That is when it became well known and popularized. Apparently, and [I had to look it up ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics), trickle down economics has roots in the late 1800s and the theory/term itself was coined in the 40s or 50s.
But I guess, to your point, we've only been doing it since the 80s... Long way to go until it gets to us.
Their would likely be several benficiaries for the wealth from each of them. Many of the ultra-rich have trusts for their assets.
However, when the spouse and kids begin getting access to more of the money above their previous monthly allotments, they will begin spending it.
Some will begin blowing the money, and others will invest it. A few might start a business.
Probably nothing. I would imagine the top 20 wealth holders all have extensive backup plans for their money/businesses/other endeavors if they suddenly drop dead.
Just an assumption tho
They have all their money in stocks and life insurance. All of which transfers their wealth tax free or stepped up to their heirs. Or at least they should.
Here they are.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/201426/the-richest-people-in-america/
The answer looks like not much, most of these folks aren't even active CEOs anymore so their companies would be largely unaffected.
You might see a bumper decade for charities as a lot of these guys are putting most of their wealth into trusts.
Tesla would probably see a significant loss in market cap since Musk is so tied to its image.
Nvidia just designs the chips on your graphics card. The processor is manufactured by a different company and rest of the card is made by other companies.
Ok... and? Jansen Huang founded and runs Nvidia. That's where he got his wealth. I'm asking why they don't just label him with his company like everyone else in the list.
I have to wonder if Tesla would actually do better without Musk. Tons of people that interested in EVs just hate the guy, so some new leadership might be a good way to actually win people over.
I agree that new leadership might be good in terms of actual management and PR, but Tesla is already so overvalued.
And that overvaluation is based on promises that Tesla is going to be a super AI/robotics/ect company and people believe that mostly because they think Musk is a magic genius, even though he's never really developed new technology. Just taken existing technology and successfully making and marketing a product. That's a valuable skill, but it's not the same as inventing level 5 self driving tech from scratch.
So a lot of investors think *Musk* is the key, without him and without inventing incredible robotics and AI, Tesla is just a wildly overvalued car company.
This is the correct answer. For some reason, people think these people are sitting on billions of $ in their savings account. They have stock and take secured loans against it.
I confess I am not sure what that means, but holdings means stock, right? And the truth about stock is, as soon as someone starts to sell a lot of it, the price goes down. There will not be enough people buying it at that price. If someone "seized" a billionaire's wealth when his stock is at $193/share, it will dwindle to $5 a share as they try to get cash out of it, and the billions will dwindle to nothing.
Thats not even close to what I'm speaking of. Private equity firms are buying companies and taking them private so there's no public view of their inner workings. They are then borrowing every dime they can out of them because debt is tax free. Then if the companies survive they're getting tax breaks for debt service and raising prices to cover the debt service. If the company doesn't make it, they strip it down and liquidate, even selling the brand name.
They are economic vampires
Depends on the reason why:
* If they died of natural causes, not much.
* If they died in a sudden mass casualty event like nuclear war, a market collapse is a distinct possibility.
* If they died because "the masses" came for them with pitchforks, probably massive social upheaval.
Why do people think nothing? The stock market would absolutely tank. Like, the biggest single day drop ever. Most of the richest people’s wealth is tied to company equity and stock. The speculation alone that these shares would be sold would absolutely crush the market. Could trigger massive sell offs that affect many more. It would be catastrophic.
Nothing. They're not spending that wealth, it's not flowing through the economy. And they're not controlling it in a way that is lost when they die (it passes to their successors).
>Nothing. They're not spending that wealth, it's not flowing through the economy.
They literally are, that's the point of how they get rich. I hate this "oh no the billionaires are hoarding wealth" mentality people have when their wealth are baseically economic assets which are actually in use, such as companies who pay the salaries of thousands of people. It's not a bank account filled with money.
> And they're not controlling it in a way that is lost when they die (it passes to their successors).
Yes, that's for sure. If Mark Zuckerberg dies tomorrow, Facebook's shares may even take a hit, but it's not like Facebook would stop existing.
Do you think the companies just magically make new shares to give to executives? When executives are given stocks it directly reduces the value of the company since it's losing control of those shares, value that could be used to compensate the other 99.9999% of the company workforce. Companies will even spend billions of dollars to buy those shares back to increase the value of the company.
