• Elon Musk said he's going to give every child in the US a share of his space company, SpaceX.
• That would amount to $10.7 billion, based on SpaceX's stock price and the 72 million US children.
• Governments and billionaires have previously explored ways to spread corporate ownership.

Christmas came early: Elon Musk wants American children to own stock in his space company, SpaceX, next year.

Musk wrote on X around 1 a.m. Monday that he planned to make the donation next year — "the first of many," he said. SpaceX went public this summer.

Giving one share to each of the estimated 72 million US children would cost roughly $10.7 billion at SpaceX's closing price of $147.92 on Friday. Musk's 4.77 billion SpaceX shares were worth about $706 billion at that price, so the gift would reduce his holdings by about 1.5%.

President Donald Trump said on Truth Social on Monday that the shares would be transferred through Trump Accounts, tax-advantaged investment accounts for eligible American kids launched this summer. Under temporary Treasury rules, donated shares generally cannot be sold for five years.

"This is exactly what was envisioned when we created TRUMP ACCOUNTS," Trump said. "Bringing together the GREAT PRIVATE SECTOR, Elon and so many more, to invest in our children."

The White House said nearly 70 million Trump Accounts have been created. Numerous entities have agreed to contribute, including a $6.25 billion donation from billionaire couple Michael and Susan Dell for children in lower-income zip codes. In July, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and her husband pledged personal SpaceX shares worth at least $321 million, prioritizing lower-income communities.

The White House, Elon Musk, and SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Musk's plan to give away SpaceX stock raises questions about a new kind of billionaire philanthropy: Gifting people shares in a company instead of cash.

Giving millions of children a stake in SpaceX could give them money to use later in life — but the value is tied to a single company's stock. And history shows that efforts to spread corporate ownership can yield uneven results, from big investment returns to stakes being sold for quick cash.

Here are other historical efforts to share wealth or spread corporate ownership among everyday people.

US Sen. Mike Gravel's 1978 share proposal to Alaskans

In 1978, US Sen. Mike Gravel proposed a statewide ownership corporation that would have given Alaskans, including children, stakes in major energy and other business projects. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was one potential investment.

The idea was that Alaskans would benefit from an economic boom and any rising asset values. However, the plan never materialized.

Alaska instead developed a dividend system that draws on its preexisting Permanent Fund, a state fund established in 1976 with oil royalties that invests in stocks, bonds, and other assets. It began paying annual cash dividends to eligible Alaskans in 1982.

The Permanent Fund still continues today, with a $1,200 dividend distributed to every eligible Alaskan adult and child who applied in 2026. The initial dividend this year was set at $1,000, but recipients also got an extra $200 energy-relief payment.

Eastern Europe's 1990s mass privatization experiment

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, several countries in Central and Eastern Europe used voucher programs to transfer former state-owned companies into the hands of everyday people.

Russia began distributing privatization vouchers to roughly 144 million people in 1992. Russians could use them to buy shares in former state companies, exchange them for shares in investment funds, or sell them for cash.

Czechoslovakia used a similar system, allowing adults to buy low-cost voucher books and use the points to bid on company shares or invest through funds. After Czechoslovakia split in early 1993, the Czech Republic continued its voucher program, while Slovakia canceled its planned second wave of voucher privatization.

Other countries, including Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic states, adopted their own versions of mass privatization.

The programs were designed to rapidly create broad public ownership. But many recipients sold their vouchers for cash amid economic uncertainty, rather than retaining shares.

Evžen Kočenda, a professor at Charles University's Institute of Economic Studies, said that the program was a good idea at the time, given the region's poor economy, but that ultimately, the vouchers were not 'real money,' but rather a financial asset.

Kuwait's 2019 national stock exchange privatization

Kuwait privatized Boursa Kuwait, the operator of its national stock exchange, in 2019, and gave Kuwaitis the opportunity to purchase a stake in the company. The only requirement for registration was that the individual was a Kuwaiti citizen.

Those who participated — about 83,000 of the country's 4.4 million — were initially allocated up to 70 shares each. The initial public offering share price was set at 100 Kuwait fils, roughly $0.33 per share.

Following the privatization, Kuwaiti citizens and private-sector investors together owned roughly 94% of Boursa Kuwait. The Public Institution for Social Security held the remaining 6%.

