This is an anti-billionaire campaign. An anti-big business campaign. Only a Warren/Klob ticket might stop it. But big egos will get in the way. Unite the candidates or prepare for the worst.
2
Billionaires have more money so they can do more. But they are still ppl like the rest of us. Our lives are very similar. There is less difference between a middle class person and a billionaire than a middle class person and a homeless person. Bloomies’ problem is that he thinks he is more virtuous because he has money. When he threw down that gauntlet he doomed his candidacy. He doesn’t like women or ppl of color, thinks China’s President is not a dictator and runs ads where he and Obama seem as pals when in reality Bloomie hated Obama. Bloomie is flawed. Had he been humble, had he owned and admitted that, he’d be a front runner. People know that JFK had a ton of money and lived a life of luxury— that’s not why they love him. They love him because he was human — when Robert Frost struggled reading the poem for the President, JFK stepped next to him and held down the pages so the wind wouldn’t blow them and Frost could finish. That is why ppl love him. What would Bloomie had done?
9
This is a falsehood.
You can’t buy an election.
You can buy ads.
People still vote.
See Steyer.
7
If you were born with a billion dollars and had 100 years to spend it all, you would need to spend 10 million dollars a year. Who needs this much money, while others starve? How much “hard work” justifies such extreme inequality? When guys like Bloomberg say “I worked hard”, what is he saying about his fellow citizens and their hard work?
25
Money is a medium for exchange. Even for character, talent and intelligence. You just it from other people. (like Trump in 2016 and "Cambridge Analytica". With highly skilled internet-profilers, who just won the Brexit. Some say Trump is a "salesman" - but even a salesman for used cars would get in trouble with pathological lying, and blackmailing everybody)
2
Rejoice. Human beings who are dying from famine everyday don't even know that two billionaires are fighting to be king of the USA.
7
Why worry about amateurish Russian "meddling" on social media when Bloomberg pays high profile social media folks to say good things about him? Given that this is non transparent, it is more insidious than anything the Russians could do.
What next from good old money bags Mike? Maybe we open the saloons for free drinks for anyone who votes for Mike, plus a $150 Amazon gift card per vote. The Trump haters who back this guy for his competence would likely also support Mussolini for making the trains run on time.
12
Brace yourselves. It is going to be a long hot summer. I am not convinced bashing billionaires is going to get us to the finish line. If the Democrats want to win and also take the Senate, there needs to be a grown up conversation sooner rather than later to highlight inequality as the bogeyman versus outright name calling. To say billionaires are bad is the wrong message. Describe how we got here. How did we get to inequality. It seriously makes a difference. You are either a party of inclusion or exclusion. Walk the walk. And if a billionaire is the one to get us to the promise land ... so be it. For the record, it will take billions to win this election. Take a bow Bernie for pouting last time when you didn’t have the delegates but dragging your ego all the way to the convention before acknowledging defeat. Which left a sour taste to your devotees and giving the rest of us a Supreme Court that solidifies money in politics and billionaires rights. And also gives the power to the courts to overrule massive changes you speak of. Perhaps a little free schooling on the truth would help the tuition free crowd to reconsider their votes. Can’t have it both ways. Scorched earth approaches usually leave everybody feeling the hangover.
14
How and why does one become super wealthy? Well no doubt luck plays a part but a psychological compulsive obsession is a requirement. Some people become compulsively obsessed with obtaining power, some become compulsively sexually obsessed - and some become compulsively obsessed with obtaining wealth. Paleoanthropologists opine such abnormal obsessions may stem from aberrations related to our hunter gather roots. Why does a Billionaire obsesses over become a multi-Billionaire? It is more then merely accumulating and enjoying the material benefits made possible with a great deal of money. Wealth obsessives reach a point where the reality of obtaining more wealth becomes redundant and illogical yet the drive to keep accumulating more and more becomes obsessive bordering on the pathological. It is highly doubtful such personality types exhibit the character and qualities the nation desperately needs in the next President of the United States.
