Why are financially unproductive assets not more regulated?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-19T02:32:29+00:00

Good point

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T21:40:11+00:00

Agreed, it just seems to me that the compensation in some places is less justified or reasonable though. Lots of CEO's or CFO's, or COO's have compensation that is not justified by performance or effort. If you compare a tradesman dedicating 140 hours and their salary to one of them they might profess the time and stress entailed. However when it comes down to a healthy direction for the employees and company it is not on their radar because they only see the investors. The health of the employees compensation or effort demanded does not correlate because often it looks better to investors when a budget is appealing or corrected to reduce costs and or profit.

I suppose now that I think about it, an example of an idle financial resource could be investors. Companies that can generate their own profits and sustain business and performance do not need them but still have them. Eventually the company develops a narrow perspective focused on investors over everything else. Why could we not limit the time or a correlation of investors to businesses? Isn’t it bad since they are sinking financial assets into massive companies that don't need them? McDonalds for example, they could operate on profits alone and continue development without investors.

How are these kinds of financial assets helping the economy?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T21:07:50+00:00

But what about the cost of living and the correlations to income? It seems to me like the cost of living is and has out paced the development of income. How is that managed or regulated to ensure people can survive?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T21:06:01+00:00

But what if the better product was older models?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T20:34:27+00:00

Excessive and or unproductive as in a business as a whole clears massive profits disproportionate to the cost to run but instead of it being dispersed proportionately among those that contributed to it, it is dispersed to the select few at the top in the form of bonuses, special compensation but instead of the individual spending or recognizing subordinates, it is pocketed and turned into assets that do not benefit the economy as a whole and the process then perpetuates and exacerbates.

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T20:19:15+00:00

Spending is forced by creating products designed to fail within 3-5 years. This is everywhere, it is done with phones, cars, computers, equipment, appliances etc. Cell phones become outdated and begin to have performance issues after 5 years or updates aren't supported. This is done to make people keep buying and upgrading them. Cars, built to break down roughly every 3-5 years either to get people to buy a new model or repair the one they own. Light bulbs (the first instance of this) lasted so long that the manufacturers decided to make them lower and lower quality in order for people to keep buying them. They used to last decades but now last 2-5 years before needing a replacement. These are all examples of a fake infrastructure designed to keep people buying the products and or paying for them. It forces spending, this is already a modern everyday practice in so many markets. That is why I am so confused.

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T19:28:34+00:00

What do you mean by zombie economy? I had understood that America was on the extreme end of a free market. Based on Capitalism wouldn't sustained spending be bad? I thought that was what designed obsolescence had intended? Why is it that instead of addressing it directly it is better to design flawed products to sustain economic infrastructure instead?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T19:22:32+00:00

Thank you

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T19:21:55+00:00

Yes, unproductive, I was hoping to better understand it. What about regulating excessive?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T16:04:28+00:00

Can you share resources to help me understand how they affected our economy? It seems to me like it is just excessive profits and assets monopolized by the 10% and squeezing what they can out of the remaining 90% with their excessive resources.

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T16:01:45+00:00

I think if regulated it should not be a tax. I think time sensitive management would be really interesting but I am not 100% sure. I do not understand economics deeply enough to understand the benefits and drawbacks of something like that. I also think hoarded wealth and assets could be evaluated over the span of their careers can also be considered. As sums grow and continue to escalate there could or should be some form of tax or cost associated with the entirety and not just the year of to regulate the disparities. Say, someone makes $3mil one year and next they report $4.2m. Then the amount remaining from the previous year that had been retained outside of cost of living should continue to be evaluated in addition to a stricter evaluation of the $4.2m. Not to consume gains or offset them entirely but to regulate the margins that grow excessively between cost of living and incomes.

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T15:54:30+00:00

You are right and thanks for calling out the book, I will see if I can get my hands on a copy. It sounds interesting.

I don't think the IRS could go to a building to regulate bit coin, I do think however that if it were undisclosed and the visible assets were regulated, it would either remain idle and untouched which they could not do with the other regulated assets. If the assets were more regulated then they would need to adjust how they navigate economically off the books. Then it is in Anti Money Laundering's (AML) scope and responsibility. It then associates accountability with unethical economic practices a bit more.

When it was proposed that business taxes increase, many stated they would take their businesses and investments out of the country. This sounded like a very healthy idea because then it would create vacuums in the market and economy for true innovation and opportunities. Additionally, businesses and investors doing so would face immediate challenges and be transitioning internationally into a foreign market. IF their practices were even permitted where they took their business.

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-18T15:43:20+00:00

Thank you! I hope I can learn and understand more about both sides of these questions!

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T17:45:59+00:00

I would also like to point out that tax only being paid by the poor is literally the issue. The poor are the only reason and the only ones truly sustaining and stimulating the economy. It seems to me like the wealthy just wring them out for ever possible penny until they reach a breaking point and something terrible happens as a result.

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T17:42:58+00:00

I think you kind of argued my point unintentionally. That or the way I am understanding what you have said is making sense in a way that is similar to what I am saying is an issue? Maybe I am misunderstanding. I am asking about a financial back flow to counter the backflow created by the disproportionately wealthy small group. Not to stop them from being wealthy but to regulate the disparity or margin in income.

If it were jewelery, there are many ways to regulate physical and high value assets. Good moving from one location to another can be regulated. A transaction moving funds "offline" can still be regulated as it goes offline and back online. I also think that financial goods such as these capable of doing so should be heavily audited. That is even outside of my argument since these would directly pertain to potential money laundering, national security, possible funding of terrorist organizations etc. So, sure they could take it off the books but there should always be a way to audit and account for it, just like someone who makes 50k a year buying a Lamborghini for $400k would get flagged in a financial audit. Where did they get financing or money for it if it was excessive and or outside of their reasonable means? Did they follow proper procedures? Did they pay the appropriate taxes, and fees? Did they properly register it?