The Kuwaitis who participated saw a huge return on investment: When Boursa Kuwait debuted on the public market in September 2020, its shares rose more than 10-fold from their 100-fils IPO price, closing at 1,055 fils, or about $3.41.

Today, the privatization is widely regarded as a major success in the investment world, and Boursa Kuwait has described it as the Middle East's only privately owned stock exchange.

• Investor Brad Gerstner wants Trump Accounts expanded to every US citizen under 40.
• The plan would create early IRAs that employers and donors could fund.
• Gerstner, regarded as the architect of Trump Accounts, said the change would require new legislation.

Brad Gerstner, the investor and architect of Trump Accounts, is pushing to expand the investment accounts beyond children and make them available to every US citizen under 40.

In an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, Gerstner said the change would require new legislation rather than a regulatory rule change.

Trump Accounts are tax-advantaged investment accounts created under President Donald Trump’s tax-and-spending law. Right now, they are available to Americans under 18, while children born between 2025 and 2028 are eligible for a $1,000 federal seed contribution.

When account holders turn 18, the accounts become traditional individual retirement accounts, or IRAs.

"Every year, 3.7 million kids age up into IRAs," Gerstner said. "Why not pull forward 20 years of IRAs? We can create all of those today, everybody under 40."

Gerstner's idea would create the accounts for adults under 40 without necessarily requiring the government to make an upfront deposit. Instead, he said, it would give employers, philanthropists and companies a ready-made vehicle through which to contribute.

That structure could allow companies or private citizens to contribute to accounts, he said, creating a "vessel" for the funding.

On Monday, Elon Musk said he planned to give one share of SpaceX stock to every American child through Trump Accounts. Giving a share to the roughly 72 million children in the US would be worth around $11.5 billion, based on SpaceX's share price in Wednesday trading.

Other major donors, including Michael and Susan Dell, Ray Dalio, and SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, have also backed the initiative.

Gerstner pointed out there has already been innovation in the investment field, mentioning the federal Saver's Match, created under the bipartisan SECURE 2.0 law, which is scheduled to begin in 2027.

The program will provide a federal match of up to $1,000 a year for eligible low- and middle-income workers who contribute to qualifying retirement accounts.

In comments to the New York Post, Gerstner said he was working on the legislation to make Trump Accounts available to anyone under 40, potentially within months. The proposal could also make account funding permanent.

The proposal's prospects in Congress, including its cost and whether lawmakers would support new matching funds, remain unclear.

A proposed "wealth tax" on California's billionaires could backfire and cost the state tens of billions of dollars in the long run.

If the proposed tax drives wealthier residents out of the state, California could end up losing between $1 billion and $3.5 billion annually in income taxes, according to a working paper published this week. A pair of researchers at Stanford University warn that the state could end up losing an estimated $39 billion because of the consequences of the wealth tax.

"These findings suggest that the Billionaire Tax Act will not fulfill the primary functions for which it was designed," write researchers Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh.

Voters in California will decide next month whether to impose the one-time, 5 percent tax when they vote on Proposition 40. The ballot measure is dividing Democrats—Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes it, while progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) claims it is the "most important ballot initiative in America and a fight for the soul of our party."

And it's already spurring some billionaires to flee the state—including venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page. Including those two, the seven billionaires who have publicly said they are leaving the state represent more than $539 billion of the nearly $1.9 trillion aggregate net worth of California's billionaires, the researchers note.

With other departures likely happening more quietly, the new study estimates that the tax will generate about $30 billion, a far cry from the $100 billion that the tax's supporters expect. The "behavioral response" from billionaires in California "has eroded most of the projected tax base," write Jaros and Rauh.

That's still a pretty big pot of revenue. In the long run, however, the state is likely to lose out.

After running 100,000 simulations using different assumptions, the two researchers report that "85 percent of plausible outcomes produce a negative" result in state revenue.

Other recent experiments with special taxes on wealth have backfired in similar ways. In response to a new wealth tax in Washington State, Jeff Bezos relocated to Florida, and iconic Seattle brand Starbucks shifted more of its corporate headquarters to Tennessee. Studies have shown that a "millionaires tax" in Massachusetts contributed to wealth moving out of that state.