12
I think the current electorate has figured out that wealth isn’t “earned”, it’s “transferred” or “taken”. Is there really any difference between Vikings invading your village and pillaging your wealth and Facebook monetizing your friendships and then selling that to advertisers? The resentment stems from the correct observation that in consumer economies (are there really any other kind?) increasingly “customers” aka people, exist as symbionts simply to provide income to the hosts. This is the unfair imbalance in the power dynamic that drives the desire to punish billionaires.
6
The issue of billionaires joining the political process is the challenge to professional politicians who wants to keep it as an exclusive club of tricksters who can use innocent voters money and votes to sustain their carriers. Let us stop this litmus test of who can take part in political process and who can not. Let the American system works - competition. Only competition can clean the political charlatans from the corrupt system. The American voters understand the pros and cons of the billionaires joining the political system and they will sort out the right candidate to lead the country. When I look to life story of the different candidates - this billionear’s story looks very impressive - struggle, creativity, empathy, rapid decision making, humility, selflessness, service. Most of these carrier politicians never made big decisions, what is the scope of them making mistake. In the guise of non action, they are claiming the purity of character - a nonsense.
2
Greed must be regulated. Foxes in henhouses aren't sympathetic. Sympathetic enough, anyway.
6
NO to all of you. When I or you succeed we don't take away billionaire's health care. When you or I "succeed" we don't take away public education. When you or I succeed we don't stop paying taxes. We don't bribe. We don't commit felonies. We also don't think that we can easily buy our way out of our laws.
The billionaires are the biggest free loaders of all time and convinced others it's a good idea.
11
“Do you think we shouldn’t have billionaires or should have many more — maybe you?!”
The lottery mentality when the real odds a a billion to one.
“Do you think being incredibly wealthy makes you immune to corruption, or prone to it?”
Neither, and both. What it certainly does is create a gilded bulwark of privilege, extraordinary insulation and profound separation from the gritty, all be it far removed reality of the mere commoners.
And on and on. Capitalism unbridled is the certain bedfellow of economic tyranny.
5
We should not have so much prejudice against billionaires. Just imagine the world without billionaires. There wouldn't be 20,000 well paying jobs if Bloomberg did not have his companies. Just imagine the social security that his company is adding to the social security fund. Prince Waleed pays 90 million in taxes to NYC. Without the billionaires America would be much poorer.
The fundamental question that the voters must ask is not how much money the candidates have. They must chose to vote for the best possible choice for America. Bloomberg has a better expertise record than all of them. Yes, he has baggage but who doesn't? Bernie's intentions are the best but his plans are financially unviable. Warren's Medicare plan is also financially unfit. Biden has serious baggage from the time he worked for his segregationist mentors and threw Blacks under the bus. Even during the Obama years he made no attempt to undo the damage that I still causing harm to Blacks till the present. He has wrapped himself in the good deeds that Obama did.
Bloomberg has proven to be a way out of the box leader for these out of the box times. Yes it is unfortunate that Bloomberg has baggage but if he the best expert who will bring the most benefits to America then we should seriously consider putting him in the White House.
1
First of all let me just say how much I admire Anand Giridharadas, he's been my favorite author, thinker, journalist for a very long time.
His TED talks are the most inspiring and intellectually fulfilling.
Every time I see him on MJ or other MSNBC segments I'm in awe how concisely he brings it all together.
As for billionaires...
Society that tolerates millions of homeless people in the coldest days lying on the streets in a richest metropolis is a morally bankrupt society.
So that explains the WH temporary resident.
But digging father we should understand
that there're no savors, no one will come and safe us, there's no one to delegate the job to.
Complacency, fatigue, indifference, apathy, giving up playing video games, the things we do when we stop thinking and just let it go.
So seems like simple choice...
We need to relearn the resistance and stop being lost in digital dystopian universe.