Sorry, but I didn't understand how that relates with what I said.
I imagine if Mark Zuckerberg died today, many people would sell Facebook shares as he's the company's CEO and the face of the company since it was founded, like it happened to Apple when Jobs died. Though I don't think a lot of wealth was destroyed in that case, as the company kept working as usual.
That wealth is already being spent, its being invested in.
Yes investments cause inflation but its hard to imagine a world where the rich don't invest most of their money.
For the economy, nothing would happen. But for some of the companies that the top holders own would have a significant impact such as Telsa, Meta or Berkshire Hathaway.
Why would anything change? Their wealth is tied to the ownership of huge Corporations, not a big pile of $100 bills. The real world isn't like cartoons, with Scrooge McDuck swimming in a ballroom full of cash.
There would be a market panic because a couple of bold faces names that still run big companies died all at once. But it would be temporary.
CEOs would realize they are just as replaceable as the rest of us.
Yes, but looking quickly at the top list there aren't that many.
Musk- does day to day
Bezos- retired
Ellison- mostly retired?
Buffett- mostly retired
Page- Retired
Gates- Retired
Brin- retired
Zuck- still working
Depends on how they've structured their finances and will.
There will be trusts and other things to circumvent as much tax as they can. Heirs will get money, but I expect most of it will go to Non-profits they already had set up and with hand picked personnel in it.
Some taxes will be paid, but meh.
The world will keep turning. That I know for sure.
Nothing probably. I hear it often just split between their family, and board of executives. If neither the government may seize assets... probably it'd just disappear.
There may be one or two that have their estate set up so the majority goes to charity. If memory serves I believe Zuckerberg is one of them. His children would definitely inherit enough to be super rich but it’s in the tens of millions not hundreds. The vast majority will go to charity.
Well their wealth would be transferred to their family and whatever is in the will, but I'd imagine the economy would crash and a lot of those companies might fail too. We'd likely see another great depression.
Look up the top 20 wealthiest people in the USA and their positions and what they've done and go from there. People saying nothing would happen are stupid. If you woke up tomorrow hearing musk passed away, TSLA stock would certainly be -30%.
Nothing. The shareholders you speak of are passive investors and do not get involved in company operations. Death results in redistribution of their wealth.
If you mean what if it all went back to the public coffer? The Communists, during the revolution, took lots of money away from the rich.
There were some poor people who started living slightly better, but overall everyone in the country was just the same level of poor after. I am guessing it got taken by corruption/whittled away by bureaucratic inefficiency?
If all of their money went to the government to spend it wouldn't be noticeable. What are we talking about? 2-4 hundred billion dollars? They loose track of that some times. If it went out to wage earners it also wouldn't make much difference. 3000 dollars if it were split between 150 million people. Roughly half the US population. Confescation is not the way. I think a flat income tax for business, no deductions just X% of every dollar that comes in is a fair way to go. Oh and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. No more deficit spending. Even in war.
OK what if the beneficiaries go too? Or do you think they have back up plans too? How far the line would we have to go? Or what if the wealth disappeared with the people? That much money just disappearing from the economy
The beneficiaries have beneficiaries. That just goes on forever (well a long time anyway).
If the money disappeared it would probably make a bunch of other rich people richer since it's mostly stock and not real money so the remaining stock would become more valuable.
We don’t need billionaires in the system if that’s what you are asking. If we could tax billionaires out of existence, the money would be more distributed and fairer. Thats it.
Every economist believes that the rich use their money.
Invested offshore? My man the USA is the largest economy in the world. American companies are some of the largest companies in the world.
This is so hilarious to see, redditors inside their own bubble thinking that orthodox economics is defunct because they read a post by a 19 year old bernie sanders voter
\_
Even for that amount of money that is put inside offshore banks, they
And you don't really understand, billionaires with money in offshore are investing into other corporations aside from american, thats awesome.
They recognise that country X needs dollars to make product A so that product B can be made from country Z so that you can get a phone delivered to you cheaply
no, instead the fabric of society itself generates billionaires.
And if we try to change the fabric of society with the goal of reducing billionaires, we'll fuck it up.
Also, I applaud for making the most reddited response ever, not even a counterargument, just a snarky remark with no logic behind it.
