Bill Gates net worth is 85 billion dollars

>Bill Gates net worth is 85 billion dollars
>325 million people in US
>if you divided all his money up to everyone they all get $261 each

What has Bernie got against rich people, exactly? Spreading it out does nothing

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_process
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

socialism only works without non-whites

He knows that, his actual plan is to just tax everyone to death to cover his social programs. But he just can't say it because then no one would vote for him.

It's not just rich people. Listen to his Bernie vs Ted Cruz debate.
He flat out said that if your business employs 50 or more people, you MUST pay for their health insurance.

He doesn't hate rich people. He hates anyone trying to make money and generating wealth.
If you're barely scraping with a small business, he wants you dead. He wants you destroyed.

These people are pure evil.

Your math is broken kiddo. If he made 345 million, and there where 345 million people, each would get 1 million.

wtf I am a Marxist now

>be in the military
>only about 1% of the population has real money
>everyone else is a poor shit or just passing by

>yfw dying for (((Gates))) and (((Zuckerberg)) can keep making more money.

The best part about NatSoc is that the fucking profit caps do exactly what Bernie wants but on the basis that the fucking billionaires are profiting from America.

...

Wow that really made me think

>implying Bernie understands economics or the human condition
Wealth is always concentrated because a significant majority of people are fucking idiots.

If you join the military thinkin you're fighting for the people or something similar you're a complete moron.

most rich people wouldn't care if government share all money equally if they are left to do their own thing.

But communism proved that it is not true, they take from the current rich and give to future rich, just because they are close to that party... communism is retarded doctrine, and you can't really understand how much if yo did not survive it

>Your math is broken kiddo. If he made 345 million, and there where 345 million people, each would get 1 million.

Dude c'mon. Are you that retarded

even as a joke, this is true, because of inflation that is 100% bound to happen in communism/socialism

A dollar isn't going to turn into anything but 1 dollar.

You've got such a poor understanding of economics you can't even make a joke about inflation.
If every person was given 250 dollars or whatever number you choose, those dollars would never turn into 1 million. Inflation would force the government into printing bigger banknotes and the one dollar ones would be completely useless.

I've never really worried about that rich fucker bill gates.

I mean I've got too much shit on my plate to be spending time thinking about how much money Bill gates has. I'm pretty happy though so I mean why should I go on in life bitching about someone else's money

Redistribution is stupid, they should simply be taxed more and have it all put into infrastructure.

Because Gates is a puppet. The real wealth of nations and earth is held by the red shield.

this is a variation on really old and stale pasta you fucking retards
i want r*ddit to leave reeeeeee

ok let me try explaining austria dark

government take 345millions from some rich asshole, see that it is just 1dollar for every citizen, understand that at least 335million are retards, prints fuck loads of money, lies to its people, give them printed money, million to each, even tho really value is still 1 dollar, 1 million is 1 million, and all are happy, and those who understand are quite or dead... that is the way of communism, socialism is a bit different and it involves constant propaganda by media to confuse people so they accept their new reallirty

Redistribution doesn't work because:

Value != money

People have different amounts of value and they want to trade the value they offer for other valuable things.

Money is just a way of doing that, how much money represents how much value is largely irrelevent, a house could cost $1000, $100,000 and it wouldn't matter, as long as everything else is relatively priced to match.

When you try and force people to have more or less money than the value they represent then all you do is fuck with the spending power of the money.

The rich who actually provide things of value simply charge more for their goods, the poor who are given money can't buy anything with those dollerydoos because they're now worthless.

You don't honestly believe that, do you?

you do know that we ditched gold for fiat? Do you?

I do know that. That's part of the problem.

The government can print more money to give to people in a fiat system where as with gold backed they can't. It's why things like bitcoin has become so popular, because a system of money where more creation of money isn't possible, is a system that's in high demand.

literally what bernie said

It's not that they are bad, they are very short sighted and their logic works in absolutes

>bill gates is the only rich person

As I said, your understanding is so poor you can't even make a joke about inflation.
What you're describing is some retarded scenario where everyone is given 1 million that didn't exist before, not redistribution of wealth that turns everyone into a millionaire with useless Zimbabwe tier currency.

I mean the part about hating anyone trying to make money, and wanting small business owners "dead" and "destroyed." I find it hard to believe anyone can honestly see him that way. Whether or not he's ultimately misguided is a completely separate issue from thinking he's "evil."

>325 million people in US

>what are children
>what are people who already have enough
>what are illegals

>>if you divided all his money up to everyone they all get $261 each
Why not spread the money among white Americans only?

They way he said it to the woman's story came across as "if you cant' afford pay healthcare for your employees you might as well go broke"


He's thinking among the lines of "you have a company with so many people, you must swim in money so you're greedy for not wanting to do it"

>Bill Gates has $85 billion
>people think that he has this amount of money on his bank account
This is the problem.

