Welcome to the United Corporations of America, where faceless, profit barracudas trump the average person. Money, yeah money, yummy, money, gobble up the money. Sorry, nothing here for you. Move on.
50
Donald Trump says he believes in "people power." If that's the case, now would be a good time to dismantle PACs.
21
To paraphrase Pete Seeger, once you get big, you get bad.
27
This is disconcerting. Right wing economics simply don't work. Unless you're already rich of course, which is perhaps why these companies are shifting allegiances. Sad!
28
Money makes the world go right.
14
Industry PAC money often follows whomever is in power—Democrats, Republicans, makes no difference.
5
Republican candidates are believed to have more integrity, which is why they can demand more in bribes.
11
A total of $3.6 million? That's a rounding error in the Bay Area.
This whole article is about nothing.
This whole article is about nothing.
7
They donate to the party in power--what's the surprise?
2
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
8
Got luck with that strategy mighty tech geeks. For all your IQ, I'm confident it will punish the American tech sector in the end, and your own companies.
6
As someone who lives and works in the heart of Silicon Valley, I can promise you it is very Democratic and becoming more so every day. For instance, after the election , on Nov 10 or 11th, there were at least 5 high schools (w/i a 25 mile radius of my home ) who had walk outs led by the majority of students in protest of Trump's win.
***
I was in a meeting yesterday w a group of about 40 highly involved and successful women.....only 1 was for Trump.
***
I'm not sure why some of the SV Tech companies are giving to GOP Pacs, but I can promise you the Valley is intensely Democratic and I imaging these Tech CEOs are also on a personal level.
***
I was in a meeting yesterday w a group of about 40 highly involved and successful women.....only 1 was for Trump.
***
I'm not sure why some of the SV Tech companies are giving to GOP Pacs, but I can promise you the Valley is intensely Democratic and I imaging these Tech CEOs are also on a personal level.
15
Main Street votes its values over its economic interests. Wall Street and Silicon Valley vote their economic interests over their values.
6
No surprises here. Big tech business is like all Big Business (and Big Banks). The top priority is to avoid being charged with violations of the antitrust laws as smaller competitors are suppressed and both pricing power and market share are concentrated through acquisitions of potential competitors.
8
It is hardly surprising that tech corporations ishave been betting on GOP Congressional races....GOP has been racking up wins and majorities (finally) since 2010. Access to winners is the easiest explanation i.for the trend. The Democrats antipathy to all businesflses, i.e., the Bernie Sanders wing of the party, as well as Trump's win, ensures that the trickle will turn into a torrent. Ye shall reap what ye has sown.
4
The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with identity politics.
I'm a programmer in tech. A lot of us are getting increasingly tired of strident and never-satisfied social justice advocates. Did you know that in certain circles, using word "meritocracy" is a microaggression and merits a trip to HR?
In tech, we're generally more libertarian than purely left or right. We value the freedom to choose how we write our code, and likewise we value the freedom to govern our affairs. We generally don't care about conservative hobby horses like religion, abortion, or even taxation. We like infrastructure and appreciate how something like a carbon tax can solve real problems.
What we hate is being told how to talk and how to think. We react viscerally and negatively when we're told that we're privileged, that our skin color makes us racist, and that we're bigots unless our databases allow for 58 values under "gender". Freedom of speech is paramount.
We know that from a policy perspective, we ought to be on the side of Democrats, but when Democrats harbor people who get us fired after overhearing an innocent joke about dongles told between friends, who make us feel paranoid, and who try to force us adopt Harrison Bergeron standards for hiring committees in the name of "correcting" meaningless demographic imbalances --- what do you expect?
The Democrats could win in a very big way in 2018 and 2020 by stressing unity and reining in the extreme virtue-signaling left.
I'm a programmer in tech. A lot of us are getting increasingly tired of strident and never-satisfied social justice advocates. Did you know that in certain circles, using word "meritocracy" is a microaggression and merits a trip to HR?
In tech, we're generally more libertarian than purely left or right. We value the freedom to choose how we write our code, and likewise we value the freedom to govern our affairs. We generally don't care about conservative hobby horses like religion, abortion, or even taxation. We like infrastructure and appreciate how something like a carbon tax can solve real problems.
What we hate is being told how to talk and how to think. We react viscerally and negatively when we're told that we're privileged, that our skin color makes us racist, and that we're bigots unless our databases allow for 58 values under "gender". Freedom of speech is paramount.
We know that from a policy perspective, we ought to be on the side of Democrats, but when Democrats harbor people who get us fired after overhearing an innocent joke about dongles told between friends, who make us feel paranoid, and who try to force us adopt Harrison Bergeron standards for hiring committees in the name of "correcting" meaningless demographic imbalances --- what do you expect?
The Democrats could win in a very big way in 2018 and 2020 by stressing unity and reining in the extreme virtue-signaling left.
21
Lobbying expenses give a more specific indication of the corporate interests of tech companies. The top 4 issues that they lobbied for were patent reform, immigration rights for highly-educated foreigners, corporate tax relief, and trade policy. Their positions on these issues align them with traditional Republicans, though not the Trump crowd. It should also be noted that Mr. Edsall has distorted his analysis by omitting Apple and including other tech companies that contribute considerably less. Apple gave more than 70% of its PAC funds to Congressional Democrats. I suspect that changes the bottom line analysis so that the 4 largest tech companies are contributing evenly to the two parties.
2
Technological acceleration will not allow the current version of American capitalism to go untouched. You can start to see broad outlines of this coalescing in the form of a deeply flawed third party candidate taking over one of the the two political parties, and winning the presidency. Basically, labor which is cowered and has no power, have slammed their hopes and dreams into this flawed man. Now we are through the looking glass where this pope like figure dispatches his edicts, ironically, at a technologically available 140 characters at a time. He got elected, probably with the help of a police state, using a technological landscape that can not be protected. These STEM masters of the Universe, if asked about the bottom 90%, would probably advise that the toughen up and join the top 10%. Maybe we should leave the M off of STEM.
1
Wait, I thought these guys were supposed to be part of the emerging Democrat majority?
Please publicly shame them, liberals, so even MORE Americans despise you.
Please publicly shame them, liberals, so even MORE Americans despise you.
9
How could I possibly be surprised by the news that, having grown into larger corporate structures, greed now becomes the hallmark characteristic of these organizations. It is implicit in the capitalist view of the world that all other considerations take a back seat to profit. Kiss goodbye to our habitat on this lovely planet, while you tip your hat to these corporate monstrosities.
6
Depressing, but not surprising.
There is no ideology anymore. There is no care, no thought. There is only money.
Next time you order from Amazon, or the others, remember that these people are paying for the destruction on our health care.
Google's motto: "Do No Evil", seems as creepy and phony as their leader's hair.
There is no ideology anymore. There is no care, no thought. There is only money.
Next time you order from Amazon, or the others, remember that these people are paying for the destruction on our health care.
Google's motto: "Do No Evil", seems as creepy and phony as their leader's hair.
10
Mr. Edsall fails to mention that the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Corporations and business lobbies consistently give more to incumbents and, especially, to those who may influence legislation and regulatory policies that might affect those organizations' interests. Back when Barney Frank chaired the House Financial Services Committee his top contributors came from the finance, insurance, and real estate industries.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2010&type=...
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2010&type=...
2
Not surprising. Remember the Astors, the Carnegies, the Peabodys? Craven capitalists just like Silicon Valley denizens. These people may even be worse. No more Facebook for me.
9
Why is this surprising? It follows the adage," when you're in College you are a Liberal. When you start to work you become a Republican".
3
Silicon Valley CEO's in 2016: "We're with her!". Silicon Valley CEO's in 2017: "Hillary who?"
A wonkish follow up on my post that this has nothing to do with ideology, but return (favorable legislation) in return for investment (campaign contributions).
After 2 periods of Democrats, a Republican was more likely to win, and that was where SV put its bet. Jeb!, Rubio, Kasich, or even Fiorina were all considered more likely than Trump, who consequently got next to nothing.
Corporate campaign contributions and abnormal stock returns after presidential elections
Jürgen Huber Michael Kirchler
Public Choice 2013, Volume 156, Issue 1, pp 285–307
Abstract
Contributions by investor-owned companies play major roles in financing the campaigns of candidates for elective office in the United States. We look at the presidential level and analyze contributions by companies before an election and their stock market performance following US presidential elections from 1992 to 2004. We find that companies experienced abnormal positive post-election returns with (i) a higher percentage of contributions given to the eventual winner and (ii) with a higher total contribution given.
After 2 periods of Democrats, a Republican was more likely to win, and that was where SV put its bet. Jeb!, Rubio, Kasich, or even Fiorina were all considered more likely than Trump, who consequently got next to nothing.
Corporate campaign contributions and abnormal stock returns after presidential elections
Jürgen Huber Michael Kirchler
Public Choice 2013, Volume 156, Issue 1, pp 285–307
Abstract
Contributions by investor-owned companies play major roles in financing the campaigns of candidates for elective office in the United States. We look at the presidential level and analyze contributions by companies before an election and their stock market performance following US presidential elections from 1992 to 2004. We find that companies experienced abnormal positive post-election returns with (i) a higher percentage of contributions given to the eventual winner and (ii) with a higher total contribution given.
Funny what happens when a bunch of idealists in their 20's grow up to be professional 40'somethings with something to steal.
10
Donors do not take right or left turns.
Their objective is not ideology, but to maximize the financial return on the money invested in campaign contributions.
Or in the case of Clinton, in speaking fees. Not for advice, but to get access to political power.
Foremost of all, the requires to pick a winner. After 8 years of Democrats, the SV bet was that a Republican would win, Jeb!, Rubio, or Kasich
The Donald was not in their cards.
He got next to nothing from the big donor elite, and ran mostly on his own nickel and small donations.
Their objective is not ideology, but to maximize the financial return on the money invested in campaign contributions.
Or in the case of Clinton, in speaking fees. Not for advice, but to get access to political power.
Foremost of all, the requires to pick a winner. After 8 years of Democrats, the SV bet was that a Republican would win, Jeb!, Rubio, or Kasich
The Donald was not in their cards.
He got next to nothing from the big donor elite, and ran mostly on his own nickel and small donations.
7
Not surprising. The only people who should be surprised are those who cling to an outmoded idea of Right versus Left.
Tech companies aren't Right or Left, they're pro-business. This means being pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration as well as anti-union and anti-regulation (unless the regulations give them an advantage).
Tech companies aren't Right or Left, they're pro-business. This means being pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration as well as anti-union and anti-regulation (unless the regulations give them an advantage).
3
See, Democrats have become so trusting of corporations recently. They are evil! We shouldnr have to rely on corporations to force things like HB2 away. There shouldnt be a repeal because there were "economic consequences." The closer Democrats get to corporations, the more they lose.
I say this as a Transgender woman. Youd think Id be all about Corporations, but Im not. Corporations are mostly evil, and we shouldnt rely on them to get things done. They will abandon you at the first sign that money is to be made.
I say this as a Transgender woman. Youd think Id be all about Corporations, but Im not. Corporations are mostly evil, and we shouldnt rely on them to get things done. They will abandon you at the first sign that money is to be made.
Quite interesting and depressingly familiar. Successful people always think that a meritocracy will lead to inequality--because of course they are successful and exceptional. See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/why-luck-matters-mor....
Not only do the wealthy undervalue the role of luck in their own success, it also leads them to be less charitable than the non-wealthy. Having worked in startups for most of the past 20 years, I can testify to the fact that a) founders think they are exceptional human beings who deserve more and b) most (biotech and medical device) startup success happens after tremendous sums of money are sunk into really stupid things by those founders, i.e., the companies become "too big to fail" because their investors pursue the sunk cost fallacy. Eventually they might stumble onto something that actually makes money. What the wealthy often have more than everyone else is the drive to be wealthy. As it was said of Charles Foster Kane, "Well, it's no trick to make a lot of money...if all you want is to make a lot of money."
Not only do the wealthy undervalue the role of luck in their own success, it also leads them to be less charitable than the non-wealthy. Having worked in startups for most of the past 20 years, I can testify to the fact that a) founders think they are exceptional human beings who deserve more and b) most (biotech and medical device) startup success happens after tremendous sums of money are sunk into really stupid things by those founders, i.e., the companies become "too big to fail" because their investors pursue the sunk cost fallacy. Eventually they might stumble onto something that actually makes money. What the wealthy often have more than everyone else is the drive to be wealthy. As it was said of Charles Foster Kane, "Well, it's no trick to make a lot of money...if all you want is to make a lot of money."
3
Mr Edsall has given us a useful report card and some idea of trends in high tech political support. As was apparent in the election, Edsall points out the Dems inherent conflict in finding financial support from the rich while looking for votes from those disadvantaged by actions of the rich.
The clear picture emerging is as described by Robert Reich: a corporate controlled government little disposed to correct the growing income disparity and lack of opportunity. The Democrats could address this problem as Bernie's campaign indicated, but as the selection of Hillary shows, the Dem leadership will go so far as to lose an election rather than change their corporate allegiances.
The recommendation is clear: if another demagogue, probably brighter and more focused than Trump, is to be avoided, the Dem leadership will have to be replaced with one that actually intends to act for the 99%, not just putter about with "stronger together", but actually endorse a program to wrest Congress from corporate oligarchs.