Capital is always mobile, despite the best efforts of politicians. And if you were a billionaire living in California, why would you stick around?

Polls show voters are narrowly divided over Proposition 40. A Politico poll published earlier this month showed 46 percent of voters plan to vote for the measure, while 43 percent oppose it. Voters were similarly divided when asked if they expected it to pass or not.

The post California's 'Wealth Tax' Could Cost the State $39 Billion appeared first on Reason Magazine.

• Elon Musk says "money becomes irrelevant" if he's right about what the future holds.
• The Tesla and SpaceX CEO said AI and robots will be better than humans at everything.
• The world's richest man said his fortune could be virtually gone within a few generations.

Elon Musk says money could be meaningless one day, and the vast majority of his wealth will likely be gone within a few generations.

The world's richest person predicted that advances in robotics and space travel will create a multiplanetary economy, at which point "money becomes irrelevant" and "conventional currency will not matter."

Value will be measured in mass and power or energy, he continued. "So that's my guess," he said, adding that it seemed a "pretty obvious" outcome to him.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO shared his vision of a post-money future and his outlook on his personal fortune with his biographer, Walter Isaacson, on "The Builders" podcast. The interview was taped in early August and released on Tuesday.

Musk recommended earlier this year that people stop saving for retirement in 10 or 20 years, as he expects AI and other technologies to supercharge productivity and usher in an age of abundance where people can have "whatever stuff they want."

He made a similar argument to Isaacson, saying "there won't be anything that humans can do that the AI and the robots can't do better." People will likely turn to hobbies like growing their own fruits and vegetables, or making art, to find purpose in life, he said.

Musk's plans for his own money

Musk, who briefly became a trillionaire after SpaceX went public in June, topped the Bloomberg Billionaire Index at Monday's close with an estimated $920 billion net worth.

He defended his personal wealth on the podcast, saying that it mostly reflects his ownership of SpaceX and Tesla, and he needs large stakes in both companies to retain voting power and remain in charge.

His fortune is "going to be taxed quite heavily," Musk said, adding that there isn't "some magical way to avoid taxes" because "if there were, I would know about it."

Musk said his wealth will "get whittled down and a few generations from now — if money still matters, which I don't think it will — my descendants would have a tiny fraction of what I have."

He also outlined what he hopes his foundation will spend his fortune on after he's gone: "Continue the goals. Make life multi-planetary, extend consciousness to the stars, improve sustainable energy on Earth."

Notably, Musk pledged on Monday to gift a share of SpaceX to every child in the US next year, a contribution worth over $10 billion today.

His announcement has won praise from President Donald Trump, who hailed Musk's "incredible generosity" and labeled him a "legendary friend" in an X post.

Musk teased a charitable pledge in late July after Nobel economist Daron Acemoglu publicly challenged him over his prediction of a post-money future.

"If money won't matter in 2036, why don't you pledge to donate your current wealth of approximately $1 trillion to charity no later than 2036," Acemoglu wrote on X.

"I am actually going to do something along these lines!" Musk responded.

• Trump praised Elon Musk's plan to give one SpaceX share to every child in America next year.
• The pledge could be worth about $10.6 billion at SpaceX's current price.
• Musk and Trump have a rocky relationship, but appear to be back on the same page in recent months.

Elon Musk’s pledge to give every child in America a share in SpaceX has already paid one dividend: effusive praise from President Donald Trump.

"A BIG THANK YOU to our legendary friend, Elon Musk," Trump wrote Monday, calling the proposed gift an act of "incredible generosity."

He said the shares would go to children through Trump Accounts, the investment accounts created under his administration.

It was an enthusiastic response to Musk's commitment earlier in the day. "Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America," he wrote on X. "This will be the first of many."

Significantly, Trump shared his praise in a post on X, a platform he has eschewed in recent years since launching his social network, Truth Social.

Trump was barred from Twitter in 2021 after the Capitol riot, and while his account was reinstated after Musk bought and renamed the platform, the president has been an infrequent poster since then.

Musk's $10 billion donation promise

There are roughly 72 million children in the US, and SpaceX stock closed Monday at about $148 a share. At that price, one share apiece would put the gift's value at around $10.6 billion. Its eventual value will depend on SpaceX’s share price at the time the stock is transferred.