Wow, then everyone gets $500 each and the US loses a massive tech company.

How, as an educated man of age, can you sincerely believe forcing a 50-man company to pay for every employee's health insurance is feasible or realistic?

This isn't just nonsense, it is malicious nonsense.

>not redistribution of wealth that turns everyone into a millionaire

that is not possible, with true redistribution you need to hit 0 at the end, there is no win-win scenario

but with today's governments what I wrote is a possibility, and people will buy that crap

example is US in 1950s and today, not to mention so many failed states, one of which were yours and mine

In Bernie's mind, there's 20 million Bill Gates and we can take 85 billion dollars from each one of them to pay for unlimited free shit for everyone.

hey fuck you, i want an extra $261

>>what are children

why shouldn't children get their fair share?

...

>What has Bernie got against rich people
because they would never give him a job for doing nothing when he was young.
then he found politics where you can do nothing and still get paid

...

>"if you cant' afford pay healthcare for your employees you might as well go broke"
It didn't come across to me that way. It didn't sound like she was in danger of going broke, rather, it sounded like having to provide healthcare to her employees was an impediment to her expanding her business. A business that's looking to expand doesn't sound like one will be going broke anytime soon.

Anyway, it's well known that Sanders would prefer single payer system rather than employer-provided healthcare.

...

Most Americans enlist in the military because they're poor as shit and have no other way of sustaining themselves or making enough money to go to college.

if they have such a big problem with the 1% why don't they just kill them all?
there is not that many of them.

this is what I mean, you have the same mindset.

She had hairsalon. You need people to come to you to get money, you're not a business person who can make money from over seas. For them to make their company more profitable they need to expand to hit different customer bases but she can't do that because she'd dip under then.

A hairsalon has very low start up cost also.

Maybe you should read about what it implies having "too much" money? With money, you can buy people and with that, your influence grows. You influence politicians in democracies, i.e. your vote counts more than others. You have control over infrastructure, technology and also natural resources.

Being rich itself is not a bad thing, the problem is though that you can be too rich and abuse the power given to you... and this is what is happening to democracies for more than 200 years now. This is also why the Democracies of France, Britain and the US always opposed strong totalitarian regimes, these can't be bought with money, can't be subverted by propaganda and the wealthy and rich in power have barely any meaning anymore in a totalitarian state. You either do what the government says or you get the boot.

Nobody would care if the richest people have 200-500 million dollars, but going up to nearly 100 billion?

wow russia

Because anyone that rich can afford bodyguards.

You know that this distribution is the result of brownian motion right?
Unless the government conspires to control EVERY human interaction the same distribution will appear.

Good goy

Bernie acts as if Bill Gates just has all that money lying around on a huge pile, while in actuality, 99% is in companies. Warren Buffet, with a net worth of over 50 billion dollars, has got only 500 million dollars in liquid assets, with most of those liquid assets being treasury bills.

That isn't what democratic socialists propose, though. So you're constructing a straw man argument.
Democratic socialism works well in Scandinavia.

>of brownian motion

As a Physicist, your post gave me cancer.

>you have the same mindset
What mindset? That seems to imply that there's something about my thought process that isn't accurately reflecting reality. But that's not the case, is it? She could continue operating her business as she has been with no ill effects, right? She may not get rich doing so, but she's also not likely to go out of business anytime soon.

All the billionaires in the US combined total about 7 trillion which gives everyone about 21.5k. Which is a lot, but not life changing.

What if you add in the hundred-millionaires? And what if they were left with 20 million each, rather than zero?

You can goy me all you want but it's a basic statement of mathematics.
The same distribution occurs anywhere brownian motion does.

See eg. Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences Chaos, Fractals, Selforganization and Disorder: Concepts and Tools by Didier Sornette

>he doesn't know what brownian motion is
Are you sure you're not an engineer because physicists are supposed to know at least some mathematics.

you ignore an entire grey area
> A business that's looking to expand doesn't sound like one will be going broke anytime soon.

The grey area being: the type of business

If she grows her business she goes broke because now she's forced to pay healthcare for 50 employees so sure, she might be doing ok now but what if she wants to make more money in order to be able to afford healthcare for her employees down the line? She can't do that because she has this scythe over her that says "you employ enough people so pay their healthcare"

It's very unrealistic for some companies.

So now, she can either shut down a hairsalon and open another, which is a zero sum game or she can open another and go broke or she can just stagnate.

She can't increase her income from where she's now, her business needs her to expand

Checked math , can confirm.

Corrupt lying communist who sold out his deluded supporters for a big sack of money and another house says the man who has helped create the digital age and made truly space age tech available to pretty much everyone should have his money taken away from him and given to said lying commie bastard so that he can buy votes from stupid evil people with it and perhaps build a 5th house from the leftovers...