The clear picture emerging is as described by Robert Reich: a corporate controlled government little disposed to correct the growing income disparity and lack of opportunity. The Democrats could address this problem as Bernie's campaign indicated, but as the selection of Hillary shows, the Dem leadership will go so far as to lose an election rather than change their corporate allegiances.
The recommendation is clear: if another demagogue, probably brighter and more focused than Trump, is to be avoided, the Dem leadership will have to be replaced with one that actually intends to act for the 99%, not just putter about with "stronger together", but actually endorse a program to wrest Congress from corporate oligarchs.
3
To thank these very wealthy companies, mostly embedded in liberal Silicon Valley, are pouring money into the coffers of politicians who want to take apart our social safety net, dismiss global warming, want to open up national lands to more mining and gas and oil exploration, are anti-immigrant and basically anti-science is very disappointing - not just to me but also to their employees.
It certainly makes me rethink my use of Microsoft.
It certainly makes me rethink my use of Microsoft.
1
Inasmuch as the Dems are in corporate pockets, just like the GOP, why has big tech gone for the GOP? The big difference between the two parties seems to be the Dems' interest in the dignity of minorities contrasted with the GOP anti-social narrow-minded religious zealotry. Oh, and the Dems' belief in logic and science contrasted with the GOP's ideological blinkers that crunch right over the top of math, fact, common sense, and empathy.
Maybe big tech worries that the corporate control of the Dems is less secure. That maybe the Dems actually will shake off this modern oligarchy and return to government by and for the people? Does that fear of big tech justify in any way funneling support to the GOP, a party devoted to destruction of education, health care, and freedom of religion?
Maybe big tech worries that the corporate control of the Dems is less secure. That maybe the Dems actually will shake off this modern oligarchy and return to government by and for the people? Does that fear of big tech justify in any way funneling support to the GOP, a party devoted to destruction of education, health care, and freedom of religion?
1
I think it is hasty to come to the conclusion that this shift in political giving has much to do with ideology. The fact is you give money to the people in charge, the individuals who will be making the decisions. It doesn't matter what party those people belong to, because the idea is to gain an influential seat at the table. That should be any company's goal, and they have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize *every* aspect of value, including the political. In 2016, there was no way that Democrats were going to control policy because they had no change to win the House. Republicans, as we have seen, had a chance to gain full power and took advantage.
1
Is anyone really surprised that white dudes unite?
Silicon Valley's mysoginy and bigotry of various stripes is a longstanding open secret. Quite frankly, there are more than a few Valley "titans of industry" that style themselves as John Galt. Thiel holds some extreme and bizarre Randian views, but he's far from the only one. Musk, for example, is a genuine innovator but also verifiably awful and sinister in his comportment with those who don't share his privilege. And even Zuck and Bezos (a creature of the Valley's northern cousin) unfailing complicate their efforts to do good with displays of their persistent blind spots and stunning state of denial. (Full disclosure: my partner is a white tech leader who has consciously decided not to work in the Valley because of these cultural concerns.)
Don't be confused by the hoodies, Sheryl Sandberg, or the PR-vetted tokenism. We had a LONG way to go before this election and we'll be clawing back lost ground for years to come.
Silicon Valley's mysoginy and bigotry of various stripes is a longstanding open secret. Quite frankly, there are more than a few Valley "titans of industry" that style themselves as John Galt. Thiel holds some extreme and bizarre Randian views, but he's far from the only one. Musk, for example, is a genuine innovator but also verifiably awful and sinister in his comportment with those who don't share his privilege. And even Zuck and Bezos (a creature of the Valley's northern cousin) unfailing complicate their efforts to do good with displays of their persistent blind spots and stunning state of denial. (Full disclosure: my partner is a white tech leader who has consciously decided not to work in the Valley because of these cultural concerns.)
Don't be confused by the hoodies, Sheryl Sandberg, or the PR-vetted tokenism. We had a LONG way to go before this election and we'll be clawing back lost ground for years to come.
4
Facebook led the way. It started when "tech" was no longer tech but advertising and moved to what was once glorious San Francisco and turned it into a boring over priced town full of underpaid baristas and overpaid, conformist pseudo "disrupters".
The sad thing is that the things that made San Francisco and the Bay Area unique: free thinking, free spirit, a sense of impermanence created by pending earthquake, insolence, tolerence, and pleasure in cognitive dissonance, coupled with an injection of protectionism under the guise of military industrial spending, and ready capital from a developed banking industry, are the things that made Silicon Valley not just possible but great.
Accidental billionaires rubbed shoulders with accidental non-billionaires with mutual respect.
Destroy that spirit and replace itwith the quest for money and you destroy the intellectual freedom and the ability to genuinely innovate.
The rot will set in. Innovation will be dispersed. It needs a new home in a place with a freer spirit.
The sad thing is that the things that made San Francisco and the Bay Area unique: free thinking, free spirit, a sense of impermanence created by pending earthquake, insolence, tolerence, and pleasure in cognitive dissonance, coupled with an injection of protectionism under the guise of military industrial spending, and ready capital from a developed banking industry, are the things that made Silicon Valley not just possible but great.
Accidental billionaires rubbed shoulders with accidental non-billionaires with mutual respect.
Destroy that spirit and replace itwith the quest for money and you destroy the intellectual freedom and the ability to genuinely innovate.
The rot will set in. Innovation will be dispersed. It needs a new home in a place with a freer spirit.
3
The corporate control of government isn't incompatible with a good life for all. It only becomes that way when corporate management becomes greedy and power hungry, demanding obsequious acceptance of miserly handouts to glorify the greatness of corporate munificence.
Why that egomaniacal mindset is so common is a study in psychology, At the moment it is most evident in the corporate support of the GOP, pushing for destruction of education, personal liberty, healthcare, and freedom of belief. However, it is evident in both parties in the push for less regulation and lower taxation, the latter being no more than simple greed.
Why that egomaniacal mindset is so common is a study in psychology, At the moment it is most evident in the corporate support of the GOP, pushing for destruction of education, personal liberty, healthcare, and freedom of belief. However, it is evident in both parties in the push for less regulation and lower taxation, the latter being no more than simple greed.
1
Edsall utterly failed to tease out the implications of the Big Four Pac contributions to House and Senate candidates. So what if they gave $2.1 M to Republicants and $1.5 M to Dimocrats? That fact in itself does not mean that the Big Four are becoming rightists, especially in light of the fact that corporations routinely contribute to both candidates in an election in order to ensure that they back the winner. As Jesse Unruh noted, money is the mother's milk of politics.
Edsall usually swamps us with graphs and charts. This would have been a good place for some in depth analysis, instead of a hasty, unsupported conclusion.
Edsall usually swamps us with graphs and charts. This would have been a good place for some in depth analysis, instead of a hasty, unsupported conclusion.
All of these people are incredibly wealthy and it proves that what they do is valuable and rewarded in a capitalist society.
The query, how much should Heimlich be worth, since he is responsible for 100's of thousands of saved lives.
Or Sabin and Salk who invented the vaccine for polio.
Well maybe capitalism does not really reward value correctly.
The query, how much should Heimlich be worth, since he is responsible for 100's of thousands of saved lives.
Or Sabin and Salk who invented the vaccine for polio.
Well maybe capitalism does not really reward value correctly.
8
The corporate cave to Trump is very similar to the cave, even sponsorship, of German industry in the 1930's. Anything for buck or mark. It works. Krupp, maker of much German armament before and during WWII is now selling elevators in Northern Virginia and has been for years.
2
I'm pretty sure that the author's read of the OpenSecrets data is factually incorrect, and employees for companies like Microsoft and Facebook have not dramatically tipped towards Republicans, at least not in the way he claims.
If you follow the link he helpfully provided for data on Microsoft, you see that Microsoft did indeed contribute $6.47 million in 2016. However, the fine print at the bottom of the page says that "the numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals", so that $6.47 million includes PAC donations from Microsoft corporation. It's clear from other parts of the page, too. For example, there's both a table and a chart that shows that $1.84 million of Microsoft's donations were from PACs whereas $4.56 million is from individuals.
Despite this, the author says that Microsoft employees gave 47% of donations to Democrats, when the page in question makes it clear that it's 47% of the total PAC plus employee donations that went to Democrats.
The author makes the exact same mistake a few paragraphs later in interpreting the Facebook contribution data on OpenSecrets, attributing PAC plus employee contributions completely to employees.
It looks like there is an interesting story here about tech PACs going Republican in 2016, but it doesn't seem like the data is there to support that assertion about tech employees, or at least not at the magnitude that the author claims.
I hope the author will post a correction.
If you follow the link he helpfully provided for data on Microsoft, you see that Microsoft did indeed contribute $6.47 million in 2016. However, the fine print at the bottom of the page says that "the numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals", so that $6.47 million includes PAC donations from Microsoft corporation. It's clear from other parts of the page, too. For example, there's both a table and a chart that shows that $1.84 million of Microsoft's donations were from PACs whereas $4.56 million is from individuals.
Despite this, the author says that Microsoft employees gave 47% of donations to Democrats, when the page in question makes it clear that it's 47% of the total PAC plus employee donations that went to Democrats.
The author makes the exact same mistake a few paragraphs later in interpreting the Facebook contribution data on OpenSecrets, attributing PAC plus employee contributions completely to employees.
It looks like there is an interesting story here about tech PACs going Republican in 2016, but it doesn't seem like the data is there to support that assertion about tech employees, or at least not at the magnitude that the author claims.
I hope the author will post a correction.
2
How entrepreneurs and other start-ups become Republicans in 3 easy steps:
1. First comes the idea, planning and conception and they are Libertarian, until it's time for funding.
2. Then they are (Corporate) Socialists accepting government largesse and tax incentives. 3. Once the new company is funded and has (successfully) gone public, the new millionaires, desiring to become billionaires, become Republicans, demanding lower taxes and other considerations.
1. First comes the idea, planning and conception and they are Libertarian, until it's time for funding.
2. Then they are (Corporate) Socialists accepting government largesse and tax incentives. 3. Once the new company is funded and has (successfully) gone public, the new millionaires, desiring to become billionaires, become Republicans, demanding lower taxes and other considerations.
8
Or if they're Democrats they get stuck on number 2, like Solyndra.
6
This is great news.But these companies need to leave anti capitalist,welfare states,like California,to really have some effect.
12
jrj90620, the "pro-capitalist, anti-welfare" states, unlike California, tend to underfund and undermine their public school systems and universities. Poorly educated workers have little to offer companies whose assets are primarily in brainpower.
4
Yes they've clearly had no effect being located where the brains are
2
Yeah, they're really going to attract talented and innovative workers in the backwoods of Alabama. Genius idea.
4
One must logically conclude that as with this Presidential election that business, as well as the Executive, Legislative, and soon Judicial branches of the federal government no longer represent the people. I believe that this is called totalitarianism or what the President-elect likes to call "Nazi".
Here's Webster's definition of totalitarian: "designation of, or characteristic of a government or state in which one political party or group maintains complete control and refuses to recognize, and as a consequence suppresses, all other political parties". Welcome to the new America comrades.
Here's Webster's definition of totalitarian: "designation of, or characteristic of a government or state in which one political party or group maintains complete control and refuses to recognize, and as a consequence suppresses, all other political parties". Welcome to the new America comrades.
39
Perhaps your conclusion is "logical" in some sense, but logic is not needed. The corporate control of Congress has been a glaringly obvious fact for decades. It's control of the Supreme Court was evident in the Citizen's United decision. It's control of the Presidency has increased with Trump, but he's a loose cannon. A more secure grip is in the works.
3
Like many Democrats, when their wealth increases, celebs like Sinatra and Reagan, they shuck off their liberal ways and the Democratic party. They have a new outlook on life. Now they've become comfortable why should so much money be taken from them and given to these lowlifes who didn't work as hard as they. Sure, some luck involved, but it was mostly all them. Now, they have to give it to a government to squander it away on welfare programs which make "those people" more dependent, less willing to get off "the dole" and get a job.
They see a decline in the American Work Ethic. Ever since they got off "the dole" and began accumulating wealth their eyes were miraculously opened to see how many moochers there are in America.
It was never like this when they were up and coming. They used the little government help they got wisely, as a stepping stone to success. Not these people today. It's a different American today.
Republican hypocrites abound. Like Paul Ryan. When Ryan's Father died young Paul went "on the dole", getting S.S. disability benefits. Ryan thought it a great program. Ryan used his "dole" to go to college, support his mother, and better himself. Back then it worked fine.
As it did when Reagan's Dad was on FDR's WPA "dole", and Ronny got a job as a lifeguard. Before becoming president of the US Ronny was president of the Actors Union. all Left Wing Commies. But that was a different time they'll tell you.
Don't you see? Frankly. I don't.
DD
Manhattan
They see a decline in the American Work Ethic. Ever since they got off "the dole" and began accumulating wealth their eyes were miraculously opened to see how many moochers there are in America.
It was never like this when they were up and coming. They used the little government help they got wisely, as a stepping stone to success. Not these people today. It's a different American today.
Republican hypocrites abound. Like Paul Ryan. When Ryan's Father died young Paul went "on the dole", getting S.S. disability benefits. Ryan thought it a great program. Ryan used his "dole" to go to college, support his mother, and better himself. Back then it worked fine.
