It would be virtually impossible for even spending in the billions to impact the actual life quality of the richest men on earth, so you effectively have to assume they are just *that* ideologically committed to their personal wealth and the power it brings.https://twitter.com/NatStClair/status/1240293174762860544 …
-
Of course it is the case that he doesn't have nearly $110 billion in liquid. Am I supposed to believe that what liquid he *can* readily access is negligible? Bloomberg was prepared to spend into the billions on a vanity presidential campaign and has half Bezos's net worth.
That I don't know. My guess, reasoning from the admittedly smaller fortunes I know something about, is that what he has in cash at any given moment is actually probably 'small' (millions, not billions) and he functions on cash-flow, rather than reserves.
-
-
Bloomberg had months to get ready for his stupid vanity campaign and had the time to liquefy assets in an orderly economy (rather than the current firesale). But I admit, I'm speculating here.
-
But it often seems like folks don't realize that the scale of interventions we are talking here would blow way past even Bezos levels of wealth, fast. Amazon's operating expenses, for instance, are 80bn per *quarter*
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
'Cash-flow and leverage' I should say. When you have $100bn in assets, getting a credit-line from the bank and sorting out the interest later becomes a lot easier.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.