>all of his net worth is available in liquid cash and most of it isn't a proposed value of his ownership portion of Microsoft or anything like that so do away with Microsoft which allows me to shitpost with ease daily and Bill Gates himself so everyone can get $261

What entitles her to ever-more profit? I think the mindset that you're accusing me of, and that perhaps Sanders believes, is that at a certain point when a business grows large enough, profit can no longer take priority over social responsibility.

I'm not making the case for entitlement for more profit. I'm saying that forcing people to pay healthcare when you employ over 50 is unrealistic for some businesses because they'll crack under the financial burden.

I'm gonna make a callback to this again:
>> A business that's looking to expand doesn't sound like one will be going broke anytime soon.
She might have enough to start a new business and run it if she weren't forced to pay healthcare at the point she started it.

She might make enough money, when she's able to open another hairsalon, to pay for their healthcare down the line but she can't do it from the get go.

It makes whites as lazy as blacks stfu you commie leaf

this is what I don't understand, if she had enough for herself (family) why does she need 50 workers? What is so hard in owning a hair salon, like every one of those 50 people could have their own stores, why they need boss

some people don't have the starting capital to start a business

by your logic, unemployment wouldn't be a thing

Well, I'll agree with you and say that forcing businesses to provide healthcare to their employees isn't an ideal solution. Personally I don't believe healthcare should be tied to employment at all, and that we should adopt a single payer system.

More profit can lead to more branches being opened which means more jobs and greater money circulation, stimulating the economy. More profit can also mean greater investing in the current business as to provide it with better tools to do its job better, or the business can also use the money to maintain their business, meaning repairs and such. Greater profits can also help the owner by providing the company with a good amount of money for "just in case" scenarios. Greater profits are also an incentive for the owner to let him invest in human capital like employees so that the owner has more worthwhile employees or in his children or relatives who the owner would like to see in a better university or such.

Lots of other things can be imagined as well.

>social responsibility
>social responsibility is to provide lower paying jobs and a more expensive service in order to fulfil a government scheme

>like every one of those 50 people could have their own stores
Sit down and have a think about this. Where will they get the money to start buy the necessary equipment? Where are they going to rent the actual property?

>Are you sure you're not an engineer because physicists are supposed to know at least some mathematics.

Brownian motion is a real life phenomena, not an abstract mathematical theorem.

Brownian motion is the random movement of particles and would also imply an equal distribution of particles of different sizes within a given spacial confinement. Brownian motion of electrons creates white noise, i.e. noise of same intensity over the entire frequency spectrum.

If you would describe the distribution of wealth by brownian motion you would basically have the unattainable communist utopia where everyone has the same wealth. Brownian motion is random movement, the movement of wealth in a capitalist system is not random...

Well the result of his policy is indeed very EVIL, whether he knows it or not. Most businesses that have 50 employees or more would spend more on fucking healthcare than on wages if they paid for all of their employees' Obamacare.

He very well may be an Alinsky-like communist agitator who wants to destroy society so that communism can be implemented (HRC wrote her college thesis on this topic).

>some people don't have the starting capital to start a business

soooo that was my actual question, just needed prelude, why don't we fight for that, and not about will we steal or not for people who have...

Yeah, you're a commie fuck for brains.

>More profit can lead to more branches being opened which means more jobs and greater money circulation
Does it though? These are hair salons we're talking about. Do you think if there are more hair salons, more people will visit hair salons? Like, people are just going without hair cuts, or cutting their own because there aren't enough hair salons? No, of course not.

The truth of the matter is that there's a finite amount of demand for many things, and expanding a business is as likely to take away from some other business.

because that's non-sense

I'm willing to bet loads of people don't want to start a business

If there's a market for it mane, then there's a market. If there isn't then the owner should have studied the situation better, assuming they even did that in the first place before opening a new branch.

if you open a hairsalon you open up a new market. Ofcourse it creates more money

>what is supply and demand
>economic expansion isn't necessary/beneficial if I don't think your business is that important!

Anyway, if she CAN expand and make profit, then there IS a demand for her services enough to justify her expansion.

easier to bitch at their boss and complain that the world is so unfair?

don't doubt there are plenty of worldchangers working who'll never act on their beliefs but some people are happy just being employed

Brownian motion is a stochastic process with mean 0, independent increments and variance proportional to time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_process

>movement of wealth in a capitalist system is not random
Black and Scholes would have a thing or two to say about that buddy. :^)
Every single accurate model of anything in our current "le ebil capitalist" system is based on Brownian motion (because it is Brownian motion)

>believes people actually understand how the economy works

>Black and Scholes

Nobody cares about theoretical models of non STEM subjects. The degree is called "of arts" and not "of science" for a reason.