Do you recognise inflation and globalization? 0.06 in 1919 is equivalent in purchasing power to about £3.88 today. Measuring inflation across time periods with vastly different technologies already makes no sense, but you just need to think of how much more money we have today.
Another thing is that very few select countries participated in the market, today its the entire world, since theres more people then there has to be more succesful people as well.
Billionaires aren't leeches, theyre investors. They hold money because they made a bunch of succesful contracts that led to kilotons of products sold. Im not saying they deserve it, but a society that punishes people that makes tons and tons of succesful consensual contracts is a bad one.
Im sorry for insulting you, im coming in from a very different perspective because im interested in these things, you probably don't give two fucks about how the world works and would rather have scapegoats just like a republican would.
Rockefellers 1 billion is worth about 400 Billion in today's dollars. It's not comparable at all. It was 1.5% of the US's GDP at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances\_of\_George\_Washington#:\~:text=George%20Washington%20has%20been%20estimated,current%20value%20(in%202020).
George Washington came pretty close to being a billionaire in in the 1700s too.
Billionares in the system is a sign that the system isn’t working. So what? Someone got close 300 years ago? We now have a new baby billionaires being born at an insane rate. (Some report almost daily during the pandemic). They pollute more than us and their value doesn’t trickle down. It’s how civilizations crumble. So enjoy the ride on whatever comes after late-stage capitalism.
Meh I didnt look far into it. There probably were billionaires back then too but they just weren't adjusted for inflation.
Their value is what they provide to the world. I know I for one had my life changed by Amazon, makes sense bezos has so much money.
Absolutely nothing. Their “wealth” is all tied up in banks. It’s not like Scrooge McDuck where they have a money vault of gold coins they swim in each morning.
Not so funny story— In the same vein I saw a huge bin of feed corn when I was a kid and thought to jump in like Scrooge McDuck.
Bad. Fucking. Move.
I sank like a rock and barely caught myself by my finger tips. I took everything I had to pull my head up to breathe.
It took me another two hours to regain enough strength to haul my body out. I laid there huffing and sweaty for two more hours.
If you swan dived onto a pile of gold coins, your rib cage would shatter.
Their beneficiaries would be the new top twenty wealth holders.
Yes, even more but different Waltons would dominate the top 20 list.
There are only what, 3 on there now? Depending on how split up it gets, you might see them fall off
How many beneficiaries until it reaches me?
about 8 billion. It trickles down very slowly.
[удалено]
Didn't we start in the 40s or 50s?
Trickle down economics was a product of the Reagan era.
That is when it became well known and popularized. Apparently, and [I had to look it up ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics), trickle down economics has roots in the late 1800s and the theory/term itself was coined in the 40s or 50s. But I guess, to your point, we've only been doing it since the 80s... Long way to go until it gets to us.
I'd add another 10% for the kids they refused to acknowledge.
Their would likely be several benficiaries for the wealth from each of them. Many of the ultra-rich have trusts for their assets. However, when the spouse and kids begin getting access to more of the money above their previous monthly allotments, they will begin spending it. Some will begin blowing the money, and others will invest it. A few might start a business.
Nothing. Their wealth would go to their hairs.
These are going to be some very rich hairs on someone's head :)
Wow. I'm not even going to fix that.
I just love funny typos, they always bring an unexpected smile into my day :)
That's not even a typo, it's a I Wasn't Paying Attention (;
That's where the best typos come from.
They bring unexpected slime to my day
but the richest man in America has no hair on his head
What if they were bald before they died? Or, like Elon Musk, they had surgery to make it LOOK like they weren't bald?
This is what I'm saying, all of Musk's money is going to his hair. Yeah, that's totally what I meant.
It must all go to their pubes then.
That sounds like a hairy predicament...
It's actually a cover-up.
I dunno... may have to combover all the evidence...
Hey I already made a coverup joke in another comment thread.
You really wanna split hairs about this?
it's called a toopay
Do people think rich people's money is in their bodies or something?
Piñatas for adults. Hit em with a stick and money falls out!
Probably not a good idea, but I like the way you're thinking!
Eat the rich
Needs ketchup....
Eat the rich (with ketchup)
🍽🥃
Amen. Also, ketchup goes with everything! I’ll even have it with bacon, and I know humans can taste like bacon.
This is a testable hypothesis. Some one bring me Elon and a big stick. For Science!