That is how we lose the country, apparently even the book was published last year.
How to Lose a Country: The 7 Steps from Democracy to Dictatorship Hardcover – May 28, 2019
All that I said applies to me, I better should be starting doing something, but here I'm just writing my comment.
Laziness will kill America.
7
Your friend said it all “Most of the work on buying votes is about the developing world, which perhaps the U.S. is joining.”
Think about that loaded sentence and hopefully people will give that sentence some thought while deciding on whom to vote for.
4
The goal of a 'Just' society is enough for all. It is not 'more' for some, and can not even by 'unlimited MORE' for ALL. We have only a few years, and perhaps one election, to begin to save the planet and its life. Vote as if you understand this.
5
It's of course simplistic to state that Bernie Sanders "wants to get rid of them." He is for redistributing wealth to help the 99% but through means that are similar to what was stated about Amy Klobuchar. In any case, we are seeing the consequences of wealth distribution as it stand now--fewer and fewer people with enough money to buy anybody and anything--including truth. But sums of people can outnumber those few with sums of cash, and there is never any substance to what is false. In the long run, the winner in the end will always be the same--the truth.
1
If you are going to have a Citizens United with no limits on political spending, and billionaires willing to spend over a billion on an election cycle, you have a toxic combination where everyone else's voices are shouted over by a billionaire who floods the airwaves and media with unrebutted distortions of his own wonderfulness.
So, either repeal Citizens United, or get rid of billionaires in politics. Mike should do like other billionaires and buy a professional sports team to keep him occupied.
15
Excellent article. We are at a true crossroads in our country's short history. Our very Democracy is at stake. The corporations started their take over shortly after WWII - mainly the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower (Republican War hero) warned about exiting his second term (google it). The total take over happened after the Reagan administration. This take over is why there has been virtually no increase in most people's salary for the past 40 years. Production has continued to rise but pay has not. Post modern World & Tech 2.0 economy - we now have a billionaire oligarch class that Trump desires to join as an autocratic ruler. The battle between Democracy representing all citizens and the .01% oligarchy is real - ignore it at your own peril. What Sanders and Warren want to bring to the USA is not radical. They merely want the US to catch up to what all Industrialized top countries have offered since WWII. A health care system as a human right-not not based on profits, & free or affordable higher education for all. This means all people will have to pay more in taxes & the rich will have to pay their fair share, but the pay back is a lot less stress in our daily lives. When it comes to legit Quality of life indexes - the US has not been in the top 10 for decades-not exceptional. This should bother you. If we don't elect a progressive and fix our Democracy in 2020 - we will end up like Russia or China - where the oligarchs rule & there is no democracy & justice!
15
Bloomberg has given billions to good causes. His company spreads truth. He can beat Trump. But I’ll vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.
5
This is also the Climate Crisis Election, so another question is, rather than running for the most powerful office on the planet, why aren't the billionaires doing the obviously right thing to save the world by providing everyone with solar panels and electric cars, etc., etc.? It's billionaire-ist to lump them all together like this (sorry, Bernie), but Qatar's air conditioning of outdoor venues in the desert might indicate that an awful lot of the billionaire cohort are absolutely clueless when it comes to basic reality and choose to remain blissfully "unaware" of the "great unwashed." BTW, the billionaire-incubating fossil fuel industry is still government subsidized. My tax dollars at work.
5
I didn't read this entire opinion piece. I have no issue with people having a lot more money than me or being my president. Bloomberg worked for his money. He wasn't an industrialist like many other robber barons of the 19th and 20th centuries. He is not squeaky clean - who is? Is he smart and is he giving back - yes he is. Is he better qualified today to run the country? As good as the others. We need to rally around someone with "common sense and reasonable ideas" and Bernie is not my poster child under either label
8
A life-long liberal, I'm now an old man. Is the light-bulb finally turning on in America?