As it did when Reagan's Dad was on FDR's WPA "dole", and Ronny got a job as a lifeguard. Before becoming president of the US Ronny was president of the Actors Union. all Left Wing Commies. But that was a different time they'll tell you.
Don't you see? Frankly. I don't.
DD
Manhattan
91
I could not agree more that that is the basic structure of the flow from have not to have. The tricky part is that no matter how hypocritical it may seem from the outside it is a very natural progression. We see our own struggles, bad luck, and lack of power, not others. It is extremely rare that someone keeps their sense of perspective as they rise to success.
2
This can't possibly be a surprise to anybody out there.
12
The strong theme of this election cycle was the populists call for destruction of the kinds of economic structuring---monopolies---that over the years destroyed so many American jobs. Now the term monopolies was never used, but, the populists ideology has always viewed financial concentration as the cause of all economic dislocations. I know that talk of monopolies appeared to transformed into to a "good" in Clinton's neo-liberal agenda, but, both with Trump and more so with Sanders, is now being viewed in its historical context as an inherent bad for workers.
5
ACJ, Clinton never defended monopolies -- in fact, she presented *realistic* steps toward reducing inequality. Conversely, Trump has never actually attacked monopolies or wealth concentration. He wants to BE the monopoly, just like his friend Putin.
"Neo-liberal" Clinton offered detailed plans for progress against inequality. But we elected a populist! A stand against income inequality...oh, wait. His cabinet is a roster of Goldman-Sachs, government-haters and corporate masters. He keeps his own business interests, and keeps them secret.
The inability of Trump supporters and Clinton-haters to distinguish real from fake has spun their populist yearnings into plutocracy on steroids.
"Neo-liberal" Clinton offered detailed plans for progress against inequality. But we elected a populist! A stand against income inequality...oh, wait. His cabinet is a roster of Goldman-Sachs, government-haters and corporate masters. He keeps his own business interests, and keeps them secret.
The inability of Trump supporters and Clinton-haters to distinguish real from fake has spun their populist yearnings into plutocracy on steroids.
1
I beleive that founders of highly successful companies have, by and large, historically favored Republican economic philosophy. Almost all of them think of themselves as highly special and almost uniquely qualified to do what they have done. But, as Nassim Taleb demonstrated in "The Black Swan," the single factor which most truly separates the population of super-rich founders from everyone else is luck. This can be demonstarted with a computer model of a world like ours and randomized people. Of course this model produces many super-rich founders every time it is run. But you never get the same people popping up as super-rich founders from one model run to the next. All these high-tech super-rich founders ought to know this. If they don't, they should read "The Black Swan," so they can understand how the world really works as opposed to how the narratives of the world are produced.
18
That is not at all the lesson good leaders take from "The Black Swan". The lesson is that the unexpected happens. Successful leaders know this and structure their organizations to be able to bear the negative unexpected events and capitalize on the positive ones. While the event itself is, by definition, unexpected, the maturity, skill, and foresight to be prepared for it is not, except by those who don't understand the value, and rarity, of real leadership.
3
But, of course, reality is not a computer game.
1
Tech companies have a definite interest in pouring money into a party that is against support for the working man. These companies want to stay on top and they cannot do that unless they are taking advantage of the consumer and worker. The GOP will redistrict, suppress votes, and continue to fight against the average American. Tech companies are also fighting against the average American. They have dulled our senses with their mindless chatter, keeping us from caring about things that truly matter, while also taking our money.
68
R, tech companies have not "dulled our senses with their mindless chatter." Mindless American disseminate the mindedness via electronics.
1
Hello, Dems. Those tech guys you think love you? They don't. They are amoral libertarians, just another manifestation of I-got-mine conservative. Born with the brains to land safely on 3rd and think they hit a triple. They'll use you to get more cheap H1B visas from India and cheap construction workers for their shiny office boxes filled with cold press coffee machines and ping pong tables. They really like conservatives who aren't caught up in religions other than money. Meanwhile you've thrown away all the deplorables, those who don't go to college for various reasons, but they vote in greater numbers than the latte lotuses.
29
They have not only the brains but luck, partly in the form of their gender, color, being born not-poor in an area with good k-12 schools and/or parents who nurtured their intelligence etc etc.
1
NO ONE has said people who don't go to college are "deplorable." The original remark referred specifically to various kinds of bigots -- NOT to people with less education. Clinton spoke compassionately about the desperate white working class in the part of her comment that Fox and Rush never repeat.
You condemn Democrats for biases that you (and Republican partisans) have invented and projected onto us. I never thought big tech was on my side, nor do I look down on people who didn't go to college -- heck, I married one! I do have a problem with people who simply ignore Trump's documented lies, frauds, and insults against minorities and anyone who challenges him. Electing such a man is like inviting a vampire to stay for dinner, because he makes such pretty sweet-talk.
You condemn Democrats for biases that you (and Republican partisans) have invented and projected onto us. I never thought big tech was on my side, nor do I look down on people who didn't go to college -- heck, I married one! I do have a problem with people who simply ignore Trump's documented lies, frauds, and insults against minorities and anyone who challenges him. Electing such a man is like inviting a vampire to stay for dinner, because he makes such pretty sweet-talk.
1
Many people who I encounter who work in tech seem to believe that they came from absolutely nothing and built everything that they have from sheer willpower. They believe that they are fundamentally superior to those poor people, who aren't smart enough to hack it in tech.
Nevermind that many of them come from very privileged upbringings and went to elite schools on mommy and daddy's dime.
Who is John Galt?
Nevermind that many of them come from very privileged upbringings and went to elite schools on mommy and daddy's dime.
Who is John Galt?
28
These are the people that Dems should work with to maintain their support - not the bigoted trrump supporters that don't listen or care about facts and logic. The tech people can help make changes is some of our most pressing issues like climate change, etc. - Lets keep them on our side.
2
Surprise! Surprise! as they cobble up competitors after competitors and become monolithic conglomerate, they do not want to be regulated and/or face the break up of these huge monopolies.
11
Our oligarchy has now become deeply entrenched with election of the authoritarian Republicans and its strongman leader, Donald Trump. These companies are wealthier than some countries. We are entering an age when large corporations and the super rich will challenge nation states. We are returning to feudalism.
18
It's called being greedy. Shame on them.
9
No wonder they look so happy sitting at the big kid's table with Mr President. They're set to make a fortune and control the world. People always look out for No. 1.
12
Two articles in one here. In the first half, tech giants are behaving like monopolists. Not surprising, since they're monopolists. The GOP, weak on anti-trust, is a natural ally.
But the second half steps back and reflects that overall, tech employees (who swamp their company PAC donation amounts), along with employees of most intellectually demanding industries, overwhelmingly supported Clinton.
It concludes that these techies are out of touch. The country, and specifically rank and file Democrats, didn't follow suit. Clinton lost.
Except Clinton won the most votes. The Electoral College's perverse impact is codified law. But analysis of political shift needs to keep the actual vote total front and center. Otherwise, one group of Americans is deemed more worthy than other groups. That's not just anti-democracy, it's poor analysis.
Trump's "make America great" slogan refers to Lenin's "commanding heights" logic, which wasn't limited to communism. It demanded government manage and support heavy industry, steel and manufacturing, products with dual economic/military use. The key industry's workers benefit and become important government supporters.
Global economies have evolved. Today's giants are staffed by programmers, not factory workers. Factories themselves get robots. The election demonstrated this shift. The rust belt tried to turn back the clock, but the West Coast's new economy overwhelmed it. By 3 million votes.
That's the future.
But the second half steps back and reflects that overall, tech employees (who swamp their company PAC donation amounts), along with employees of most intellectually demanding industries, overwhelmingly supported Clinton.
It concludes that these techies are out of touch. The country, and specifically rank and file Democrats, didn't follow suit. Clinton lost.
Except Clinton won the most votes. The Electoral College's perverse impact is codified law. But analysis of political shift needs to keep the actual vote total front and center. Otherwise, one group of Americans is deemed more worthy than other groups. That's not just anti-democracy, it's poor analysis.
Trump's "make America great" slogan refers to Lenin's "commanding heights" logic, which wasn't limited to communism. It demanded government manage and support heavy industry, steel and manufacturing, products with dual economic/military use. The key industry's workers benefit and become important government supporters.
Global economies have evolved. Today's giants are staffed by programmers, not factory workers. Factories themselves get robots. The election demonstrated this shift. The rust belt tried to turn back the clock, but the West Coast's new economy overwhelmed it. By 3 million votes.
That's the future.
6
To be more specific, The Bay Area and the LA Basin account for the pop vote irrelevance. The New West Coast economy is clustered in a few dense urban areas that produce nothing but traffic congestion and carbon emissions - Nike and Apple, for example, have no US factories (they prefer Third World sweatshops and offshore tax havens). Not much to build a future on.
3
Silicon Valley might genuinely want to save the planet while reminding consumers all the time about their noble progressive values but like any shareholder driven corporation, increasing it's bottom line "trumps" everything else. The shortest political GPS direction, right or left or some degree of both will be taken as long as it leads to the biggest financial returns.
36
As a former engineer, and former resident of the Bay Area for around 15-years (having a good deal of contact with SV-types), my impression is that the vast majority of Tech people are highly Libertarian in their political outlook. "No regulations, no taxes" is their mantra. Very close fit for Republicans.
Not my favourite people, by any means. And, I have absolutely no idea what to do about it all. It's just part of being a highly-capitalistic country, I guess. Which, as economists (I am also one) will tell you, is a forever cycle of boom and bust.
Not my favourite people, by any means. And, I have absolutely no idea what to do about it all. It's just part of being a highly-capitalistic country, I guess. Which, as economists (I am also one) will tell you, is a forever cycle of boom and bust.
68
As an economist, you also surely know that the alternative to a capitalistic country is a forever cycle of bust.
1
At the end of the day these guys sold out American women to the guys who have made deals with the hard right religious to intrude into the lives of their daughters, their sisters and their moms in unprecedented ways. They feel empowered by your support. Selling your own down the river is just moving product I guess to you.
Pathetic.
Pathetic.
16
Since, for the last 80 something years the economy has done much better for everyone, including the uber riche, when democrats are in office or control of government, the arguments of high tech bosses must be based on regulations and taxation.
As stated, when these companies were start ups and revolutionary so were their owners and CEO's. Now they've got theirs and they mean to keep it.
I have never seem the memo from the democratic party gods that says outcomes must be equal as well as opportunities. But it seems only logical to me that it will be cheaper and less bloody to keep a safety net under those folks who will not achieve as much on their own merits.
Or else, the uber-riche may see a repeat of the French Revolution and the Bastille.
As stated, when these companies were start ups and revolutionary so were their owners and CEO's. Now they've got theirs and they mean to keep it.
I have never seem the memo from the democratic party gods that says outcomes must be equal as well as opportunities. But it seems only logical to me that it will be cheaper and less bloody to keep a safety net under those folks who will not achieve as much on their own merits.
Or else, the uber-riche may see a repeat of the French Revolution and the Bastille.
10
IF YOU BUTTER Both sides of your bread, then you're sure that you'll be buying more butter. It has long been the policy of many top corporations to donate to both parties. Why some of the people in Silicon Valley decided to donate to the GOP rather than the Democrats? For one example, Apple's profit margin on its products is about 85%. Now which party would support a continuation of such high levels of profit with low to nonexistent levels of taxation? I bet your first guess is right. The GOP. The policy of the high tech giants is ambiguous toward employees. Top talent are treated like the 1% while ordinary workers who, say, assemble their products are treated like the 99% if in the US. Less generously if offshore. For all their social activities, the top high tech corporations tend to have a more libertartian than liberal attitude toward personal freedom; more specifically privacy rights, say, on the Internet. Apple exhibited a very tough position after the shooting in San Bernardino by refusing to release the encryption code to the government. As with guns, when there are more of them, there is more violence; so it is with secrecy. The more secrecy, the more opportunity for terrorist cells and individuals to go undetected. Though not always. The murderer in Florida had telescoped some of his irrational thoughts, though what has been released did not seem descriptive of his specific plan. I guess if it's good enough for Smith and Wesson it's fine for hi tech.
4
Silicon Valley is strongly libertarian. It doesn't take much to swing them. And, no question, the GOP is much closer to libertarianism than the Democrats.
12
I wasn't aware controlling which bathrooms people use was a libertarian ideal
There is a peculiar brand of young, white, American man who has rightwing values but thinks he's a democrat because he's an atheist. These are the people who watch South Park, who support gay marriage but wish there weren't so many gay characters in video games, and who lecture people pedantically about how Black Lives Matter is terrible, because you know, statistically, black people ARE more violent, you know?
The danger is that these people are smart, successful in the tech fields, and immune to humility because of their blind trust that they are the only people in the world with rational beliefs. The relief is that, though they can dominate online spaces, they are ultimately few.
The danger is that these people are smart, successful in the tech fields, and immune to humility because of their blind trust that they are the only people in the world with rational beliefs. The relief is that, though they can dominate online spaces, they are ultimately few.
