That isn’t that much these days. Not only that, but she is far more likely trying to protect her money. The only worse than not gaining power, for these people, is the potential to lose it.
…10 billion, aka 10,000 million dollars is a fuck ton of money. Unless we have a catastrophic financial meltdown that will result in millions starving, it will remain a fuck ton of money. Even with a vast amount of additional inflation.
Even 1 billion dollars is a lot of money, even to billionaires. So you kind of lost me. I don’t get where you are coming from here.
I’m saying that another comment said she was worth $28bil. That’s not even half her worth and she’s just one (obscenely rich) person.
But the second part was more important. She “only” spent $100mil and is looking to make sure that people in power don’t take away that aforementioned $10bil. She’s not exactly looking to make the money back but rather trying not to lose it(frankly I would consider it the return of stolen goods and she can go fuck herself but that’s not how it looks in her rotten mind).
I agree these statements seem mildly contradictory in severity but the point still stands. She wants to spend a little to not lose a lot.
Sure, though they would still be left with an obscene amount of wealth and would never have to know a single iota of suffering for the entirety of their miserable life. Their perspective is fucked and their addiction is strong so they’re pissing their pants all the same but logically speaking they have not thing to worry about.
So yes, I should have chosen different words, but you seem to be altogether missing the greater point of my comment and are hyper-focused on something that just isn’t consequential and I probably could have just left out entirely.
It’s more like your overarching point is something I have known for a long time. That is why I specifically talked about the only thing that I took issue with
So you’re having a separate argument while purposefully ignoring what I’m driving out without bothering to explain that until right now, and all that despite my explicit efforts to make it very clearly what the topic is?
They are obviously investing in their future. They must be expecting returns a hundred fold what they are putting into it.
So you’re implying this woman expects to profit $10 billion…?
Not through a lump sum, but in tax breaks, grants and federal contracts for her and her company over the trump administration.
That isn’t that much these days. Not only that, but she is far more likely trying to protect her money. The only worse than not gaining power, for these people, is the potential to lose it.
…10 billion, aka 10,000 million dollars is a fuck ton of money. Unless we have a catastrophic financial meltdown that will result in millions starving, it will remain a fuck ton of money. Even with a vast amount of additional inflation.
Even 1 billion dollars is a lot of money, even to billionaires. So you kind of lost me. I don’t get where you are coming from here.
I’m saying that another comment said she was worth $28bil. That’s not even half her worth and she’s just one (obscenely rich) person.
But the second part was more important. She “only” spent $100mil and is looking to make sure that people in power don’t take away that aforementioned $10bil. She’s not exactly looking to make the money back but rather trying not to lose it(frankly I would consider it the return of stolen goods and she can go fuck herself but that’s not how it looks in her rotten mind).
I agree these statements seem mildly contradictory in severity but the point still stands. She wants to spend a little to not lose a lot.
Half a person’s wealth, at any level, is necessarily a lot of money to that person …
Sure, though they would still be left with an obscene amount of wealth and would never have to know a single iota of suffering for the entirety of their miserable life. Their perspective is fucked and their addiction is strong so they’re pissing their pants all the same but logically speaking they have not thing to worry about.
So yes, I should have chosen different words, but you seem to be altogether missing the greater point of my comment and are hyper-focused on something that just isn’t consequential and I probably could have just left out entirely.
It’s more like your overarching point is something I have known for a long time. That is why I specifically talked about the only thing that I took issue with
So you’re having a separate argument while purposefully ignoring what I’m driving out without bothering to explain that until right now, and all that despite my explicit efforts to make it very clearly what the topic is?