If I knew soapy tiddies would lead to My Little Pony / bronies I'd...nah I'd still be okay with soapy tiddies.

On a side note, really glad I caught the autocorrect from tiddies to kiddies...

It also assumes that people are dumber than the stupidest of animals. Who taught all of them to have sex? And some of them go at it like rabbits!

Is the rest of the village being deprived by that fact that I refuse to sell it and buy everyone a Lamborghini?

No, they are being deprived by the fact that billionaires are allowed to amass that amount of wealth without supporting society with it, i.e., taxes, labor laws that don't allow the extraction of wealth from workers to the point that there is often an income disparity if 100000%, and comsumer laws that don't allow vendors to charge exorbitant rates for basic necessities like food and housing and medicine. So someone can take trips to space and someone else can't have food, in the more extreme examples.

You keep conflating artificial and unrealized value. Stocks have value, just like the cash in your wallet or the bits associated with your bank account. They aren't physical things (even cash has no value based on its physical nature) but their value is real nonetheless. At least until society collapses and the only things that matter are the purely physical, anyways, at which point your cash will be just as worthless as stocks.

Given you responded 12 days later, you must mean it!

Monetary theory is complex, and lots of stupid people want it to be simple.

" is complex, and lots of stupid people want it to be simple" applies to far too many subjects, and politicians tend to use that to manipulate voters when those subjects are societal.

To add to this. In a lot of the developed world, you want to build a big resort, you make a business plan, you get investors, you secure a loan, and you build a big resort. In Mexico, it's hard to secure those investors and cash flow, due in part to the uncertainty of the economy. So they build part of that big resort, say the first 10 floors of a 25 storey building. Then, as they get more money, they finish the building, then add more parts to the building. This is a limited example of what liquidity in the economy can mean - the ability to big things now rather than smaller steps over time.

You're right! They can't just walk into a bank and withdraw 10 million!

Instead, they take out a loan for 10 million against a collateral of 20 million in stocks, expense the interest, claim 0 income and therefore no income tax, and have that transferred to their bank account. Then they withdraw 10 million, while their stocks continue to gain (or lose) value, and at some point they have to take some portion of their dividends as income rather than rolling them into more stocks or, God forbid, sell some of those stocks to pay back the loan.

In a technical sense, no, that money isn't just sitting in a bank account, but there's a weird effect. If you only have a small amount of stocks, say a few million worth, you can sell them off in a relatively short period without harming the stock because it's just a blip at most in normal volatility. If you have a lot, say billions, you can sell enough to do whatever the average person would ever want to do with only slightly more volatility than is some nobody did it, and much of that is due to the visibility of a billionaire doing that. If that billionaire needs more than a few million, he can just follow the process outlined above with no impact at all to the stock market and a number of benefits to himself. So in a practical sense, if you only have a little stocks, say millions, accessing those millions may take days or weeks, but if you have billions, you can access it only slightly slower than I can withdraw $100.

This money is still in the economy and helping to economy to function overall, but the majority of that benefit is only experienced by one person, the billionaire. This is effectively them hoarding those billions, not because they're sitting in an account but because a single person is experiencing the majority of that benefit while the rest is spread across thousands or perhaps millions of people.

I was assured that requiring humanities courses in science degrees was pointless...

Why can't that be your "I'll wear what I want, fuck you very much" outfit?

Manual is a chore, barely saves fuel these days, and requires you to use both hands, leaving you unable to solo drive and shoot in the impending apocalypse. And who has the time to make friends these days?

/s I think

Alright, that's fair. I don't think your earlier post really conveyed that. I appreciate the clarification.

Well, you can reduce maintenance issues with the cooling system by using radiators and minimizing the amount of parts and eliminating the amount of moving parts altogether that have to be in direct contact with seawater. As I said above, I think the only benefit doing this has over the many others ways we can design data centers is data sovereignty, which isn't a good reason imo. My whole point in this thread was that there was no new technology or major development to make this happen.