11
The reasons given for the tech giants' change in support from Democrats to Republicans seem valid, but there may also be another factor at play. For the past several years, Democrats have been losing elections at all levels of government. A persistent pattern of winning or losing becomes self-perpetuating. Maybe these tech giants and their employees are tired of supporting losers. Yes, we need to get the big money out of politics, but even small donors will become tired of supporting a losing cause. The Democratic Party leaders need to figure out a way to break the party's cycle of losing.
5
This is not good news. Just how much money do corporate titans need? Are the tech titans truly willing to align with those who don't even believe in climate change and who support the complete destruction of our educational system? How far down the rabbit hole are corporate "leaders" willing to go to gain a few less percentage points in taxes?
9
These CEOs have a fiduciary duty to provide returns to shareholders, not be PR stuntmen. Bezos, Cook, et al., are held accountable to the Board, and have a lot of 'At Risk' compensation which is typically earned over multiple years. This is all available in any 'investor relations' portion of a company's website, which all key executives have their compensation laid out.
Republicans are typically business-friendly, so, while we see these CEOs act as liberal talking heads in the Bay Area, money screams, so off to Trump Tower they go.
This is about creating barriers to entry for competing businesses (see net neutrality), or fending off competitors with stricter patent law, or giving the ability for more foreign workers. They're playing the game. Trump just happens to be the new figure man, not Obama.
Republicans are typically business-friendly, so, while we see these CEOs act as liberal talking heads in the Bay Area, money screams, so off to Trump Tower they go.
This is about creating barriers to entry for competing businesses (see net neutrality), or fending off competitors with stricter patent law, or giving the ability for more foreign workers. They're playing the game. Trump just happens to be the new figure man, not Obama.
6
"Sorry but Silicon Valley has always been a Republican heart of darkness: Hewlett Packard, Intel, Oracle, EBay, and more recently Google, Apple, Facebook, and dozens of anonymous buy-out bait tech firms, along with most venture capitalists. "
Sorry sorry, but Paul Otellini was the first CEO at Intel to be a republican. So Intel was democrats until the twentieth century.
Sorry sorry, but Paul Otellini was the first CEO at Intel to be a republican. So Intel was democrats until the twentieth century.
In the words of Gordon Gecko: (apparently) "Greed is good".
The 'for-profit' administration is kicking off. Get some while you can!
The 'for-profit' administration is kicking off. Get some while you can!
2
The arrogance of the tech industry has been on full display for some time now. Bill Gates thinks he is an expert on public education: let him try teaching in a classroom, supervising a playground, negotiating with both a school board and the stake holders (parents of students) with one hand tied behind his back. Let's see one of these tech gurus try to give a nice haircut. How about working as an LVN for just one day--wiping people's butts with a smile on their face. Who does the landscape design and maintenance at their corporate monuments to self and at the mcmansions they call home? These folks are OK with a "meritocracy being naturally unequal," because their particular work at this particular moment is uber (pun intended) over-compensated. But they are NOT more valuable than the talented hairstylist, than those who keep our public and private spaces clean and beautiful; than those who care for the old and infirm.
9
It's clearer every day that the NYT, especially the editorial pages, is an unabashed active political partisan and full partner with the Democratic party. The tone of this piece is typical: it's not "Silicon Valley is providing more support to the GOP -- isn't that interesting," but rather, "Silicon Valley is providing more support to the GOP -- isn't that horrifying!" In all fairness, the cost of running the opinion portion of the Times (at a minimum) should be reported to the FEC as a campaign contribution to the Democratic party.
9
The GOP is horrifying, nothing biased about that!!
3
Greed has no patriotic imperative. Corporations serve only their shareholders and in terms of social policy this is myopic. Global corporations reap the benefits of globalization without paying their fare share of the tax burden. Trump is perfectly ideologically aligned with the deepest of pockets. So , no surprise there. We , working class Americans should call corporate greed out. Feel the Bern.
5
More evidence that the road through corporate capitalism leads to a totalitarian state. We need taxes so steep that nobody can ever buy a politician, even at the county level. Otherwise we will disintegrate in a civil war before the end of this century.
6
Since none of these behemoths want to pay any taxes their choice was quite logical.
10
Why would anyone be surprised?
Apple has billions of dollars sitting offshore to avoid paying taxes while they wait for a "tax holiday." That way they can keep all the money instead of paying it to the government, and make billions in profits (while stiffing the country that buys their products, aren't they so trendy!) Guess who supports the "tax holiday" (not democrats)
Plenty of tech companies:
a) Hire expendable workers from e.g. India on H1B visas to replace more expensive american counterparts and work them to the bone, then get new ones when they burn out.
b) Force workers to live as unpaid "interns" who work 20+ hours a day and bounce around from company to company until they burn out with only a marginal chance of ever getting secure employment.
Guess which party doesn't like labor laws? (not democrats)
Apple has billions of dollars sitting offshore to avoid paying taxes while they wait for a "tax holiday." That way they can keep all the money instead of paying it to the government, and make billions in profits (while stiffing the country that buys their products, aren't they so trendy!) Guess who supports the "tax holiday" (not democrats)
Plenty of tech companies:
a) Hire expendable workers from e.g. India on H1B visas to replace more expensive american counterparts and work them to the bone, then get new ones when they burn out.
b) Force workers to live as unpaid "interns" who work 20+ hours a day and bounce around from company to company until they burn out with only a marginal chance of ever getting secure employment.
Guess which party doesn't like labor laws? (not democrats)
13
My wife and I will be traveling to CA in mid-February to visit our son and his wife. They live in LA. We will do a road trip north to SF and return to VT from there. We have not visited there since 1983. I would be perfectly content to drive along the PCH to Monterey, for instance, and then turn around and then return to LA. But she wants to visit SF, though I have tried to convince her that it is so fake. We have a neighbor who does development for Middlebury College who travels to SV, CA and she corroborates that fakeness.
1
Visit the Bronx. It's closer and as real as real can be. Visit the Botanical Gardens while you're there.
Silicon Valley ingenuity wouldn't exist in the Democrats's socialist utopia.
9
A large portion of the technological advances of the last 60 years were funded by our dirty socialist tax dollars. I thought companies that don't turn profits or even recoup their investments were supposed to go under, so whats all this meritocracy chatter about? (Genuinely want to know)
5
Silicon Valley ingenuity dried up the moment these guys realized they were no longer innovators but 'business leaders' focused on maintaining an edge and growing their corporate pots.
And unless you can bring yourself to stop using eighty year old anti-communist scare language, you're going to miss the next, brief period when America is open to real innovation. Under whatever democrat crushes Trump in 2020.
And unless you can bring yourself to stop using eighty year old anti-communist scare language, you're going to miss the next, brief period when America is open to real innovation. Under whatever democrat crushes Trump in 2020.
4
Extreme inequality poisons our society. At some point the patient dies.
4
These companies obviously believe and with good reason that Trump is all about making the wealthy wealthier. But one sees these people projecting their own greed is good ideology onto a bad Democratic Marxist redistribution of wealth argument. Hillary was as good a corporatist as one can find. But Trump is the real deal, a bona fide conscienceless fascist. Plutocracy won. Trump sold his supporters that he would usher in a world of affluence for everybody and world dominance. Of course the facts are going to get in the way of this far fetched fantasy.
4
Changes in Silicon Valley are a microcosm of our nation’s great search for a sense of balance. Most Americans know that we are not looking for a homogenized society everyone is equivalent but they also know that gross inequality is inconsistent with a healthy democracy. The quest for balance (non-stereotyped thinking) is reflected in all the major issues:
Trade/ globalization- of course the high tech. consumer firms need vigorous trade. Our country as a whole(4% of the world population) must have trade to prosper. But we must have “smart” trade that for example recognized mercantilist practices like stealing intellectual property and currency manipulation (China of a few years ago) and does something about it. We must have the infrastructure to rapidly train and re-train our workforce in order to keep up(e.g. Germany).
Regulation- again “smart” regulation that has built in feedback controls, sunset clauses etc. But recognizing that the “meat-axe” approach proposed by most Republicans is a recipe for a Gulf Oil spill or financial meltdown every other year.
Opportunity not handouts – recognize that vigorous economic activity is built on the foundation of a healthy, educated, stable society and recognize that this isn’t free.
Taxes – small and medium sized companies clearly need help. Large firms?- well let’s talk. Tax reform is needed but only with sensible a sense of sharing the nation’s burdens.
Silicon Valley is “growing up” and its soul searching is good for the nation.
Trade/ globalization- of course the high tech. consumer firms need vigorous trade. Our country as a whole(4% of the world population) must have trade to prosper. But we must have “smart” trade that for example recognized mercantilist practices like stealing intellectual property and currency manipulation (China of a few years ago) and does something about it. We must have the infrastructure to rapidly train and re-train our workforce in order to keep up(e.g. Germany).
Regulation- again “smart” regulation that has built in feedback controls, sunset clauses etc. But recognizing that the “meat-axe” approach proposed by most Republicans is a recipe for a Gulf Oil spill or financial meltdown every other year.
Opportunity not handouts – recognize that vigorous economic activity is built on the foundation of a healthy, educated, stable society and recognize that this isn’t free.
Taxes – small and medium sized companies clearly need help. Large firms?- well let’s talk. Tax reform is needed but only with sensible a sense of sharing the nation’s burdens.
Silicon Valley is “growing up” and its soul searching is good for the nation.
4
Thank you for alerting me to this, especially concerning Facebook, which I was using daily. I've deactivated my account there.
9
The title of this article should be which interests are beholden to the elite ruling class. Follow the funds and you will follow the loyalty and quid pro quo. Both Democrats and Republicans are basically interchangeable - outside of the hypocratic approach to political correctness. There the democrats lost the race, vs the Republicans winning it.
2
Perhaps the corporate donors realized the future is better with I+Play+a+Businessman+on+Reality+TV Trump than with Steal+Tax+Regulate+Repress+Never+Held+a+Job Clinton.
4
The heart of Silicon Valley revolves out from Stanford University and its core is the center/right Hoover Institution think tank. The surrounding area is home to most of the giant tech firms. Nearby, along the campus north border, are the Sand Hill Road venture capital institutions. As software continues to devour the world and disrupt all manner of industry and finance it has been said that the confluence could possibly be mimicking Wall Street as a new model for banking and investment markets. To suggest that this represents a "right turn" seems to have missed the point. It's a thriving meritocratic populist metropolis who's growth and influence shows no signs of abating and it's endgame is decades away.
6
"History is pretty clear: Heroic entrepreneurs of one decade often turn into the insider capitalists of the next."
As social & cultural issues slowly liberalize with the passage of time, it will boil down to more of the same for the masses, take what we offer or walk. The one big change on the horizon, will be a vast & efficient transportation system to bring labor into gentrified metro areas to serve the oligarchy.
Meanwhile, the media will continue to portray bloated titans such as Gates & Buffett as humble philanthropists who eat only one steak at a time & love ice cream.
As social & cultural issues slowly liberalize with the passage of time, it will boil down to more of the same for the masses, take what we offer or walk. The one big change on the horizon, will be a vast & efficient transportation system to bring labor into gentrified metro areas to serve the oligarchy.
Meanwhile, the media will continue to portray bloated titans such as Gates & Buffett as humble philanthropists who eat only one steak at a time & love ice cream.
5
This article shows that the ideology between Democrats and Republicans under Trump became quite blurry when it comes to economic policies. GOP is ok now since they won this time around but their ideologies no longer work either since they used to like free trade, and open for immigration. Does this mean that the future election will depend on who we like as a person, rather than who we like better as a party? Or will this be who represents the mass (middle to poor) and who represents the rich & powerful?
1
All good points, but one big one is still left out - in addition to policies on anti-trust, tax, and regulation, the owners of high tech (and media) have been lobbying for ever stronger and more expansive protections of their "intellectual property rights" (I.e., copyrights, patents and trademarks).
Copyright duration used to be 50 years or less. It's now 90 in the US and the TPP would have forced all member countries to offer a minimum of 70 years. This rarely benefits individuals (authors, musicians, etc.) and mostly benefits corporations such as Amazon and Disney.
Patents used to be only for significant, novel inventions. Now they are extended for every little tweak, including "new uses" for pharmaceuticals.
Trademarks can be "assigned" to a tax haven, and then all profits can be funneled into "license fees" and "royalties" that escape taxation nearly completely.
For more information, look up Dean Baker's new book "Rigged" which can be downloaded in PDF free.
Copyright duration used to be 50 years or less. It's now 90 in the US and the TPP would have forced all member countries to offer a minimum of 70 years. This rarely benefits individuals (authors, musicians, etc.) and mostly benefits corporations such as Amazon and Disney.
Patents used to be only for significant, novel inventions. Now they are extended for every little tweak, including "new uses" for pharmaceuticals.
Trademarks can be "assigned" to a tax haven, and then all profits can be funneled into "license fees" and "royalties" that escape taxation nearly completely.
For more information, look up Dean Baker's new book "Rigged" which can be downloaded in PDF free.
13
As a mild example of this protection run amuck, Warner Bros. has lawyers - people who actually went to law school - so that they could patrol Youtube and with Youtube's complicity prevent someone from watching a seventy year old cartoon because it's still copyright protected. As an animation aficionado, I've seen it time and again; something is posted and is pulled down in about a day, unless its title is somehow disguised. They must be so proud when they go home and tell their children what they do for a living.