Trump has been waiting for this particular contribution. In July, he said he thought Musk would donate SpaceX stock to Trump Accounts, even as he referred to their very public falling-out as a "little dispute."

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and her husband had already pledged shares for more than 2 million children’s accounts.

Musk and Trump have a turbulent relationship. The world's richest man was one of Trump's biggest financial backers in the 2024 election, spending more than $200 million to help elect him. The pair were close enough during the first few months of Trump's return to the White House for Musk to earn the nickname "First Buddy."

He then became the public face of the administration's Department of Government Efficiency before leaving in May 2025.

After leaving DOGE, Musk was highly critical of the president's "Big, Beautiful Bill," calling it a "disgusting abomination."

Musk has recently resumed spending heavily to shape Republican politics ahead of the midterms. Since July, he has given about $276 million, including $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund; the super PAC later sent matching sums to a Texas group supporting Attorney General Ken Paxton's Senate campaign.

Lately, Musk has been seen publicly with Trump several times; the president awarded him the National Medal of Science earlier this month, and when China's leader Xi Jinping visited the US in September, he sat at the president's table at a state dinner.

Details are still unclear on Musk's SpaceX share giveaway

If confirmed, Musk would join other wealthy backers of the program. Michael and Susan Dell contributed $6.25 billion to the accounts of 25 million children, with the gifts directed first to children in lower-income ZIP codes. Musk’s donation would be larger than the Dells' barring a significant drop in SpaceX's share price.

For now, it remains a promise. Musk has not detailed who would qualify as a child under his plan, how he would get shares into every eligible account, or when the transfers would happen next year.

For Trump, the promise brings one of the country’s wealthiest business leaders behind a program he has promoted. "This is exactly what was envisioned when we created TRUMP ACCOUNTS," he wrote Monday.

• Elon Musk says he'll give a SpaceX share to every child in the US next year.
• That would be a $10.5 billion gift based on SpaceX's stock price and roughly 72 million recipients.
• Musk said this would be the "first of many" SpaceX share giveaways but didn't offer further details.

Elon Musk says he'll give every child in the US a piece of his space company, a gift worth around $10.5 billion today.

"Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America," Musk wrote in an early Monday post on X. "This will be the first of many."

There are roughly 72 million children in the US based on 2025 census data, and SpaceX stock closed at $146 on Friday. If Musk donated 72 million shares right now they would be worth around $10.5 billion.

Musk didn't provide any further details on how the giveaway would work, such as eligibility criteria or specific timing, or whether the shares will be transferred to Trump Accounts.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO is the world's richest person, with an estimated net worth of $904 billion as of Friday's close, per the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

SpaceX — the company behind Falcon rockets, Starship launch vehicles, Starlink satellites, the AI chatbot Grok, and X — went public this summer and has a market capitalization of about $2 trillion.

Excluding restricted shares and options, Musk owns 4.77 billion SpaceX shares for about a 36% stake, worth just under $700 billion at Friday's close. The rest of his fortune largely comprises his stakes in his other companies, including Tesla, Neuralink, and The Boring Company.

Donating 72 million shares would reduce Musk's number of SpaceX shares by 1.5%. If, as indicated in his X post, he follows that up with further giveaways, his stake could shrink significantly.

Musk's pledge is part of a broader trend of gifting shares to America's children, aimed at ensuring they all own a piece of the stock market and reap its gains over time, and benefit from a lifetime of compounding wealth.

The Trump administration launched Trump Accounts — tax-advantaged investment accounts — for eligible children this summer, with those born between 2025 and 2028 receiving a $1,000 federal seed deposit. Numerous companies have agreed to contribute to them as well.

Michael and Susan Dell contributed $250 to 25 million American children's Trump Accounts earlier this month, a gift totaling $6.25 billion that was allocated first to those in the lowest-income ZIP codes.

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and her husband pledged in July to give shares of SpaceX to more than 2 million children.

Musk shared his SpaceX gift idea after Anthropic pledged to commit 5% of its shares to a public benefit fund.

"I recommend giving shares directly to the public," he replied on X. "This is what I will be doing."