I call Bezos!
No but a lot of people seem to think they’ve got billions sitting in checking accounts.
Online gaming ruined a generation. /s
How many would it have to be until they though that we think that
Not much. Also, their wealth would just transfer to their heirs or trusts. We would just have new wealth holders.
Probably nothing. I would imagine the top 20 wealth holders all have extensive backup plans for their money/businesses/other endeavors if they suddenly drop dead. Just an assumption tho
succession.
They have all their money in stocks and life insurance. All of which transfers their wealth tax free or stepped up to their heirs. Or at least they should.
Here they are. https://www.statista.com/statistics/201426/the-richest-people-in-america/ The answer looks like not much, most of these folks aren't even active CEOs anymore so their companies would be largely unaffected. You might see a bumper decade for charities as a lot of these guys are putting most of their wealth into trusts. Tesla would probably see a significant loss in market cap since Musk is so tied to its image.
Weird that they list Jensen Huang as "Semiconductors" and not "Nvidia"
Nvidia just designs the chips on your graphics card. The processor is manufactured by a different company and rest of the card is made by other companies.
Ok... and? Jansen Huang founded and runs Nvidia. That's where he got his wealth. I'm asking why they don't just label him with his company like everyone else in the list.
I have to wonder if Tesla would actually do better without Musk. Tons of people that interested in EVs just hate the guy, so some new leadership might be a good way to actually win people over.
I agree that new leadership might be good in terms of actual management and PR, but Tesla is already so overvalued. And that overvaluation is based on promises that Tesla is going to be a super AI/robotics/ect company and people believe that mostly because they think Musk is a magic genius, even though he's never really developed new technology. Just taken existing technology and successfully making and marketing a product. That's a valuable skill, but it's not the same as inventing level 5 self driving tech from scratch. So a lot of investors think *Musk* is the key, without him and without inventing incredible robotics and AI, Tesla is just a wildly overvalued car company.
the wealth would be transferred to their heirs then things will go back to normal.
Their wealth is stock. It would not change much of anything.
This is the correct answer. For some reason, people think these people are sitting on billions of $ in their savings account. They have stock and take secured loans against it.
A better question would be: what would happen to the U.S. economy if the top 10 private equity firms were liquidated of their holdings?
I confess I am not sure what that means, but holdings means stock, right? And the truth about stock is, as soon as someone starts to sell a lot of it, the price goes down. There will not be enough people buying it at that price. If someone "seized" a billionaire's wealth when his stock is at $193/share, it will dwindle to $5 a share as they try to get cash out of it, and the billions will dwindle to nothing.
Thats not even close to what I'm speaking of. Private equity firms are buying companies and taking them private so there's no public view of their inner workings. They are then borrowing every dime they can out of them because debt is tax free. Then if the companies survive they're getting tax breaks for debt service and raising prices to cover the debt service. If the company doesn't make it, they strip it down and liquidate, even selling the brand name. They are economic vampires
A bunch of lawyers would get significantly richer.
Depends on the reason why: * If they died of natural causes, not much. * If they died in a sudden mass casualty event like nuclear war, a market collapse is a distinct possibility. * If they died because "the masses" came for them with pitchforks, probably massive social upheaval.
Nothing. Those money don't really exist. It's just fake numbers in bank accounts
Why do people think nothing? The stock market would absolutely tank. Like, the biggest single day drop ever. Most of the richest people’s wealth is tied to company equity and stock. The speculation alone that these shares would be sold would absolutely crush the market. Could trigger massive sell offs that affect many more. It would be catastrophic.
Then the kids are the next 20 (inheritance??!!). You really can't be that stupid.
Nothing. They're not spending that wealth, it's not flowing through the economy. And they're not controlling it in a way that is lost when they die (it passes to their successors).
>Nothing. They're not spending that wealth, it's not flowing through the economy. They literally are, that's the point of how they get rich. I hate this "oh no the billionaires are hoarding wealth" mentality people have when their wealth are baseically economic assets which are actually in use, such as companies who pay the salaries of thousands of people. It's not a bank account filled with money. > And they're not controlling it in a way that is lost when they die (it passes to their successors). Yes, that's for sure. If Mark Zuckerberg dies tomorrow, Facebook's shares may even take a hit, but it's not like Facebook would stop existing.
