These scenarios are identical in my opinion. They’ll likely dwindle and die in a short time anyway. The wealthy are not particularly well suited to rebuilding society, nor are they at a disadvantage, they are just average people who (used to) have wealth.

Actually, little side thought occurs to me here, they can’t access their wealth unless it was stored physically, and even then, only if our concept of currency hasn’t changed. In my version of this scenario, I’m assuming the 1% still have useful currency, banks still work, etc.

So we got a bunch of more or less equally rich people, who may have access to resources, but their laborers and security forces are Thanos-snapped away.

Hmm…

My guess is that the ones who have weapons will establish a sort of warlord apocalypse scenario. Wouldn’t be much different from any other random selection of 1% of the population. The resources you hold and the skills you know matter even more when society disappears. It will start with 1%, the sudden shock of not having most other people to provide for each other will quickly halve that. The fighting over resources will kill a bit more. Eventually there will be an environmental disaster like a drought, and that’s it for humanity.

Lemmywinked

Because… the site winked… out of existence for a minute?

Some day in the distant future (the year 2000!)

You’re too kind

(Subtle enough?)

I was coming to say that also.

The stock market is nothing more than gambling on the public (rich people) sentiment about how well that company is going to do. It’s similar to how there is gambling on who will win the presidency, and does not affect the outcomes.

Buying stock is not investment, the money that the company recieves comes from issuing the stock. Your money does not fund the evil things that the company does, unless you are paying for goods/services from that company. But, I have seen that stock price influences the decisions of leadership inside the company. Your individual action will not influence the stock price.