Will the middle of the road moderate (Republican lite) Democrats FINALLY honor the liberals who have been supporting their party all these years? Will they FINALLY see the truth we have been speaking?
Or will they, like trained dogs, continue to shrink in fear at the word "socialism"? Who can deny anymore that it is time for another American revolution?
14
I've no issue with a person who has successfully earned a fortune that was the result of their own ideas and labor.
Obviously, this leaves out Trump.
If he does have a fortune (and who really knows) it was amassed through the labors of others, creative bookkeeping and conveniently declaring bankruptcy and having others pay for your mistakes.
8
Who knows less than a billionaire about the daily struggle to find decent work, affordable healthcare, a place to live, and raising children?
Who cares less than a billionaire about the rights of people who are not wealthy?
13
Bernie is correct. There should be no billionaire class. Especially if our infrastructure, education system and middle class are crumbling.
It’s obscene to me that Jeff Bezos has more money than he can spend in 20 lifetimes and he expects his employees to work like robots while paying them a low wage.
Billionaires are still people and use the country’s infrastructure and resources to their own ends. They should pay way more taxes and be required to pay an actual living wage to their employees.
19
"Do you think being incredibly wealthy makes you immune to corruption, or prone to it?"
In many cases, it's the other way around – corruption makes you wealthy. Look closely at any billionaire's resumé, and you will likely find some very questionable ethics, if not downright corruption. There is a real character flaw here: what makes a millionaire want to be a multi-millionaire and a multi-millionaire want to be a billionaire, etc., etc? What can you do with all that money, anyway? When is enough enough?
7
Billionaires missed their chance to back Warren. In their rush to not give even one inch they drove the Democratic base straight to Sanders. Sanders is the president the ultra wealthy richly deserve. It's too bad, Warren is clearly better than Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobucher combined but the "establishment" fears her. And forget about Bloomberg, he should have run as a Republican.
8
Sanders has so far spent around $115,000,000 trying to buy the 2020 election. Together with his spend on the 2016 election, he has so far tried to buy the presidency for around $350,000,000.
7
Listen to the very wealthy--they are not exactly humble. No giving thanks to the working staff, the free enterprise system, the subsidies and tax breaks they took for granted, no; only self-congratulation. "I created this successful enterprise all by myself, and now I deserve to be your king." Massive wealth changes people. They truly morph into another form of human who feels that enormous power and influence are his due, now. Trust me. They are not like "us" at all. To them, we exist solely to elevate them onto the golden throne that is so obviously theirs.
11
I see lots of comments arguing that if someone earns a billion, they should keep it. Congrats - you understand how capitalism works. The question to ask: is unfettered capitalism the best way to run a society? Here's an easy example. A stock trader who writes a computer program to exploit vulnerabilities in the stock market, and over the course of a few years, working just a couple hours a week, he manages to skim off a hundred million dollars for himself without making any contribution whatsoever to our society. Meanwhile a nurse works 60 hours a week caring for patients and barely scrapes by. Long term, college grads don't want to be nurses or doctors, they want to trade stocks. Where does this "meritocracy" lead us as a society?
21
Indeed, Mr. Giridharadas, Herr Trump is not a billionaire. That is the reason he is deadly afraid to release his tax returns.
That is the reason why the oh-so very stable genius is suing Deutsche Bank, his only lender for many years after American banks considered him to be too risky, to not adhere to several subpoenas to turn over his his financial records and the entity that handles his taxes.
9
Ms Giridharadas
It does not appear that you are aware of Bloomberg Philanthropies (www.Bloomberg.org) or understand how a person who developed these programs long before deciding to run for President is different from the current occupant of the White House. Visit the website and you will learn about their work on the environment, maternal and reproductive health, the Mayors Challenge, Women's Economic Development, to name just a few of their projects.
Like armchair quarterbacks every where, it is easy criticize using a single word label as the basis for an attack on an individual (other labels, blacks, Jews, Indians, et cetera)
Is concentrated wealth a problem? Yes, and there are policies that can address these problems. But using wealth as the basis for an attack on an individual the same as any bigoted attack.