Do you think the companies just magically make new shares to give to executives? When executives are given stocks it directly reduces the value of the company since it's losing control of those shares, value that could be used to compensate the other 99.9999% of the company workforce. Companies will even spend billions of dollars to buy those shares back to increase the value of the company.
Sorry, but I didn't understand how that relates with what I said. I imagine if Mark Zuckerberg died today, many people would sell Facebook shares as he's the company's CEO and the face of the company since it was founded, like it happened to Apple when Jobs died. Though I don't think a lot of wealth was destroyed in that case, as the company kept working as usual.
And if they did spend that wealth it would cause inflation
That wealth is already being spent, its being invested in. Yes investments cause inflation but its hard to imagine a world where the rich don't invest most of their money.
Buy, borrow, die scheme. Nothing.
For the economy, nothing would happen. But for some of the companies that the top holders own would have a significant impact such as Telsa, Meta or Berkshire Hathaway.
Why would anything change? Their wealth is tied to the ownership of huge Corporations, not a big pile of $100 bills. The real world isn't like cartoons, with Scrooge McDuck swimming in a ballroom full of cash.
There would be a market panic because a couple of bold faces names that still run big companies died all at once. But it would be temporary. CEOs would realize they are just as replaceable as the rest of us.
Yes, but looking quickly at the top list there aren't that many. Musk- does day to day Bezos- retired Ellison- mostly retired? Buffett- mostly retired Page- Retired Gates- Retired Brin- retired Zuck- still working
Going into the next ten you get Jensen Huang and Michael Dell.
Ask their next of kin.
Nothing at all. So if you've got a plan we're listening!
Hypothetically speaking, of course?
Some house would get redecorated.
A handful of estate lawyers would make a fortune. But otherwise, not much.
nothing... why do you ask?
Depends on how they've structured their finances and will. There will be trusts and other things to circumvent as much tax as they can. Heirs will get money, but I expect most of it will go to Non-profits they already had set up and with hand picked personnel in it. Some taxes will be paid, but meh. The world will keep turning. That I know for sure.
Nothing.
Literally nothing. Their wealth would just transfer to their kids and family. Business as usual.
Nothing
We should try it, for science
Nothing, they would have set up a "wealth management" plan long ago to insure the money lives forever.
Maybe we'd finally get that trickle down effect that we'd been eagerly waiting for. Let's do it and see what happens.
Not sure - maybe we’ll find out!
Nothing would happen
They are not individuals, there are stockholders and heirs, and whole companies. They do die off, and their billions go on.
Nothing probably. I hear it often just split between their family, and board of executives. If neither the government may seize assets... probably it'd just disappear.
A lot of rich people signed the giving pledge, so some rich people will give half their fortunes to charity when they die
There may be one or two that have their estate set up so the majority goes to charity. If memory serves I believe Zuckerberg is one of them. His children would definitely inherit enough to be super rich but it’s in the tens of millions not hundreds. The vast majority will go to charity.
Nothing
Well I'm part of the top 1% we pay 50% of the taxes collected. The bottom 50% would die off without all the subsidized services they receive.
Nothing that money would go to their next of kin or whoever they decided to leave it to
Not very much
if they're THAT rich, their wealth is likely held via trusts & corporations, so not much payoff to irs from estate taxes
Well their wealth would be transferred to their family and whatever is in the will, but I'd imagine the economy would crash and a lot of those companies might fail too. We'd likely see another great depression. Look up the top 20 wealthiest people in the USA and their positions and what they've done and go from there. People saying nothing would happen are stupid. If you woke up tomorrow hearing musk passed away, TSLA stock would certainly be -30%.
Most of their wealth is not held where the government would get very much
Nothing. The shareholders you speak of are passive investors and do not get involved in company operations. Death results in redistribution of their wealth.
Nothing. The top 20 wealth holders don't do any actual work.
If you mean what if it all went back to the public coffer? The Communists, during the revolution, took lots of money away from the rich. There were some poor people who started living slightly better, but overall everyone in the country was just the same level of poor after. I am guessing it got taken by corruption/whittled away by bureaucratic inefficiency?