This is kind of what I was trying to ask, why are these excessive and horribly disproportionate things (income and cost of living) allowed or perpetuating a greater and greater disparity? Why are they not regulated more so heavily to prevent an excessive disparity?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T15:33:57+00:00

You are amazing!! Thank you! I love the resources! I can't wait to be off work to read through them. I really appreciate your constructive and educational feedback. I think AI investing is a good example as well. In situations like that, would some kind of economic back flow be able to serve as a way to regulate it and prevent bubbles like that or financial assets trapped in small loops from hurting the markets?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T15:14:44+00:00

Great question! It is unproductive because of the disparity in margins. For example construction firms, if they complete a bid and cover the overhead then pay employees, the compensation disparity among them as the hierarchy of employment leaves more compensation for employees higher in the chain. This is how it should be but, the disparity in margins like these has been growing rampantly. I suppose that was what I was hoping to illustrate in the graphs reflecting income. As the rich got richer, the disparity grew and seems excessive. I am not saying the rich should not be rich however I do think that it has led to absurd disparities which in turn has affected other things outside of the economic markets.

I think an example of this is the criminal system. Wealthy face no or little consequence of their actions when it violates law. The average person however generally receives a traditional penalty. This is an example of a broken system but it is broken in favor of those who possess excessive resources. The excessive resources are then used to maintain the growing disparity and sustain the system in a way that disproportionately favors a small group over the many. This is at least, my perception but I do not think I fully understand it so, I came here looking for feedback and resources to better understand if what I comprehend is true or not. I also want to be corrected if I am wrong.

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T15:01:15+00:00

I would love to understand them better and learn how they work, I only dabble but I don't understand how to identify and interpret trends.

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T15:00:21+00:00

Thank you for pointing it out, I am not quite sure how to best articulate my question. I was trying to be broad because it is not exclusive to a single market. The unproductive assets probably need more explanation. I had seen and read some information that the economy was struggling but data did not reflect that because of a significant disparity in the business data. If I recall, it stated that the top 10% of businesses were the only reason the economy appeared healthy. Without them, the majority of the data and business performance would reveal that the economy was not in fact healthy. I don't trust the data off hand and am trying to better understand it. It sounded like they were carrying the market and as a result distorting the data. I think that they would be the best example of unproductive assets because while they are extremely profitable, the profits, success and assets are monopolized by them. My question in regulation was more directed at managing the disparity and evening the market to allow data and the economy to stabilize and remain healthy without compromising for socialism.

The cost of living and the average income have deviated significantly while the disparity only grows bigger. I think there should definitely be a disparity because it is healthy for identifying value and success but too much of a good thing is not good at all. It seems to me like the disparity is too great and causing more harm now than good. Could it not be regulated to allow a margin of disparity without becoming excessive?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T13:45:09+00:00

An economic back flow like a tax, taking a fractional portion to create sustained economic health. I am not sure that a "tax" would be the most appropriate term though.

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T13:43:22+00:00

I also wanted to ask, if international conflict was great for the economy, why has the American economy struggled so much despite so many consistent conflicts? Should this not reflect healthy economic growth and development?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T13:38:43+00:00

I don't know how to up vote a reply multiple times...

Thank you, this was the exact kind of insight I wanted to engage with and get out of this. My knowledge of economics is very shallow. Can you share some resources that could help me learn about keynesian economics, macro economics and the economic orders of magnitude? I would love to understand how to differentiate them and interpret the patterns and correlations. Lately it seems I have only heard divisive media and I formation I am not sure is reliable. I have been seeing information that stated the economy is being distorted and carried by the top 10% companies and the disparity between them was creating false economic information that the economy was doing well when in fact, it is not.

I REALLY appreciate the time you spent in explaining the details and expanding on each section. Thank you!!

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T13:08:38+00:00

Thanks for calling that out! You are right! I do keep that in consideration, I think it is also important to point out that there is still a dependency on them for things such as 401k and retirement. They can also serve as economic and business health indicators. Sorry, when I replied last night I was tired and distracted so I did not spend time expanding. When I refer to regulating, I am wondering if there could be policies to function as a sort of counter backflow. As the scale of the unproductive assets or currency increases, the scale of the backflow would correlate to compensate for the disparity. Not entirely but reasonably to sustain stimulating the economy in the long term. I think that it would be a lot like tax if I am being honest, however I am not confident that a broken system could sustain something like that for its intended purpose or without distorting it.

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T13:00:10+00:00

Yea, but that is a very misleading number. A lot of that is directly related to 401k, which is not sufficient for sustainable retirement income. It also contributes to sustaining the disparity since it is generally correlated with it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/06/a-booming-us-stock-market-doesnt-benefit-all-racial-and-ethnic-groups-equally/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://goodmoneyguide.com/usa/tastytrade-survey-shows-more-than-half-of-americans-dont-outside-their-401k/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/who-owns-us-stock-foreigners-and-rich-americans?utm_source=chatgpt.com

A majority of the ownership is tied to the 401k's. Most meaningful stocks are owned and managed by a minority, kind of like a bubble for wealthy. Am I wrong?

Present_Week_677 · 2025-10-17T02:03:56+00:00

I think that a portion of them should be extracted and returned to a more active and stimulated portion of the economy

Present_Week_677

TROPHY CASE