1
This reminds me of the Animal Farm, and the evolution of the animal leadership (Four legs good, two legs better). Google's "Do no evil' idealism has mutated to craven self interest like the suppression of privacy legislation.
And lets be honest, Silicon Valley is primary about the money - acquiring and retaining it. Apple's ample exercising of off-shore tax dodges is billions in evidence of this motivation.
And lets be honest, Silicon Valley is primary about the money - acquiring and retaining it. Apple's ample exercising of off-shore tax dodges is billions in evidence of this motivation.
7
Fake News is much more profitable than real news.
When did fake news take off in the modern world ?
When the internet hit its Fake News stride during the Obama Presidency.
It took the Fake News experts a while to perfect the Art of the Internet Fake News Con, but here we are in 2017, with the Bozo The Birther Liar ready to assume the Presidency of the United States after a campaign featuring an orchestrated Salem Witch Trial and Hillary Hatred campaign largely fueled by Facebook Fake News stories.
The Silicon Valley sociopaths demand clicks --- whether it comes from real news, Fake News, or Trump News doesn't matter --- as long as it clicks.
They have no special interest or America, Americans or decent public policy besides enhancing their click$.
Nice people.
When did fake news take off in the modern world ?
When the internet hit its Fake News stride during the Obama Presidency.
It took the Fake News experts a while to perfect the Art of the Internet Fake News Con, but here we are in 2017, with the Bozo The Birther Liar ready to assume the Presidency of the United States after a campaign featuring an orchestrated Salem Witch Trial and Hillary Hatred campaign largely fueled by Facebook Fake News stories.
The Silicon Valley sociopaths demand clicks --- whether it comes from real news, Fake News, or Trump News doesn't matter --- as long as it clicks.
They have no special interest or America, Americans or decent public policy besides enhancing their click$.
Nice people.
12
Socrates,
Do you remember the early 1970s? Do you remember they told us the world had run out of oil?
In Canada we set up up a government own and operated oil company which was run very effectively by Maurice Strong (who is the Godfather of recognizing man made climate change) and John Ralston Saul (Canada's foremost public intellectual and anti neoliberalism crusader). Petrocan was too successful and was forced to privatize.
It is the 100th anniversary of Mexico nationalizing its oil industry and William F. Buckley Senior asking the US government to declare war on Mexico.
1917 is new beginning for Canada and Mexico. Donald J. Trump assures us that America must decide between neoliberalism and democracy.
Do you remember the early 1970s? Do you remember they told us the world had run out of oil?
In Canada we set up up a government own and operated oil company which was run very effectively by Maurice Strong (who is the Godfather of recognizing man made climate change) and John Ralston Saul (Canada's foremost public intellectual and anti neoliberalism crusader). Petrocan was too successful and was forced to privatize.
It is the 100th anniversary of Mexico nationalizing its oil industry and William F. Buckley Senior asking the US government to declare war on Mexico.
1917 is new beginning for Canada and Mexico. Donald J. Trump assures us that America must decide between neoliberalism and democracy.
1
Like all raw capitalists, they want it both ways.
3
When it comes to money vs. "values" guess which one wins? Hypocrisy is hip.
13
The rise of instant stock trading, available to almost anyone, has contributed to this shift as well. Companies--tech as well as any other--realize that if they don't produce a sizable profit this quarter their value will decrease as day traders dump them. Long term goals may still be listed, but the strategy to achieve them has yet to adapt to this new world. That has created a situation where there is decreasing respect and reward for the Indians who do the grunt work by the Chiefs who focus only on short term financial performance.
7
The Republican party is home to rent-seekers. Welcome home, Silicon Valley.
5
I didn't expect otherwise. Even people being young and wearing hoodies can be raw and brutal capitalists. It is all about power and money.
7
The bogus seal on the back wall tells you everything you need to know.
7
The best way to deal with this is to stop using their products. Yeah, it takes work and some creativity but it is doable. Replace Google and Bing with DuckDuckGo; replace Windows with Linux (suck it up, it's not that hard); Replace Chrome or IE with Firefox; replace Amazon with local shopping; Facebook? Is anyone between the ages of 8 and 80 still on Facebook?
In the words of Kate McKinnon, "I'm not giving up and neither should you"
In the words of Kate McKinnon, "I'm not giving up and neither should you"
12
Ha Ha good luck with that!
Of course the problem is that they will not suffer from the consequences of their actions: Peter Thiel and Tim Cook, two gay men sitting a few seats away from Mike Pence who, as Governor of Indiana, signed into law anti-LGBTQ legislation. And then there is Sheryl Sandberg sitting to the right of Pence and Trump - both of whom are anti-choice and of course Trumps harassment of women is well documented. But the moral imperative that should have precluded any meeting with Trump and Pence does not exist for these people, protected as they are by the privilege of their wealth and power.
These are hollow people.
These are hollow people.
34
So all of these hip, "edgy" places where 20-something are foaming at the mouth to work in support Republicans???? Sorry, guys: You support Republicans, you OWN ALL of their policies, regardless of your "progressive" attitudes on right to choose, diversity, blah, blah, blah. Start small, become successful, and give up all of your principles. Sounds like the American Dream, 2017.
7
Here in Deep Blue CA, after decades of Democratic leaning, I can say that my sample of acquaintances include plenty of people in tech who admitted they voted Republican in the last election, which makes me wonder how many did and kept their decision private.
The only surprise to me is that Trump didn't do better here.
I don't see this as a shift away from liberalism - rather - a shift away from the Democratic party as the voice of liberalism.
At the moment, I'd say liberals and a lot of conservatives consider themselves without leadership, and perhaps I could add with only a small dose of hyperbole -- without a country.
The only surprise to me is that Trump didn't do better here.
I don't see this as a shift away from liberalism - rather - a shift away from the Democratic party as the voice of liberalism.
At the moment, I'd say liberals and a lot of conservatives consider themselves without leadership, and perhaps I could add with only a small dose of hyperbole -- without a country.
5
Say what? Like the Reps are any better at representing liberals?
2
The high-tech companies may care less about inequality because they make much of their money on ad clicks which is less dependent on income levels.
But what about companies that sell products?
A plumber in the US makes about $40,000. A plumber with the same skills in Brazil makes about US$6,000.
Similar ratios for software developers, doctors, bus drivers, etc.
GM sells a lot more cars per capita in the US than Brazil.
For the most part, it is trickle-up economics.
But what about companies that sell products?
A plumber in the US makes about $40,000. A plumber with the same skills in Brazil makes about US$6,000.
Similar ratios for software developers, doctors, bus drivers, etc.
GM sells a lot more cars per capita in the US than Brazil.
For the most part, it is trickle-up economics.
2
Silicon Valley turns right and left and goes straight ahead or backwards all for their love of money aka "mean green almighty dollar". Silicon Valley is neither red nor blue nor purple. There is only green in Silicon Valley. "Money can't buy everything it's true, but what it can't buy I can't use."
See and hear "Money" by Barrett Strong and "For The Love of Money" by The O'Jays.
See and hear "Money" by Barrett Strong and "For The Love of Money" by The O'Jays.
1
Mr. Edsall, your final paragraph confuses me. You argue that the public will no longer tolerate a compromise of "principles," and state that Donald Trump (who may be MEASURABLY one of the most selfish and unprincipled men living on the earth now) has provided a temporary solution for the Republican Party.
How did he do that? How did he clarify GOP principles? By boasting? By insulting his competitors? By lying? By leading his audiences in hateful chants, granting his followers permission to yell what before they'd only dared to mutter?
Then you say it's time for Democrats to find a solution to their own conflicts, because they're off balance, teeter-tottering between Wall Street and the working man. You set up Hillary up as a key exhibit and recommend she find her true "principles."
I'm floored.
Hillary has for years dedicated herself to public service and worked to improve the conditions for women and girls, men and boys, nationally and internationally. Yes, she needed money to run a campaign. So do competitive men ... but they rarely get attacked for it.
Look at Donald Trump's cabinet. What principles led to their selection? Touch of homophobia? Greed. Disregard for science. Commitment to the oil and gas industries. Eagerness to press a rigid Christianity on all citizens? Readiness to slash helpful government programs, privitize what's left of them, cut taxes for the very rich?
Their motives are sharply clear. But I wouldn't call them principles.
How did he do that? How did he clarify GOP principles? By boasting? By insulting his competitors? By lying? By leading his audiences in hateful chants, granting his followers permission to yell what before they'd only dared to mutter?
Then you say it's time for Democrats to find a solution to their own conflicts, because they're off balance, teeter-tottering between Wall Street and the working man. You set up Hillary up as a key exhibit and recommend she find her true "principles."
I'm floored.
Hillary has for years dedicated herself to public service and worked to improve the conditions for women and girls, men and boys, nationally and internationally. Yes, she needed money to run a campaign. So do competitive men ... but they rarely get attacked for it.
Look at Donald Trump's cabinet. What principles led to their selection? Touch of homophobia? Greed. Disregard for science. Commitment to the oil and gas industries. Eagerness to press a rigid Christianity on all citizens? Readiness to slash helpful government programs, privitize what's left of them, cut taxes for the very rich?
Their motives are sharply clear. But I wouldn't call them principles.
12
"The first stage of Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism because it is the merger of State and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
Of course big business jumps on whatever bandwagon will best serve their interests. They want lower taxes and less regulation so they can do as they please. Trump and his cronies will deliver that in spades if the proletariat can be diverted, bamboozled, and gaslighted sufficiently. So far, it's working.
Of course big business jumps on whatever bandwagon will best serve their interests. They want lower taxes and less regulation so they can do as they please. Trump and his cronies will deliver that in spades if the proletariat can be diverted, bamboozled, and gaslighted sufficiently. So far, it's working.
12
The Silicon Valley giants, fearing antitrust legislation, have become more 'elastic' (opportunistic?) towards their party's preference. In Spanish we say: "cada quien sabe donde aprieta el zapato" (everyone knows where their own shoe tightens). And some of us thought it was one of the last bastions of liberal democracy, 'live and let live' sort of thing. Too powerful for their own good? We shall see.
5
Not so fast. Incumbents tend to get more money than challengers. In 2008, Democrats had majorities in both the House and the Senate. There would simply have been more Democrats to whom to donate, if a donor's strategy was to curry favor with the people most likely to win.
In 2010, Republicans won big everywhere, and they were able to control the redistricting process. They ended up creating a lot more Republican districts than Democratic ones. Once again, if you're interested in picking winners, there were simply more Republican incumbents to give to after 2010.
Senate candidates aren't affected by redistricting, but Edsall is comparing 2008 (where Democrats held a majority of Senate seats going into the election) with 2016 (where the Republicans held a majority of Senate seats going into the election). In 2016, there just happened to be more Republican incumbents up for re-election than Democrats.
What we really need to see is whether there was a big change in spending on House seats in 2012, controlling for incumbency and also for population size.
In 2010, Republicans won big everywhere, and they were able to control the redistricting process. They ended up creating a lot more Republican districts than Democratic ones. Once again, if you're interested in picking winners, there were simply more Republican incumbents to give to after 2010.
Senate candidates aren't affected by redistricting, but Edsall is comparing 2008 (where Democrats held a majority of Senate seats going into the election) with 2016 (where the Republicans held a majority of Senate seats going into the election). In 2016, there just happened to be more Republican incumbents up for re-election than Democrats.
What we really need to see is whether there was a big change in spending on House seats in 2012, controlling for incumbency and also for population size.
2
This is not surprising as many of the leading young technocratic owners are still going through their "Libertarian" phase of: 1. we don't want any regulators telling us what to do, 2. we don't want any unions telling us what to do, 3.we will give money to anyone who promises to let us do whatever we want to do. The irony of course is that by directing most of their contributions to Republicans they are funding the anti-science party, because as we know this thing called "technology" is nothing more than applied science. Interesting bed fellows. I wonder how all the 20 and 30 something whiz kids will feel in their 50s and 60s after they have aged and learned some things?
74
It's not the whiz kids--the employees favored Dems. It's the PACs.
1
Executives at these companies are not "20 and 30 something whiz kids". As 50-60 year olds they are, as all corporate heads, beholden to their shareholders. Technological innovation feeds the marketplace, which lines the pockets of their investors.
2
Heartless and selfish. The direction of the country. It is very irresponsible and chilling.
1
Why should we be surprised?
Why is Apple incorporated in Reno Nevada? So they can avoid paying taxes. When people say they aren't doing that illegally, well yeah, because corporations have written the tax laws to make it legal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-l...
Why can't Apple make iPhones in the US? It's because they make more money making them in China. Yet all of the Apple executives live in California? Why have we allowed this to happen?
These corporations put the $ before our country. They need to be reigned in, just like the robber barons were reigned in 100 years ago.
Where is our Teddy Roosevelt to lead the charge?
Why is Apple incorporated in Reno Nevada? So they can avoid paying taxes. When people say they aren't doing that illegally, well yeah, because corporations have written the tax laws to make it legal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-l...
Why can't Apple make iPhones in the US? It's because they make more money making them in China. Yet all of the Apple executives live in California? Why have we allowed this to happen?
These corporations put the $ before our country. They need to be reigned in, just like the robber barons were reigned in 100 years ago.
Where is our Teddy Roosevelt to lead the charge?
116
The Chinese assembly of Apple's phones is the lest important value add. Most of the value and costs come from parts derived from Japan and Europe, plus software and design from the US.