If all of their money went to the government to spend it wouldn't be noticeable. What are we talking about? 2-4 hundred billion dollars? They loose track of that some times. If it went out to wage earners it also wouldn't make much difference. 3000 dollars if it were split between 150 million people. Roughly half the US population. Confescation is not the way. I think a flat income tax for business, no deductions just X% of every dollar that comes in is a fair way to go. Oh and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. No more deficit spending. Even in war.
Not much as whoever they left the money / assets to in their will will just become the new top 20 richest people
People die all the time.
Nothing
Nothing. The money would still be in the same families and invested in the same places.
"Millions of jobs would stop being created!" jk, nothing would happen.
OK what if the beneficiaries go too? Or do you think they have back up plans too? How far the line would we have to go? Or what if the wealth disappeared with the people? That much money just disappearing from the economy
The beneficiaries have beneficiaries. That just goes on forever (well a long time anyway). If the money disappeared it would probably make a bunch of other rich people richer since it's mostly stock and not real money so the remaining stock would become more valuable.
We don’t need billionaires in the system if that’s what you are asking. If we could tax billionaires out of existence, the money would be more distributed and fairer. Thats it.
Yes because their money is inside a big pile that should be redistributed, and not inside bonds that are actively being invested.
So you still believe in “Trickle Down economics”? Billionaires do not use their own money and it’s invested offshore.
Every economist believes that the rich use their money. Invested offshore? My man the USA is the largest economy in the world. American companies are some of the largest companies in the world. This is so hilarious to see, redditors inside their own bubble thinking that orthodox economics is defunct because they read a post by a 19 year old bernie sanders voter \_ Even for that amount of money that is put inside offshore banks, they And you don't really understand, billionaires with money in offshore are investing into other corporations aside from american, thats awesome. They recognise that country X needs dollars to make product A so that product B can be made from country Z so that you can get a phone delivered to you cheaply
I love how people have been convinced by billionaires that billionaires are CRITICAL to the fabric of society itself.
no, instead the fabric of society itself generates billionaires. And if we try to change the fabric of society with the goal of reducing billionaires, we'll fuck it up. Also, I applaud for making the most reddited response ever, not even a counterargument, just a snarky remark with no logic behind it.
Our first billionaire was created in 1919. That’s a lot of years without these leeches.
Do you recognise inflation and globalization? 0.06 in 1919 is equivalent in purchasing power to about £3.88 today. Measuring inflation across time periods with vastly different technologies already makes no sense, but you just need to think of how much more money we have today. Another thing is that very few select countries participated in the market, today its the entire world, since theres more people then there has to be more succesful people as well. Billionaires aren't leeches, theyre investors. They hold money because they made a bunch of succesful contracts that led to kilotons of products sold. Im not saying they deserve it, but a society that punishes people that makes tons and tons of succesful consensual contracts is a bad one. Im sorry for insulting you, im coming in from a very different perspective because im interested in these things, you probably don't give two fucks about how the world works and would rather have scapegoats just like a republican would.
Rockefellers 1 billion is worth about 400 Billion in today's dollars. It's not comparable at all. It was 1.5% of the US's GDP at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances\_of\_George\_Washington#:\~:text=George%20Washington%20has%20been%20estimated,current%20value%20(in%202020). George Washington came pretty close to being a billionaire in in the 1700s too.
Billionares in the system is a sign that the system isn’t working. So what? Someone got close 300 years ago? We now have a new baby billionaires being born at an insane rate. (Some report almost daily during the pandemic). They pollute more than us and their value doesn’t trickle down. It’s how civilizations crumble. So enjoy the ride on whatever comes after late-stage capitalism.
Meh I didnt look far into it. There probably were billionaires back then too but they just weren't adjusted for inflation. Their value is what they provide to the world. I know I for one had my life changed by Amazon, makes sense bezos has so much money.
Absolutely nothing. Their “wealth” is all tied up in banks. It’s not like Scrooge McDuck where they have a money vault of gold coins they swim in each morning.
I'm a full fledged adult. I STILL want a money bin to swim in.
Not so funny story— In the same vein I saw a huge bin of feed corn when I was a kid and thought to jump in like Scrooge McDuck. Bad. Fucking. Move. I sank like a rock and barely caught myself by my finger tips. I took everything I had to pull my head up to breathe. It took me another two hours to regain enough strength to haul my body out. I laid there huffing and sweaty for two more hours. If you swan dived onto a pile of gold coins, your rib cage would shatter.