15
To put it into some perspective: a million dollars is a stack if $1,000 bills about 3 feet high. A billion dollars is a stack of $1,000 bills as tall as two Empire State Buildings stacked on top of each other.
Some have argued that there are numerous “good” billionaires out there. Fine. But there are also the ones that have created a serf-like society here in the US, and they wield a dangerous amount of power, often because they and/or the companies who created their fortunes have bought our Congress and twisted the laws to their benefit. And they’ve bought elections, not by running for office, but because they have helped create laws like the cynically named “Citizens United “ which allow unfettered contributions to political campaigns.
This must stop. A strong society needs a strong and healthy middle class. Anything less is very dangerous.
When you put power into the hands of a megalomaniac and criminal like trump, a cravenly corrupt party of senators (Republican in this case), combined with a national surveillance system (Homeland “Security “ yeah right), and a personal tracking device on every one of us (our cell phones), it may just be the death of life in the US as we’ve known it.
There are powerful people out there with absolutely no scruples. They must be stopped before it is too late. It may already be so.
13
The argument over "corruption" is a deflection. The problem is billionaires influencing priorities & where resources are allocated. We now have multiple extremely expensive program to build rockets and send humans into space. This includes space "tourism." Why is it so compelling that hedge fund managers get joy rides into space? Could those billions of dollars be better spent? The billionaires also fund foundations and think tanks that influence government when the billionaires answers to nobody but themselves. The most egregious example is funding of climate change denial. This has the same effect as bribing policy makers to ignore climate change. The ability of people to accumulate vast wealth while having a major impact on national priorities with no outside influence is not in our best interest.
8
When Dave Letterman's talk show on Netflix started, his first guest was Barack Obama. At the end of the show, Obama asked Letterman what he thought the secret of his personal success was. Letterman was absolutely clear in saying that he knew that his success was based on dumb luck and good fortune - not the least, he implied, being a white man in America at the time he grew up. Obama acknowledged this and went on to say that, as President, he was always amazed at the number of wealthy people he met who were absolutely convinced they succeeded entirely because of their own abilities. There are, no doubt, some people who work very hard for what they have. That still does not mean that any person in the world "deserves" to have more than one billion dollars to their name. It certainly does not mean that the people who have tens of billions in any way "deserve" that money. As a general principle, no one "deserves" to be that rich. There is a point - well before one becomes a billionaire - where simply having money makes money. There is nothing "deserving" about any of that. But Obama's point is particularly telling: there are a great many super-rich people who are deeply delusional about the reasons for their own success. Letterman understood the role of luck in his success. Many people do not understand that sometimes hard work pays off and sometimes it does not. In a society of massive inequality, the latter situation emerges far more often.
18
Should anyone be allowed to be a billionaire?
How much is a billion?
Imagine someone standing on a stage and every second, that person throws $1 to the ground.
If that person continues doing that every second, it’s going to take you a little less than 12 days to reach 1 Million dollars.
How about a Billion? Do the math.
No one should have that much money. Period!
There has to be a point when too much money in the hands of one person has to be stopped, and I believe in Capitalism.
11
I am skeptical of the deployment of arsonists as firefighters.
I wish to remind billionaires that they live in my country, not the the other way around.
12
"Mr. Bloomberg replied, ‘I worked very hard for it, and I’m giving it away.’"
Well, you might have worked hard for it, and you might be giving it away, but no one works hard enough to make more before the end of January 2nd than your average employee makes all year.
12
The basis of this article is empirical at best in its line of thinking.
The idea that Mr. Bloomberg is a billionaire who does everything in his own best interest is simplistic. He forgets that Mayor Bloomberg managed one of the greatest cities on this planet.
I am a native New Yorker. I lived in France for nearly twenty years. I had my own business, got married and raised a family there. I continued raising that family in the USA. Ask me what Socialism and Capitalism are all about.