The iPhone is a truly global product, just like most items. The US is not unusual in only taxing domestic revenue. Most other countries do that. Where the US differs in it's extremely high 35% tax rates if the money is repatriated.
Canada, our socialist neighbor to the north, has a 15% corporate tax rate for comparison.
The iPhone is a truly global product, just like most items. The US is not unusual in only taxing domestic revenue. Most other countries do that. Where the US differs in it's extremely high 35% tax rates if the money is repatriated.
Canada, our socialist neighbor to the north, has a 15% corporate tax rate for comparison.
3
Where did Fremont-based Tesla Motors just open its new 600-employee battery factory? Near Reno, NV.
"Thank you Governor Jerry Brown!" the Nevadans shout on South Lake Tahoe's ski slopes.
"Thank you Governor Jerry Brown!" the Nevadans shout on South Lake Tahoe's ski slopes.
4
Are you sure they don't need to be reined in?
1
For those who have been living according to the gospel of free marketeering, the truth is finally out there: Google is evil.
Zuckerberg, we already knew.
But, if these self-satisfied oligarchs actually mean what they say (excuse me a sec: hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. thanks.), how about they consider making themselves into utilities in recognition of their success in finally becoming the unfiltered and now inescapable tool for pimps, posers, race-haters, and all manner of scammers including politicians to inflict themselves upon the population, steal their money and their elections, and walk away praising the virtues of an untrammeled free market.
These are wicked people who in some long ago misty past created innovations but now seek only to cement their dominant positions by any means, and to crush the rise of competing ideas.
And, yes, it is very easy to say that these people are evil precisely because they are business leaders with no concern other than to profit and destroy competition. For you free-marketers below, I agree this is actually their only legitimate function as business people. It is also the reason they need to closely regulated, and not allowed to dominate our political, social, or moral discussions.
Zuckerberg, we already knew.
But, if these self-satisfied oligarchs actually mean what they say (excuse me a sec: hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. thanks.), how about they consider making themselves into utilities in recognition of their success in finally becoming the unfiltered and now inescapable tool for pimps, posers, race-haters, and all manner of scammers including politicians to inflict themselves upon the population, steal their money and their elections, and walk away praising the virtues of an untrammeled free market.
These are wicked people who in some long ago misty past created innovations but now seek only to cement their dominant positions by any means, and to crush the rise of competing ideas.
And, yes, it is very easy to say that these people are evil precisely because they are business leaders with no concern other than to profit and destroy competition. For you free-marketers below, I agree this is actually their only legitimate function as business people. It is also the reason they need to closely regulated, and not allowed to dominate our political, social, or moral discussions.
60
Isn't it obvious - companies donate ("invest") in the parties that are in control.
9
Pretty easily explained. More and more gerrymandered districts run by the GOP make donations to Democrats there a waste of time.
12
Forcing only 42% of Democrats to vote in 2012, right?
2
Higher minimum wage.
Universal healthcare.
Universal pre-K.
Subsidized child care.
Paid parental leave.
Pro-worker labor laws.
Infrastructure spending bill.
Higher taxes on the 1%.
Higher local taxes.
More government support is the solution. I don't see the conflict.
Universal healthcare.
Universal pre-K.
Subsidized child care.
Paid parental leave.
Pro-worker labor laws.
Infrastructure spending bill.
Higher taxes on the 1%.
Higher local taxes.
More government support is the solution. I don't see the conflict.
20
I agree with you. That said, the country is much more libertarian which doesn't bode well for taking care of its citizens.
4
You have the wrong read. One of the greatest disappointments for those of us who are both entrepreneurs and supported President Obama has been the literal assault by the Federal government and regulators under this President. Government has become an adversary with a presumption of wrong doing by anything commercial. Over the past fours years, this administrations has correctly proclaimed the evils of "broken window policing" for minority populations while implementing this discredited approach by empowering regulator police (SEC, CFPB, DOE, FTC, Justice, etc) and turning the government against commercial interests. It is hardly a surprise that with government an adversary of ones basic livelihood entrepreneurs, business leaders and companies have quietly shifted support to the other side. The Democrats can either take the Elizabeth Warren/Van Jones approach and reject Clinton Blue Dog policies and suffer continued erosion of support from business or find a middle ground that recognizes that government and business can cooperate on creating good jobs while not making the US uncompetitive
9
Capitalism without strong regulation is a very destructive force. Like every other sane country, there must be ways to reign in the excesses of this economic system. Left to its own devices, citizens get hurt and the environment is a casualty.
7
Tyco
World Com
Exxon
Enron
Wells Fargo
Bear Sterns
Lehman Brothers
AIG
Bernie feel the Bern Madoff
Turing Pharmaceuticals
Arthus Anderson
Global Crossing
Libor
Massey Energy
Halliburton
Qwest
Harken
Countrywide
Health South
Mossack Fonseca
Volkswagon
Goldman Sachs
Valeant/Philidor
BP
Trump
Want more?
Not just ambitious boys gone bad, the list reflects the overriding 'free market justifies anything' ethos of modern American business. Yes, American business is worse than most.
Then these greedy cry-babies take their loot overseas to avoid supporting the nation that makes their success possible.
They didn't just hurt one another or their investors (who themselves are often complicit), they destroyed retirements, lives, communities and, in a few cases, actually killed people. These regulations you complain about didn't come out of thin air, they are a response to bad business behavior. We have no sign that business large or small is willing to police itself.
Business in itself is not evil, I suppose, but is properly concerned with only one thing - making money. All this hoo-ha about ethics is just an ickier version of Trumpian distraction. Business itself gives evidence why regulation is important.
Sadly, few of the perpetrators of this mess were ever held meaningfully to account. Unless losing your fifth home in Aspen is sufficient punishment. When the rich run things, when the culture behaves as if having money is sainthood-lite, this is what we get.
World Com
Exxon
Enron
Wells Fargo
Bear Sterns
Lehman Brothers
AIG
Bernie feel the Bern Madoff
Turing Pharmaceuticals
Arthus Anderson
Global Crossing
Libor
Massey Energy
Halliburton
Qwest
Harken
Countrywide
Health South
Mossack Fonseca
Volkswagon
Goldman Sachs
Valeant/Philidor
BP
Trump
Want more?
Not just ambitious boys gone bad, the list reflects the overriding 'free market justifies anything' ethos of modern American business. Yes, American business is worse than most.
Then these greedy cry-babies take their loot overseas to avoid supporting the nation that makes their success possible.
They didn't just hurt one another or their investors (who themselves are often complicit), they destroyed retirements, lives, communities and, in a few cases, actually killed people. These regulations you complain about didn't come out of thin air, they are a response to bad business behavior. We have no sign that business large or small is willing to police itself.
Business in itself is not evil, I suppose, but is properly concerned with only one thing - making money. All this hoo-ha about ethics is just an ickier version of Trumpian distraction. Business itself gives evidence why regulation is important.
Sadly, few of the perpetrators of this mess were ever held meaningfully to account. Unless losing your fifth home in Aspen is sufficient punishment. When the rich run things, when the culture behaves as if having money is sainthood-lite, this is what we get.
8
Please be more specific about the Federal regulations that have impeded your business. The only regulations with which we've had to comply (and which did nothing to hinder our execution) have been imposed by the states.
-- a small business owner and operator in specialty contracting
-- a small business owner and operator in specialty contracting
3
How much of this money went into competitive races, and how much was simply bribe money paid in advance to candidates who were never going to lose anyway?
14
The corporate form of ownership, nameless, faceless investors providing capital with the expectations of the greatest possible returns, this quarter, is the root cause of all our troubles. We can't maximize profits and also, protect workers, consumers and the environment at the same time. The investors choose maximum profits and theirs is the only voice heard in the boardrooms of America.
22
What will the Democratic Party stand for? If it stands for minority rights above economic opportunity it will lose. The party must return to its roots as the champion of the middle class. The message must be that the Democratic Party supports a level playing field for all people and all businesses.
Equal opportunities, equal rights and equal justice are all part of the Democratic DNA. But they should not be on the point of the spear.
Equal opportunities, equal rights and equal justice are all part of the Democratic DNA. But they should not be on the point of the spear.
17
Then what exactly should be the "point of the spear"?
A willingness to let corporate power concentrated in the few dictate to lives of the many?
Take Apple's terms-of-service (or any other corporate giant for that matter). It is a one-sided document that deeds all benefit to the vendor and virtually none to the consumer. You might be willing to live with a loss of privacy in order to have a phone, but in Financial Services your loss is your future (think Enron).
One of the fundamental benefits of a government - and perhaps its most important reason for being - is to offset that imbalance. When Apple acts with the power of millions to suppress a single consumer, it is government's role to balance the scales.
How can achieving justice be less important than any other part of the DNA?
A willingness to let corporate power concentrated in the few dictate to lives of the many?
Take Apple's terms-of-service (or any other corporate giant for that matter). It is a one-sided document that deeds all benefit to the vendor and virtually none to the consumer. You might be willing to live with a loss of privacy in order to have a phone, but in Financial Services your loss is your future (think Enron).
One of the fundamental benefits of a government - and perhaps its most important reason for being - is to offset that imbalance. When Apple acts with the power of millions to suppress a single consumer, it is government's role to balance the scales.
How can achieving justice be less important than any other part of the DNA?
1
The only reason the guys at the table could care about Democrats is that they personally are gay. Everything else is about money, and money wins. That's why these gay guys are sucking up to Christian Sharia Pence.
2
The "compromise" between popular & corporate interests found by the Republican party is in reality a successful marketing strategy. A billionaire insider is able to sell himself as a populist outsider, largely by acting like an idiot. As long as money controls the debate and the process, there can be no real compromise between interests, only more or less successful deception. When the laws are changed to allow my representatives to pay as much respect to me & you as they do to Mr. Zuckerberg or Mr Gates, then there will be the possibility of politics and of compromise.
9
Many of the tech companies are beyond their earlier innovative business life cycles.
To maintain their positions they now depend on government to push back competition both foreign and domestic.
To maintain their positions they now depend on government to push back competition both foreign and domestic.
11
Regarding the much abused HB1 visas. The fact that they are used to REPLACE US workers, and not supplement them is a reason to reform the program. Rather than having US workers train their HB1 replacements, the HB1s should be used as temporary employees to train US workers to replace the HB1 people if "right qualifications" and not "cheaper" is the actual reason for giving these visas at all.
108
There are companies which abuse the H1B visa system however, not all people on H1B visas are 'cheap labor' brought in to replace American workers. Such assumption implicitly assumes that only American workers can be truly skilled and I am greatly surprised that you liberals are unable to see the implicit bigotry in that assumption.
I am an Indian on a H1B visa, I came to the US as a student and took on financial debt to pay unsubsidized out of state tuition to get my college degree, worked very hard to maintain a good GPA and got a job offer before I graduated, which was no small feat. Close to 200 companies visited my school campus for a job fair, only 16 among them were willing to sponsor H1B visas for international students. A lot of the H1B visa holders are people like me, hard working people who follow the rules and succeed against incredible odds.
such broad generalizing and guilt by association are never correct, you as a liberal should know better.
I am an Indian on a H1B visa, I came to the US as a student and took on financial debt to pay unsubsidized out of state tuition to get my college degree, worked very hard to maintain a good GPA and got a job offer before I graduated, which was no small feat. Close to 200 companies visited my school campus for a job fair, only 16 among them were willing to sponsor H1B visas for international students. A lot of the H1B visa holders are people like me, hard working people who follow the rules and succeed against incredible odds.
such broad generalizing and guilt by association are never correct, you as a liberal should know better.
Quite simply...you are flat out wrong. Educate yourself on the H-1B and immigration law in general. Repeating talking points from your favorite right wing blog is amateurish.
Yet another reason to repeal Citizens United...which is not about CITIZENS at all.
183
CU is not a law and cannot be repealed. It was a decision made by the Roberts supreme court and would require an amendment to the U.S. constitution to change it or a contrary decision by another SCOTUS.
2
CDW if that's really the case let's DO get the Court to take it up.
Laws are repealed. Court cases are
overturned.
overturned.
1
Thomas, write a story on where most of the super PAC money went. That's more damning for your team and, frankly, more interesting post-Citizens United.
32
Vanderbilt,Carnegie, Rockefeller
Bezos,Zuckerberg, Gates
Different century, different products, same goal.
$$$
Bezos,Zuckerberg, Gates
Different century, different products, same goal.
$$$
223
Entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk have built companies that have created countless jobs, opportunities for others to build businesses upon their foundation, created vast wealth for shareholders, payed massive taxes and many have given significant amounts of their wealth away to NGOs and other groups doing good all over the world.
Elon Musk helped found PayPal, Solar City, Tesla and SpaceX. One guy not even 50 years old. He has disrupted payments (banking), space exploration, clean energy and transportation. In the process he has created wealth for investors and created lots of jobs.
Steve Jobs created Apple, grew Pixar from an experiment at LucasFilm into an animation powerhouse, and founded NeXT that developed the operating system that underlies Macintosh, the iPhone, the iPad, the Apple TV and the Apple Watch. Via the apps store developers large and small can market their work on an equal footing with Apple only taking an agency fee for hosting and distribution. Apple gives away the developer tools and lists an online library of reference materials that most companies would normally charge for.
