| Irace86.2.0 |
04-20-2021 01:10 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcoat
(Post 3425209)
The irony of that is you could all of a sudden make them valueless!
A great example of this was in the model kit collecting world. There was one old Aurora kit that was selling for around $1500 on a regular basis (That would make the car about $12 million in comparison to original price). Then somebody found cases of them in a warehouse someplace. Now they go for about $400.
The reason that these cars go for so much is that they are rare and unique in some way or another. You have to many and you take that value away.
Oh and remember when you talk about how the rich and powerful were overthrown that they had been in place for a thousand years before that but the systems that replaced them usually crumbled within a few decades (the Russian nobility is a great example of that). It looks great that they were overthrown until you place the whole thing in context.
There have always been people with more than others and there always will be.
|
Rare and old doesn't equal value. I learned that from watching Pawn Stars. It has to be desirable too. For some reason, these cars are desirable. I don't know why. Maybe people believe they will be investments because analog cars are going away and ICEs will be replaced by EVs. Maybe people just have a lot of money to spend on poster cars. If people wanted to actually drive these cars then I would understand, but I have a strong feeling that this is just going into someone's museum. And you are right, its value is only as much as anyone is willing to pay for it, but so is anything. I doubt the supply of these will change, so unless the demand dramatically shifts because of a recession or depression, this thing will hold its value; even then, the rich don't get poor during a recession or depression.
Income inequality is a problem, but wealth inequality is scarier. Obviously income inequality leads to more wealth inequality, but the accumulation of wealth is problematic. For instance, Jeff Bezos is worth say $150 billion if he cashed out his Amazon shares and retired. Say he reinvested and diversified his money conservatively and made only 5% interest on his investments. Say we never have inflation for simplicity for the example, and he leaves his wealth to his family intact. In 100 years, the value of his investments would reach $19.7 trillion. Say those investments had a good year, and he made 6% instead of 5%, and the family decided to cash out 1% of the shares. That is $197 billion dollars. In a future without inflation, where $197 billion is worth the same as it is now, that is potentially a lot of influence on politics or on the market, and we see the effects of that with families like the Koch brothers.
Some people feel intrinsically uneasy about taxing wealth like an inheritance tax, even for the rich, but it is probably best for the health of the society. This level of wealth inequality has a runaway effect. A new Bezos or Musk could attempt to generate new wealth in a new industry, but old money can continue to grow faster than someone could try to build new wealth, and what is more, someone could have the power to stifle competition, so it doesn't happen. We have seen that. It is bad for the economy and society. I think taxes, business regulations, anti-trust laws, laws against campaign contributions (money in politics), etc can allow societies to have wealth inequality and still be healthy like the video below mentions, but we don't have these protections right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot4qdCs54ZE
|