Another X user described Anthropic and Musk's pledges as "the beginning of universal basic income." Musk corrected him, writing *universal high income."

Musk has predicted that advances in AI, robotics, and other technologies will usher in an age of abundance in which everyone can have "whatever stuff they want."

He's recommended people stop saving for retirement in 10 or 20 years as their nest eggs will be "irrelevant," and has proposed government checks for all as the best response to job losses from AI.

Correction: October 19, 2026 — An earlier version of this story incorrectly described SpaceX as a private company. It went public in June 2026.

• Harvard's endowment returned a five-year high of 27.1% in the 12 months to June 30, besting the S&P 500.
• The Ivy League college counted a $2.2 billion SpaceX stake as its top Q2 portfolio holding by far.
• Harvard's endowment grew to almost $68 billion after accounting for taxes, gifts, and distributions.

Harvard University delivered its best investment return in five years as its bet on SpaceX boosted its stock portfolio.

The elite college's endowment returned 27.1% in the fiscal year ended June 30, its annual financial report revealed on Thursday. That comfortably outpaced the benchmark S&P 500's 22.3% total return over the same period.

After accounting for taxes, distributions, and gifts, Harvard's endowment grew by $11 billion to nearly $68 billion.

Harvard Management Company's stake in Elon Musk's maker of Starship rockets, Starlink satellites, and AI chatbot Grok was worth $2.2 billion at the end of June, per its second-quarter portfolio disclosure.

SpaceX was its number-one holding, more than six times more valuable than its second-biggest position, a sub-$350 million stake in Taiwan Semiconductor.

Its next-largest positions — each worth over $150 million — were Cerebras, Amazon, Alphabet, and Nvidia. Its 19 holdings at the end of June were together worth about $4.3 billion, more than double the portfolio's $1.8 billion value three months earlier.

Harvard said the strong performance of its endowment, which is nearly 400 years old and comprises about 15,000 individual funds, helped it weather the "abrupt termination of federal research grants" by the Trump administration.

It's worth noting that 13-F portfolio disclosures are a snapshot of a fund's US stock holdings on a certain date. They don't include foreign-listed stocks, non-stock assets like bonds or real estate, private investments, or stocks sold short.

Harvard said that as of June 30, 14% of its endowment was invested in public equities, 29% in hedge funds, 46% in private equity, 4% in real estate, and the balance elsewhere.

Harvard declined to comment when contacted by Business Insider.

SpaceX's valuation has whipsawed since the aerospace company went public on June 12. Its market capitalization topped $2.4 trillion on June 20, then tanked to $1.4 trillion by August 1, and has since rallied to around $2 trillion.

Musk's company posted a 92% year-on-year revenue jump for the quarter ended June, helping narrow its net loss from $1 billion to $541 million.

The world's richest man recently posted on X that he sees a path for SpaceX to be worth "orders of magnitude more than the current Earth economy," implying its stock could rise at least 6,000-fold to $12 quadrillion over time.

He later clarified that wasn't a "statement of extreme confidence," but he believes the probability of achieving that valuation is "not zero." On October 14, he said he expects SpaceX to be worth more than $100 trillion in the next 10 years.

Harvard is one of several shareholders to reveal a sizable stake in SpaceX. Google parent Alphabet reported a roughly 4% stake valued at $94 billion as of the end of June. Longtime Musk associate Peter Thiel disclosed a 3.2% position worth $73 billion held by his Founders Fund and related entities. AI chipmaker Nvidia has a $21 billion stake.

The federal government just closed fiscal year 2026 with a deficit of nearly $2 trillion, according to figures the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released last Thursday. Only the two pandemic years of 2020 and 2021 were worse. Today, though, there is no recession and no emergency. These enormous budget deficits are the new normal.

The usual response to a deficit warning is that the government just needs more money. It doesn't. Thanks to the remarkable strength of the private sector, federal revenue rose by 3 percent, to more than $5.4 trillion, over the fiscal year. But spending rose by 6 percent, reaching $7.4 trillion.

Some will blame the Supreme Court for striking down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs and forcing the government to issue refunds. But even if Washington had kept the $130 billion in illegal levies, it would cover less than one-tenth of the gap. Tariffs were never a serious revenue source at our insanely high level of spending.