Most businesses fail and most who have never tried have no idea how hard it is and how much effort is involved. They have earned their rewards and we have benefitted from their genius and effort. My modest investment in Apple, Amazon and Tesla have outperformed my work based retirement options and I am of common means- not wealthy.
Elon Musk helped found PayPal, Solar City, Tesla and SpaceX. One guy not even 50 years old. He has disrupted payments (banking), space exploration, clean energy and transportation. In the process he has created wealth for investors and created lots of jobs.
Steve Jobs created Apple, grew Pixar from an experiment at LucasFilm into an animation powerhouse, and founded NeXT that developed the operating system that underlies Macintosh, the iPhone, the iPad, the Apple TV and the Apple Watch. Via the apps store developers large and small can market their work on an equal footing with Apple only taking an agency fee for hosting and distribution. Apple gives away the developer tools and lists an online library of reference materials that most companies would normally charge for.
Most businesses fail and most who have never tried have no idea how hard it is and how much effort is involved. They have earned their rewards and we have benefitted from their genius and effort. My modest investment in Apple, Amazon and Tesla have outperformed my work based retirement options and I am of common means- not wealthy.
5
Good column, Mr. Edsall. We need more journalism like this to help us follow the money.
169
You surprised? The GOP Mission: Drain the wealth of America into the pockets of the CEO class.
206
This isn't really surprising. The Republican party is a lot less likely to make changes that would prevent these companies from moving offshore to minimize their tax liability. There's also that pesky H1B visa that allows them to replace American workers with cheaper labor from abroad. And of course the tendency to move jobs offshore and near shore to cut labor costs.
Silicon valley are this centuries industrialists. They will do whatever they can to get the government that is the most business friendly and thats never been Democrats.
Silicon valley are this centuries industrialists. They will do whatever they can to get the government that is the most business friendly and thats never been Democrats.
40
Sorry but Silicon Valley has always been a Republican heart of darkness: Hewlett Packard, Intel, Oracle, EBay, and more recently Google, Apple, Facebook, and dozens of anonymous buy-out bait tech firms, along with most venture capitalists.
No surprise. They are white, almost exclusively male, incredibly wealthy, elitist, self-absorbed, arrogant, one dimensional, mistake petty tyranny as entitled leadership, exist in an isolated, exclusive bubble. They are poorly educated, minimally acculturated, believe their own press releases, confuse self-worth with their inflated stock-market valuations.
They have a lot more in common with Trump than Obama.
Aside from Meg Whitman -- a Republican who had the courage to denounce Trump and endorse Hillary -- and a handful of decent progressive Democrats, tech titans and slaves have been part of the problem while posturing as part of the solution.
They have no inkling how much the tech sector owes this country for its existence and success. They have been the main drivers of off-shoring, hiding billions abroad to avoid taxes, engineering monopolies.
Their school of choice (when they're not dropping out of Harvard) is Stanford, established by Leland Stanford, among the most notorious robber barons of the Gilded Era.
Silicon Valley is business as usual on steroids.
The future we want doesn't live here.
No surprise. They are white, almost exclusively male, incredibly wealthy, elitist, self-absorbed, arrogant, one dimensional, mistake petty tyranny as entitled leadership, exist in an isolated, exclusive bubble. They are poorly educated, minimally acculturated, believe their own press releases, confuse self-worth with their inflated stock-market valuations.
They have a lot more in common with Trump than Obama.
Aside from Meg Whitman -- a Republican who had the courage to denounce Trump and endorse Hillary -- and a handful of decent progressive Democrats, tech titans and slaves have been part of the problem while posturing as part of the solution.
They have no inkling how much the tech sector owes this country for its existence and success. They have been the main drivers of off-shoring, hiding billions abroad to avoid taxes, engineering monopolies.
Their school of choice (when they're not dropping out of Harvard) is Stanford, established by Leland Stanford, among the most notorious robber barons of the Gilded Era.
Silicon Valley is business as usual on steroids.
The future we want doesn't live here.
310
...EBay... and more recently Apple?
Right.
Right.
Great post. I appreciate your commentary about their lack of education and the dominance of Stanford. Most engineers are NOT well-educated-- their curriculum does not include any liberal arts classes that define an educated person. Even business majors have to take some general ed type classes! At one time, Stanford was also a fine liberal arts university, but that has been marginalized and the school is now really just an engineering college. Nothing special about it.
2
After working as a contractor for HP during the summers and as a high school math and science teacher during the school year, I was always surprised and dismayed by the high tech culture and its insular biases. I find this comment, as sweeping as it is, to be dead-on accurate.
8
There you have it: Inequality begets more inequality. It's a vicious cycle. This is the reason why too big to fail should be cut off by our anti-trust laws. Corporations are made up of people to serve the purposes of people. When the activity of corporations, in Hal of Space Odessey - 2001 like behavior take over against the interests of the people who make up corporations, corporations, on a fundamental fail their masters.
A fix for this is to divest centralization of ownership of corporations from the corner office instead paying workers not just in money but in capital. It need not be a wholesale transfer from executive, board and shareholder to workers but enough to re-balance the valence of capital to harness it's power toward goals that benefit everyone who contributes to the creation of that capital.
We have gone from the days of John Henry who could hammer out steel as fast as the newest machine--until it killed him and recalculated income to "work" that created among other things Ford motor company led by a man, no nice guy he, realized people needed to earn enough to buy what they made. The idea gave America that golden era, but we've forgotten the battles it took.
Now is another time for recalculation. How bad the battles will be are entirely up to we who make up the businesses that by nature try to crush us. It's what business, without body, mind and soul, does. It is we who are the mind and soul of business even as the body becomes ever more machines.
A fix for this is to divest centralization of ownership of corporations from the corner office instead paying workers not just in money but in capital. It need not be a wholesale transfer from executive, board and shareholder to workers but enough to re-balance the valence of capital to harness it's power toward goals that benefit everyone who contributes to the creation of that capital.
We have gone from the days of John Henry who could hammer out steel as fast as the newest machine--until it killed him and recalculated income to "work" that created among other things Ford motor company led by a man, no nice guy he, realized people needed to earn enough to buy what they made. The idea gave America that golden era, but we've forgotten the battles it took.
Now is another time for recalculation. How bad the battles will be are entirely up to we who make up the businesses that by nature try to crush us. It's what business, without body, mind and soul, does. It is we who are the mind and soul of business even as the body becomes ever more machines.
21
You won't be able to claw capital away from the hands that hold it. Most people want fulfilling work and a moral life. The owners of capital merely want money and power. Mostly people get that which they value and seek.
2
This is good news for America if it encourages working and middle class Democrats to take control of their party once more. So far all that's happened at the corporate-dominated DNC is that they are circling the limousines to defend their power and privilege.
56
It's curious how corporate America so predictably votes its own self-interest while investing so much to brainwash America's citizens to vote against their own. Why? Money, of course. Why money? Because this America and our god is capitalism. You might say, no, we're a religious country - an answer that I might have accepted up until November 8 when so many moral and devoutly religious conservatives voted for Trump!
141
JFR
Look up neoliberalism. I am tired of hearing Judeo-Christian there is no such thing as Judeo Christian. Most of Judaism is about balance. Christ was about balance. The core philosophy of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Churches are very much at odds. During the European Dark Ages Islam was about science and literature.
There is but one scientific and religious philosophy (ideology) in the USA and that is neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is about removing all wealth and power from the public sector and transferring it to the private sector. It is 1773 all over again and the flag of the East India Company flies everywhere.
There is but one common bond that ties up the country from Paul Krugman to Donald Trump and that is the sacredness of the marketplace and the numbers that can generated.
The only number that means anything is of course 42.
Look up neoliberalism. I am tired of hearing Judeo-Christian there is no such thing as Judeo Christian. Most of Judaism is about balance. Christ was about balance. The core philosophy of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Churches are very much at odds. During the European Dark Ages Islam was about science and literature.
There is but one scientific and religious philosophy (ideology) in the USA and that is neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is about removing all wealth and power from the public sector and transferring it to the private sector. It is 1773 all over again and the flag of the East India Company flies everywhere.
There is but one common bond that ties up the country from Paul Krugman to Donald Trump and that is the sacredness of the marketplace and the numbers that can generated.
The only number that means anything is of course 42.
4
As in, don't expect to have a job, especially in the tech industry, if you are older than 42.
2
This blows away my perception that these high tech titans are progressive heroes.
59
Really, have you ever known a "nerd" who was particularly socially aware? The stereotypical tech worker is Asperger antisocial, awkward, focused, and proficient, good at math and the sciences. You won't catch them reading a Jane Austin novel, or caring about "humanity." AKA, a good Republican.
1
The world (including Europe) is also taking a right turn to avoid the catastrophic collision in the world.
9
I'm not sure what the temporary solution is that Trump has provided. Is it related to the Peter Thiel hand-stroking meeting?
19
Yes, thank you. I was about to make the same comment. Candidate Trump was and continues to be shiftier on issues than the tectonic plates under California. Lots of rumbling noise and threats of destruction to shake things up but no viable plan or any concrete details how to accomplish anything or even how to pay for it. Maybe Mr. Edsall was citing Donald Trump for putting on a more entertaining, dumbed-down show than candidate, Hillary Clinton. Dictatorial leadership by a maniacal narcissist and utterly clueless political neophyte using fear, intimidation and threats of public shaming of the Republican party and those who question him, doesn't appear to be a solution in anyone's best interest other than Donald Trump's, temporary or otherwise
2
Silicon Valley, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Amazon more right wing economically speaking while being left wing on social issues?
My job plan for the future is to claim myself as an AI device on my resume--in fact a machine (and in actuality and philosophically speaking I would not be particularly surprised or care if I were a machine all this time)--so I can at least have a place in the future world of brains and computers reigning over an overpopulated and environmentally compromised world.
I apparently have no talent to be taken seriously in computer world, but if I claim to be an AI device at least they can haul me in and feed me and subject me to test after test why I say and do all the wrong things (like maybe not care about money, be contrary to right wing economics, while simultaneously offending left wing political correctness, and spending my time writing and thinking when I should, like a good machine, be drudging my time away...)
Maybe I should even claim myself on resume a psychopathic AI device, that way my boss can alternately inflict me on enemies and put me through test after test and subject me to torture after torture as to why I have no conscience and otherwise will not get with the program in so many other respects when obviously if I have no conscience, if I actually am psychopathic, it makes no sense to confine me, jail me, control me, expect me to reform or change in any sense...In fact to impose on me is to just confirm my paranoid view....
My job plan for the future is to claim myself as an AI device on my resume--in fact a machine (and in actuality and philosophically speaking I would not be particularly surprised or care if I were a machine all this time)--so I can at least have a place in the future world of brains and computers reigning over an overpopulated and environmentally compromised world.
I apparently have no talent to be taken seriously in computer world, but if I claim to be an AI device at least they can haul me in and feed me and subject me to test after test why I say and do all the wrong things (like maybe not care about money, be contrary to right wing economics, while simultaneously offending left wing political correctness, and spending my time writing and thinking when I should, like a good machine, be drudging my time away...)
Maybe I should even claim myself on resume a psychopathic AI device, that way my boss can alternately inflict me on enemies and put me through test after test and subject me to torture after torture as to why I have no conscience and otherwise will not get with the program in so many other respects when obviously if I have no conscience, if I actually am psychopathic, it makes no sense to confine me, jail me, control me, expect me to reform or change in any sense...In fact to impose on me is to just confirm my paranoid view....
14
Ever been to silicon valley?
The California fakeness is all over. Only the masala's are real.
Fitting corporate behemoths only care for their bottom line support, what else should they care about? People who make them behemoths? Please.
The California fakeness is all over. Only the masala's are real.
Fitting corporate behemoths only care for their bottom line support, what else should they care about? People who make them behemoths? Please.
59
Look at what the tech sector has done to San Francisco. And they don't want to look at the misery around them which they helped create.
These people spend so much time hunched over their computers, they are completely out of touch with the community which they have disrupted.
Tech people with their "geeky cool" catch phrases are phonies with too much money and too empathy.
These people spend so much time hunched over their computers, they are completely out of touch with the community which they have disrupted.
Tech people with their "geeky cool" catch phrases are phonies with too much money and too empathy.
2
Tech Company CEO’s may be right that “people’s potentials” are not distributed equally”.
And, those with superior insight into the workings of nature (or humans), and can apply such insight to human betterment, do deserve our accolades.
But, it is the mark of a warped society, that these accolades must be financial.
Surely we can laud innovators such as Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin, Thomas Edison, and even John D. Rockefeller, without having to reward them with staggering financial riches.
I do not accept the premise that such riches are the primary reason that people strive hard to create something new and meaningful. I believe that much of their effort is done for the intrinsic gratification of doing something that requires the exercise of intellect and imagination. They can be rewarded with recognition and honor
To do so with financial riches, is also is to give them power, as it and wealth have always been linked. Do we wish to assert that such power is to be accorded to those who may have special talents in an unrelated area of knowledge?
I look forward to the time (which I know i will not live to see), when the labors of people are performed because of the goodness of doing so.
We can build a society based on such a principal.
Gross inequality of wealth, a hallmark of Pharaohs, does not have to be the incentive for people to devote themselves to human progress for the betterment of all.