If the author is correct in his assumptions, well done. But if he and the newspaper who decided to print this article are wrong, I would not be surprised in the least.
3
Many people “work hard”—think schoolteachers, health care workers, police, fire fighters, janitors—to list just a few groups. Not too many millionaires or billionaires there. But I want their opinions and experience to count when it comes to running the community we call the US. Annual income and accumulated wealth are poor markers for empathy, creativity, and a sense of fairness.
12
Why do we have billionaires at all? I would argue there are three main paths: invent something amazing, 2)inherit, 3) manipulate, maybe with a pack of fellow millionaires, the tax and allied legal system to become a rentier. I'm fine getting rid of billionaire heirs, at least starting with the children and super-fine with a tax and legal system that doesn't support freeloading (especially prevalent in real estate).
I'm concerned about innovation in a huge, rich country that sells its often astounding products to the entire world. Yes, that's going to produce some billionaires, maybe a lot of them.
Do we really want to interrupt the entrepreneur/venture capital/stock issuance cycle? How would we do it? Does Reed Hastings of Netflix really have his boot on my neck? Did Steven Jobs? Do Sergei Brin and Larry Page? It seems to me pretty tendentious claims of freedom have to make if they are my overlords.
2
Wealth=evil. Poverty=virtue. Liberal=bad. Conservative=good . Socialism=Communism, etc. Most generalizations of this type are false, since they refer to all in a given class. Obviously, this is an impossibility. And dangerous, since people in general use loaded terms, not really knowing what they mean, reacting with emotion, not reason. That is why politicians, and dictators, use them so effectively to shape opinion. When the ACA was passed, one party called it socialism and were successful initially in turning many in their party against it. The ordinary party member would not be able to define the term or to distinguish it from Communism. But they knew it was “bad, unamerican.” And Obama was a Socialist.
Unfortunately, some in the media are using loaded terms carelessly. If they aspire to being unbiased, they should differentiate between opinion and news.
1
The United States is at a crossroads...once again.
We have allowed money to buy influence and legislation that has squashed many young dreamers from reaching their potential. The tax codes favor the wealthy as material family wealth is transferred from one generation to the next...to the next...to the next. Too many people are starting the game on third base. Some don't even have to run the bases at all...they're already at home plate.
Higher education and good health care are fading dreams for too many families. It is startling to realize that your life'opportunities for education and wealth depend primarily on your zip code.
It shouldn't take a Bernie Sanders Presidency to wake everyone up and make the .01% less greedy. "Medicare for all" is a better mantra than "Build that Wall". One is inclusive while the other is exclusive.
Which do you prefer?
Is it based on your wealth?
Will the limousine Liberals get behind a wealth tax if it makes America a stronger Country?
It will be interesting to see who puts their money where their mouth is.
This election appears to be the far left against the far right. Neither is the right answer but they are symptoms of an underlying disease that is beginning to become manifest.... and ultimately festering.
5
Do the math: dividing $1 billion equally among each of the 330 million people in this country provides each person with $3.03.
If all of Bloomberg's $60 billion of assets were converted to cash and redistributed, everyone gets $181.80. (Of course, as soon as the confiscation started, the value of the underlying assets will fall so there would be much less cash to redistribute.)
If all the billionaires collectively have $1 trillion and it was seized and redistributed, each person will get $3,030. Once. After that, there would be no wealth to tax, few jobs to be had and the US would be like the Soviet Union: equal misery.
6
@Robert Atkinson yes, but, those billionaires would no longer have the over-bearing, unfair advantage of purchasing the government. Everyone, equally could contribute $3.03 to the candidates of their choice (through a non-profit, shady PAC!).