Also just googling that models name gave me the information I needed, it is brownian motion with additional properties, constant drift and volatility. Thus, it is no longer brownian motion because brownian motion alone would not explain the topic at hand...

Who are non stem people so stupid? Even the model you present clearly states that it is not explained by brownian motion alone and that's the whole point. You have to add other factors which no longer makes is brownian motion and you people were just too lazy to come up with a new name for it.

Fucking low IQ scum appropriating my science.

Kek'd

>Every single accurate model of anything in our current "le ebil capitalist" system is based on Brownian motion (because it is Brownian motion)
Is a pretty large leap from
>the Black and Scholes equation is/was successfully used by financiers and had a huge volume of derivatives

I'm saying the exact opposite of that.

>maths isn't a stem subject
>Brownian motion of particles can't have constant drift and volatility
>Brownian motion isn't Brownian motion unless it follows my 1950's colloquial usage of Brownian motion
You've got no idea what you're talking about and I really doubt you've any qualification in physics.

The are both true statements, the latter is one example of the former.

>b-bb-but what if we cut the defense budget in half!

>>maths isn't a stem subject

We are talking about finance, the model is a financial model and they just use math trying to explain shit. Also the "math" used is rather calculus and low tier.

>Brownian motion of particles can't have constant drift and volatility
I never implied that and my point still stands. You have to add certain properties to brownian motion for the model you present. Hence, it is no longer pure brownian motion.

>Brownian motion isn't Brownian motion unless it follows my 1950's colloquial usage of Brownian motion
Yeah, that's how definitions work in real life. Adding properties to that does not change the definition but the subject you are describing. The point still stands, you model needs to add special properties to brownian motion in order to allegedly explain something in a completely human made system. And the definition of brownian motion certainly changed over the years, you are just appropriating the name, adding stuff to it, and then still call it brownian motion. But I know from other economics books from uni that subjects like this love to use fancy sounding names to sound smart and pack 1 page worth of info in 20. In the end, it's still stuff that could be easily learned while having burning diarrhea on the crapper.

>I really doubt you've any qualification in physics.
What you write clearly shows you don't have a qualification in any real science. You are not able to understand the simple sentences I write and continue to weakbait and shitpost.

THIS!
vote for bernie!

>And the definition of brownian motion certainly changed over the years
"certainly have not changed"

2017 is the year communism ends

>tons of poor
>ideal

the point is high 90% marginal tax rates keep extreme wealth from corrupting the system and leading to stock market speculation and boom bust cycles, and creates incentive for productive investment and not speculation that leads to boom bust. everyone used to understand this until the rich bought all the media and turned us all into dumbfuckistanis

>Also the "math" used is rather calculus and low tier
The maths used is measure theory, there's very little calculus involved, you've just looked up a wikipedia page and seen a SPDE and are now pretending to know something about it.

>add special properties to brownian motion in
The "special properties" are that it is Brownian motion, the fact that it is this way is the statement of the central limit theorem.

>fancy sounding names
Like what? Brownian? Stochastic process?

>And the definition of brownian motion certainly changed over the years
Correct, it hasn't changed for at least 30 years, since then it has been the one I am using.

>The maths used is measure theory
We learn that in School as a requirement for Uni. So yes, low tier.

>The "special properties" are that it is Brownian motion
No, the special properties added to brownian motion are drift and volatility. But you know that, you just continue saying that for futher bait. If you don't know that, then you must be really dumb.

>Like what? Brownian? Stochastic process?
You know very well what I mean, using additional made up words for explaining simple processes in order to complicate things is something the finance and economy sector is well known for. That's why you are so laughed at by STEM people.

>Correct, it hasn't changed for at least 30 years
Unironically ignoring the correction I made to my post. Just confirms you are just shitposting with your limit intellect. The definition of brownian motion has not changed from that what was oberved around 1830, yet correctly explained/defined by Einstein around 1900.

>inb4 further bait

>We learn that in School as a requirement for Uni. So yes, low tier.
You don't learn measure theory in school.

>drift and volatility
Already exist in your version of Brownian motion. Unless you are claiming that all fluids have a velocity field equal to zero and are all at absolute zero temperature.

>You know very well what I mean
>made up words for explaining simple processes in order to complicate things
Like what exactly? What word has been made up that upsets you so?
Stochastic? Random variable? Process? What?
I'd say that name stochastic process gives a more accurate picture of it's definition than gauge theory does.
>inb4 autstic screeching that real gauge theory(tm) is still about using different rulers at different points

>That's why you are so laughed at by STEM people
So now statistical mechanics and QFT are no longer stem subjects (and almost every theory taking place at non-zero temperature)? :^)

there are already tons of poor you nob