And, those with superior insight into the workings of nature (or humans), and can apply such insight to human betterment, do deserve our accolades.
But, it is the mark of a warped society, that these accolades must be financial.
Surely we can laud innovators such as Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin, Thomas Edison, and even John D. Rockefeller, without having to reward them with staggering financial riches.
I do not accept the premise that such riches are the primary reason that people strive hard to create something new and meaningful. I believe that much of their effort is done for the intrinsic gratification of doing something that requires the exercise of intellect and imagination. They can be rewarded with recognition and honor
To do so with financial riches, is also is to give them power, as it and wealth have always been linked. Do we wish to assert that such power is to be accorded to those who may have special talents in an unrelated area of knowledge?
I look forward to the time (which I know i will not live to see), when the labors of people are performed because of the goodness of doing so.
We can build a society based on such a principal.
Gross inequality of wealth, a hallmark of Pharaohs, does not have to be the incentive for people to devote themselves to human progress for the betterment of all.
100
Very good point. Take brilliant musicians or scientists or artists . . . by the same logic they would be multi-billionaires. I never thought about it this way. Thanks.
1
If you want to distribute money by creating new regulations and taxes, fine.
But let's not turn this into poetic fawning over intellectual curiosity.
The only thing that's designing, manufacturing, and delivering an iPhone to your pocket is MONEY.
With no reward, there is no risk. This applies not only to humans but virtually every species in nature.
The early bird gets the worm. Gotta risk it for the biscuit.
But let's not turn this into poetic fawning over intellectual curiosity.
The only thing that's designing, manufacturing, and delivering an iPhone to your pocket is MONEY.
With no reward, there is no risk. This applies not only to humans but virtually every species in nature.
The early bird gets the worm. Gotta risk it for the biscuit.
3
Let us not muddy the water. Riches in the single digit billions is OK. In the tens of billions belong in either the US Treasury, our infrastructure, our health care system and/or a smaller national debt.
2
Interesting will be what Obama does post-White House. Will he use his considerable skills actively to advance a truly progressive (used to be called liberal) economic agenda in ways and in a manner that he felt he could not during his presidency. One hopes so.
57
that is a pipe dream.
4
Obama has never been a progressive. Keep dreaming.
3
It's all about the taxes. These titans want to bring home the profits they have stashed offshore. They are looking for a deal. Every day Americans will be the losers....
Oh and there is plenty of greed on display here as well.
Oh and there is plenty of greed on display here as well.
43
Too much statistics and not enough analysis.
As with Trump before he became a politician, the leaders of tech companies are showing that they realize the need to cover all bets by giving to both parties. Over time, I'm sure there will be see-saw swings by PACs and individuals in tech as to how they spread their largess among Dems and Reps.
The more telling issue that Edsall should analyze - that it has become a complete abomination of our democracy and of the foundation of the US republic that government intrusion in business and life has become so outsized and so pervasive, for both good and bad, that companies, interest groups and individuals will spend billions to influence law, rules, regulations and policies.
As with Trump before he became a politician, the leaders of tech companies are showing that they realize the need to cover all bets by giving to both parties. Over time, I'm sure there will be see-saw swings by PACs and individuals in tech as to how they spread their largess among Dems and Reps.
The more telling issue that Edsall should analyze - that it has become a complete abomination of our democracy and of the foundation of the US republic that government intrusion in business and life has become so outsized and so pervasive, for both good and bad, that companies, interest groups and individuals will spend billions to influence law, rules, regulations and policies.
5
The information in Mr Edsall's column is not surprising. The tech oligarchs are no different from their brethren in other industries from history, whether in steel, railroads, automobiles or oil--they are entrepreneurs, don't like the government (or anybody else) telling them what to do, don't like paying taxes and want to make as much money as they can and do with it as they please.
Just because they altered the way we live and work via information technology and networking, as opposed to heavy industrial activity, does'nt change the fact that wildly successful entrepreneurs generally have an unshakable confidence in themselves and their abilities--and usually think they know best--and certainly better than the government.
Most of them, including the tech titans, are more libertarian than conservative. They want the government out of their way so they can do their thing. Thee guys are more like the Koch Brothers than one might think.
Just because they altered the way we live and work via information technology and networking, as opposed to heavy industrial activity, does'nt change the fact that wildly successful entrepreneurs generally have an unshakable confidence in themselves and their abilities--and usually think they know best--and certainly better than the government.
Most of them, including the tech titans, are more libertarian than conservative. They want the government out of their way so they can do their thing. Thee guys are more like the Koch Brothers than one might think.
92
I'm shocked!
All of sudden, US-based transnational internet corporations supporting anti-globalization politicians? What is going on? perhaps Bob Dylan's 60s song gives a hint.
" Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind "
All of sudden, US-based transnational internet corporations supporting anti-globalization politicians? What is going on? perhaps Bob Dylan's 60s song gives a hint.
" Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind "
6
"Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other."
86
the right turn written about here is not reflective at all of the values of SILICON valley. if one looks at the voting results of california one would see that santa clara county had the second least amount percentage wise of folks that voted for the winner in the whole state. as a proud resident i look around and see very little open hate and acrimonious behavior in the local populace. right turning SILICON valley. don't bet on it. bosses may be right. populace is left.
18
The findings/conclusions of the piece are hardly earth shattering or surprising. Power and wealth seek to surround themselves with a moat to keep out those pesky commoners. Many of the occupants went to the same schools so they are fellow travelers. Their world view is much like the that of the mega rich money lending class from NYC. They see themselves as god like, never stopping to think their wealth and contributions are built upon 1's and 0's and contributions in programming and engineering from a generation before. The barriers to entry will become greater as they exert more control over the political system. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
25
Another way to look at it is that there were more incumbent republicans than democrats. Not all congressional elections have opposition candidates and some house members get re-elected without opposition. If per chance unopposed candidates got funding (it happens) that could explain some of the disparity. But also, it's not clear these PACs gave to each candidate in any race so with numerical superiority the GOP could get a bigger slice of the pie without there necessarily being a political shift. It could just be numbers.
4
There are not more GOP incumbents in the states in which these companies are based. CA and WA are solidly democratic, so unless they stepped out of their own geography, the incumbency theory does not explain their self-serving actions.
A timely piece that certainly turns conventional wisdom on its head. One wonders if part of the answer to the changes in Silicon Valley's political support can be traced to its new investments in political lobbying over the Obama years:
http://mashable.com/2015/11/21/silicon-valley-washington-influence/#CkOO...
This question is further illuminated by recalling the ' K Street Project ' of Tom Delay, Grover Norquist, Rick Santorum, et al whose stated purpose in the Dubya years was getting rid of Democratic lobbyists in D.C.:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rick-santorum-and...
Maybe Silicon Valley is just spending where its newly employed lobbyists tell it to invest.
http://mashable.com/2015/11/21/silicon-valley-washington-influence/#CkOO...
This question is further illuminated by recalling the ' K Street Project ' of Tom Delay, Grover Norquist, Rick Santorum, et al whose stated purpose in the Dubya years was getting rid of Democratic lobbyists in D.C.:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rick-santorum-and...
Maybe Silicon Valley is just spending where its newly employed lobbyists tell it to invest.
10
SV hasn't really changed its politics all that much. The thing is, these folks are social liberals in the sense that they are generally not religious and don't care if people are gay, etc. Conventional American politics thinks of conservative on those terms as Evangelicals have dominated GOP issue politics in recent years. On all other measures, however, SV has always been more to the right than you'd expect, given their reputation. They really range from pro-business neoliberals to farther right libertarians who read way too much Ayn Rand when they were young. Then there is a faction of them (Thiel, for example) who are actually neoreactionaries and supportive of antidemocratic ideologies. What you've said might be a factor too in terms of practical matters, and yes, tax avoidance is a huge issue as well.
3
carla - Agree with you; anyone who doubts didn't follow the news on Microsoft in the anti trust suit years. We were just restricting ourselves to Edsall's focus on how SV campaign contributions have shifted.
Self interest trumps principle. Got it.
156
“Silicon Valley” and the notables within it are rather well-known for their ability to pick winners. Obviously, they haven’t lost their touch.
But $2.1 million isn’t what it used to be. Is Tom suggesting that this parsimonious sum relative to what these worthies COULD have given was in any way determinative of election outcomes? And it wasn’t even the $2.1 million but the delta between what they gave Republicans as opposed to Democrats – a measly $600,000 – that we’re being asked to believe amounted to a hill of beans; or that it somehow signals a massive tack right by the managements of these corporations.
I think you’ll find with some digging (perhaps a graph) that the CEOs of the behemoths cited are RATHER more interested in the optimization of their operations than in whoever runs Congress or sits in the Oval Office.
If we had a magical ray that laid bare the ideological convictions of Satya Nadella (Microsoft), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sundar Pichai (Google) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon), we’d probably find green ink, dollar-signs and the success of their corporations, not the relative ups-and-downs of the Republican and Democratic parties – that, in the end, don’t have a lot to say these days about how successful these titans are. Not yet in America, thank the Great Elemental.
If Tom’s point is that Democrats need a new justifying mantra, I suppose I agree (so do Republicans). What that has to do with these contributions by management-controlled PACs I have NO idea.
But $2.1 million isn’t what it used to be. Is Tom suggesting that this parsimonious sum relative to what these worthies COULD have given was in any way determinative of election outcomes? And it wasn’t even the $2.1 million but the delta between what they gave Republicans as opposed to Democrats – a measly $600,000 – that we’re being asked to believe amounted to a hill of beans; or that it somehow signals a massive tack right by the managements of these corporations.
I think you’ll find with some digging (perhaps a graph) that the CEOs of the behemoths cited are RATHER more interested in the optimization of their operations than in whoever runs Congress or sits in the Oval Office.
If we had a magical ray that laid bare the ideological convictions of Satya Nadella (Microsoft), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sundar Pichai (Google) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon), we’d probably find green ink, dollar-signs and the success of their corporations, not the relative ups-and-downs of the Republican and Democratic parties – that, in the end, don’t have a lot to say these days about how successful these titans are. Not yet in America, thank the Great Elemental.
If Tom’s point is that Democrats need a new justifying mantra, I suppose I agree (so do Republicans). What that has to do with these contributions by management-controlled PACs I have NO idea.
8
Can you really be that blind and ignorant to the workings of management? I think now. Your disingenuous dismissal won't wash.
Those dollar signs you seem so enthrall to (que the music theme from Fountain Head) come from buying a congressman or two through a process of not just paying for their campaigns but paying local politicians to rig the voting districts that also have the added value of allowing the electorial college to fail to represent the majority vote in most jurisdictions.
Even in the midwest where the top claims they won the majority, if the individual jurisdictions are gerrymandered ensuring electorial votes are controlled, as we have right now, business interests that bought those jurisdictions win over the objection and votes of the electorate.
You are in a different fight now, Richard and you're going to have to up your game. Turn about is fair play. Get ready to be on the business end of what the gop has been dishing out--with the added punch of not truthiness but actual fact.
Those dollar signs you seem so enthrall to (que the music theme from Fountain Head) come from buying a congressman or two through a process of not just paying for their campaigns but paying local politicians to rig the voting districts that also have the added value of allowing the electorial college to fail to represent the majority vote in most jurisdictions.
Even in the midwest where the top claims they won the majority, if the individual jurisdictions are gerrymandered ensuring electorial votes are controlled, as we have right now, business interests that bought those jurisdictions win over the objection and votes of the electorate.
You are in a different fight now, Richard and you're going to have to up your game. Turn about is fair play. Get ready to be on the business end of what the gop has been dishing out--with the added punch of not truthiness but actual fact.
5
@Richard Luettgen
If anybody has an interest, Steven Levitt, the esteemed professor of economics at University of Chicago, has studied the impact of political donations and influence. It is largely a lagging indicator, and Progressives would be wise to study up and stop wasting so much time whining about who got what from whom and when.
Goldman Sachs? Oh, yeah. They're with Trump. Except when you look at their donation records. Bannon, he was there a million years ago. Same with Mnuchin and Scarramucci. Gary Cohn, more current.
Let's focus, however, on current employees and start with Lloyd Blankfein.
If anybody has an interest, Steven Levitt, the esteemed professor of economics at University of Chicago, has studied the impact of political donations and influence. It is largely a lagging indicator, and Progressives would be wise to study up and stop wasting so much time whining about who got what from whom and when.
Goldman Sachs? Oh, yeah. They're with Trump. Except when you look at their donation records. Bannon, he was there a million years ago. Same with Mnuchin and Scarramucci. Gary Cohn, more current.
Let's focus, however, on current employees and start with Lloyd Blankfein.
4
Two out of the 4 CEOs you mentioned, are of Indian origin. In trumps eyes he probably cannot even differentiate these Hindu CEOs from Muslims, he probably sees all brown people as potential business partners first, as Americans later or it doesn't even matter to him (all the noise he made during campaign season was simply that, empty noise). In some ways the profit motive that drives businesses does not look at individuals but at the dollar amount. That philosophy has made businesses look at their workers as mere tools, the inequity between worker pay, CEO skyrocketing salaries and bonuses, has never been so great! Under the watch of democratic administrations as well. Unbridled capitalism..how is Trump going to give Americans the visual that he is actually saving the American worker when everyone knows it's impossible.
6