In belgian french, we have “Outsiplou-les-Bains-de-Pieds”. Made up town name that both sounds funny and too long to actually exist, but the Outsiplou part kind of means “listen if it’s raining” in walloon. And “Perpète-les-Oies”. Which you could translate to “Far-away Geese”, which is plain gibberish but sounds like a lot of real places in France. There’s plently of variations but they mostly try to invent a name that sounds like a stereotypical countryside village name.
I don’t know, it just feels very convenient that wealth is considered money whenever is useful to the rich, and turns back into “wealth” a second later.
What I find unacceptable is the double standard. I’ll keep the Musk example: a few banks and a few private companies made loans (which need to be reimbursed with real money) for Musk buying Twitter. A part of the exchange money came from the value of his own shares of Twitter (deducted from the 44b). Before that he has sold lots of Tesla shares which apparently gave him $20b in cash
Why do we accept that this not-money money can be turned into real money whenever convenient, but cannot be taxed the rest of the time?
There’s a problem with how we accept to think of financial money. If it can’t be taxed, then out shouldn’t be defined as being an equivalent of real-economy money. Or maybe it should be evaluated in a more realistic way?
Not saying I have easy answers, but there’s clearly a problem IMO.
It’s also real money, otherwise Musk couldn’t have bought Twitter for $44 billion. He sure didn’t have that amount on his bank account but he still bought it all the same, thus giving him a substantial soft power through information.
I’m sure there’s a bunch of versions anyway ! Each of my grandmas would surely have said it the differently from each other, although they were born 25km from each other.
I do love how Perpète-les-Andouillettes rhymes !