe
It gets worse: an even more amazing stat comes from the FT, which reports that every governing party facing election in a developed country this year lost vote share, the first time this has ever happened!
and if that's a sign of voter rejection of progressive/globalist governments, coincidence or sign of any wider shift in voting patterns. The UK showed a big shift, but that was probably just a rejection of the Conservatives, who'd been in government for yonks and it was time for a change. And also a little odd given the Labour 'landslide' was on the back of low turnout and Labour effectively getting only 20% of the potential 'popular' vote. I still haven't seen turnout figures for the US elections and how they compared to Trump's first term, Biden's victory and the current election.
I think other European elections might be more telling with a shift to more conservative or 'right wing' parties, with the next big experiment probably being Germany if they call a snap election due to the Scholz government in the process of collapsing. Trump's victory seems to have thrown a large spanner into EUropolitics though. Assorted politicians hastily deleting anti-Trump tweets, with the notable exception of Lammy, who seems content to keep his comments about Trump being a KKK nazi in place.
"If Trump imposes the tariffs he's promised, that could make life interesting for LVMH, or Amazon given something like 70%+ of the stuff they flog is made in China."
For that to happen, the US President would need to have as much power as people think they do (and don't). Even with a Republican Congress, Mr Trump would be impacting the investments of a lot of those congresscritters and their major campaign donators and might hit some roadblocks.
" Elon Musk used his money to support Donald Trump and has now made every penny he has made back."
Hmmmmmmmm, that's stretching stock value to mean real money that was spent. If Elon sells a pile of stock to take advantage, again, how will that be perceived? If Tesla has to admit at the next earnings report in Jan 2025 that there's no ROI on that investment, the stock price can play the part of an elevator with its cable cut, again. And there's Elon back to where he started.
Hmmmmmmmm, that's stretching stock value to mean real money that was spent.
Spending was another curiousity during this campaign, so-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fec-filings-show-kamala-harris-team-blew-funds-hollywood-stars-private-jets
X user Autism Capital cited a new report of Federal Election Commission filings that shows the Harris team's spending trends between August 2023 and October 2024. The data is broken down into monthly spending totals, the top 20 recipients, a distribution of disbursement sizes, spending by type of media, temporal patterns, and trends...
HARRIS CAMPAIGN:
$1.033 billion in donations
$1.37 billion spent
$582.53 million on staff
TRUMP CAMPAIGN:
$381.54 million in donations
$354.42 million spent
$10.4 million for staff
And stuff like the Harris campaign paying Oprah $1m. But how did Harris manage to spend $572m more than Trump on staff? Or how much creative accounting gets used, so if Musk's spending is (or should be) included in the Trump campaign's spending. Plus some other oddities, like why Harris paid $17m to ActBlue, but they're already under investigation. Also Harris spent a lot on private jets, but Trump has his own, so how those costs should be expensed or charged to the campaign.
Pfft, listen to you libs who think you understand the market trying to reassure yourselves that this won't continue indefinitely.
Me and my mate Plest know that it will, and that in a year's time our pensions will be worth over 8000 times their current value. In fact, we're so sure of that, we're going to spend three quarters of it on hookers and blow and we'll still have enough money left over to be stupidly rich *and* buy a fish supper on the way home.
Study it out, whatever that means.
"Yep, even my savings and pension investments went up by about 2.5% in a single day,"
If there is no fundamental foundation under that rise, it can/will go down just like a soufflé once it's out of the oven. You may want to see if you can make a move with some of that gain into an investment that may not have as much potential rise, but would be less likely to fall. Wait 6 months and look at things again.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