Look at where the money went. Spending on the three main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—grew by 7 percent. That's faster than total spending growth. Defense grew by 5 percent. Interest on the debt rose by 11 percent, exceeding $1.1 trillion. That last figure is the bill for every earlier year of borrowing—years when Washington was sending clear signals that it isn't serious about fiscal responsibility.

If you want to see where such irresponsibility can lead, look at France. The country that big spenders from Paul Krugman to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have cited as proof that big government is viable and full of upsides is now on the brink of a serious crisis. France's debt equals 120 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), and interest payments are rising quickly. Slow growth and social unrest aren't helping.

The U.S., of course, has some advantages that France doesn't, largely because we're a country of innovators with a private sector unmatched at creating wealth. Nonetheless, debt that is swelling out of control should still worry us. First, the same anti-wealth and anti-growth forces that brought France to where it is now are gaining popularity here. Second, we too will see debt reach 120 percent of GDP in a few years, and our interest payments are already consuming an alarming share of resources.

A wise Congress would put us on safer footing if only because debt raises interest rates for everyone, from homebuyers to small businesses. This operates as a drag on growth, and hence on wages. In other words, controlling debt should be part of an affordability agenda in the same way as streamlining regulation.

When legislators decide to take affordability seriously, I recommend looking at a September Advancing American Freedom (AAF) report on this topic. Its section on fiscal restraint offers a useful menu of reforms, including targeting the programs that most drive the debt.

Start with Social Security. Under current law, benefits will be cut by roughly 20 percent when the program's trust fund runs dry in the early 2030s. Nobody believes Congress will actually let that happen, but we'd better hope its answer isn't to double down by borrowing the difference between payroll taxes and benefits.

Nor are tax increases an option. The payroll tax meant to fund entitlements is now 12.4 percent of wages. It began at 2 percent when Social Security was first rolled out. It is also the most burdensome tax for many Americans. Enough already. The fixes AAF fellow Rachel Greszler proposes are worth considering: Index the retirement age to life expectancy, use an accurate inflation measure for cost-of-living adjustments, and move gradually toward a flat universal benefit that protects lower-income retirees while ending Social Security's de facto welfare for the wealthiest.

Next is Medicare. More than 40 percent of its financing already comes from general revenue rather than from payroll taxes. The report recommends converting the program to premium support, giving beneficiaries a fixed contribution to spend on traditional Medicare or on competing private plans. It would also raise the eligibility age to 67, matching Social Security, and trim subsidies for well-off seniors. That's a start.

As for Medicaid, the problem is one of pricing. And yet competition based on price—the best cost-control tool—has never been seriously tried. Washington covers 90 percent of the cost of states' expanded Medicaid programs for adults. A state can buy a dollar of spending with just a dime of its own money. Changing the states' incentives would be key here. Implementing risk-adjusted per-capita caps, through which the federal government would give states a fixed amount per enrollee, would do just that. States would pay for their own inefficiencies or would be able to use every dollar they save by becoming more efficient.

The same logic supports returning more welfare programs to states, starting with the federal share of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. State governments have to balance their budgets in some form.

None of these reforms are painless. But the alternatives will prove far more painful. The U.S. will either continue paying a slow, unlegislated tax called inflation or face a fast, ugly fiscal crisis when bond buyers stop giving Washington the benefit of the doubt.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

The post The Federal Government Collected $5.4 Trillion. It Still Can't Pay Its Bills. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

In this personal essay at The New Yorker, Anna Holmes writes about growing up in Davis, California, a college town near Sacramento; the financial challenges her mixed-race family faced; and what it means to come from a family without the generational wealth that can make homeownership, and the financial security that comes with it, possible.

It’s hard to hear people who own property grumble about how little money they have. One friend who regularly moans about money has a four-bedroom home on the West Coast and a vacation house in New England. I’m unmoved by the financial lamentations of another friend, who owns a town house in New York with an apartment for a nanny or an in-law. Stuff like this makes me want to scream. Demonstrate some modicum of self-awareness! Read the fucking room! When a friend told me that her parents were going to help her buy a second home, I made a pointed remark that it must be nice to have access to that sort of capital. She conceded the point, graciously, and we moved on.