10
there are no billionaires on income but instead billionaires on valuations of stock in companies the billionaires created(Gates, Jobs, etc never had a w-2 of a million dollars) and convinced the public their companies were worth it. I don't think Henry Ford or Edison were billionaires even adjusted for inflation. Since the 90s there have been thousands of tech companies started, with tiny US employment bases(Uber, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple are huge users of h1B India labor) so there is a disconnect between aggregate wealth and what the public receives. Their high revenues and low personnel costs make them profitable and valuable. We also have a huge coterie of NYC and Silicon Valley based(mostly) financial pilot fishes where people become wealthy feasting on the "golden crumbs" of these IPO's (courtesy "bonfire of the vanities" taking their "Vig". Lebron, Tiger, and Federer are now possibly billionaires, but they "only" make 20 million a year but are silent partners in so many ventures their net worth rises daily(even Jordan retired 20 years is a huge earner). Hall of fame Whitey Ford said in the 1960s that if they won the World Series he told his wife they can afford that new refrigerator! What does this mean? Maybe what Andrew Yang said, that the lowering of labor income compared to aggregate income means we should have a Universal Base Income of $1000 a month depending on total economic productivity. Tough choices that humans have had to make every few centuries
3
No, it IS possible to vote in 2020 without taking a stand on billionaires in elections. The ONE AND ONLY PRIORITY IS GETTING RID OF TRUMP. Nothing else matters.
12
That's an easy question - the world belongs to the billionaires and not to us. The US likes to dress up and play at democracy but the super wealthy are in charge and we are just there to allow them to get richer and richer on our labor.
7
The Democratic Party Bosses will never let Bernie get the nomination no matter how many votes he gets. In today’s Democratic Party, only Big Money talks , not voters.
7
We love money so much it ruined the country. Democrats use to stand for decency or one thought, now it is hyping a trashy cold-hearted Republican. Bloomberg knows that the country is racist and hates females so not a problem there yet hardly politically correct. Is this the state of the Democratic Party and you wonder why Bernie is winning may be caring for others is a good thing.
26
Reminds me of Bobo's in Paradise, the book that helped land a job for one of the NY Times editorialists. Humorous, incisive, and scathing. Good job.
8
It is laughable to take seriously those who are rich. And even worse those who worship the rich. Which pretty much is all of America - you are either rich or you worship riches.
America is a mediocre culture, stolen by the rich and anchored in the bigotry of the masses.
42
@Mogwai Considering that the rich hold all the levers of power, what's laughable is you thinking that taking them seriously is funny. Nothing funny about it. Oh, and which cultures don't worship the rich? Please don't say Scandinavia where the royal houses possess great sums of money and are still funded by the state.
1
Hmm, seems a bit like the French take on wealth. If you have it, you must be a crook. Although, most would trade places in an instant.
10
Workers and farmers....seriously?
3
Billions are only ever made by underpaying labor. The world belongs to them because the people are weak and brainwashed. The people can select their leaders yet they always choose leaders who don't work for them. This will never change. You would have to do a kind of mass cult intervention of some type to get them out of their brainwashed state. The problem is that because the majority are brainwashed they reinforce each others false understanding of reality.
The people will need to suffer more, and even that may not do it since they are, at their core, weak and ignorant.
19
Keep your eye on the prize: getting a criminal enterprise lead by a sociopath out of the White House before more damage is done.
Only one candidate has the best chance of doing that: Bloomberg. Now is not time to get lost in the weeds about personal wealth.
10
Folks who keep on saying that Bloomberg is accountable to no one and that is dangerous, what about Trump, he certainly is accountable to no one and is supported by the Republicans and his cult. Just look at his latest selection to head Intelligence, right wing and willing to do anything that includes downplaying Russian interference in our elections, and then of course there is Barr. Trump doesn't care what anybody thinks and behaves illegally and that is OK with the American people, and you are afraid of Bloomberg who at least has a brain in his head, maybe a strong ego but is not a narcissistic sociopath.
20
“Your health insurance hasn’t somehow, mysteriously been made too expensive; your brick-and-mortar store hasn’t somehow, mysteriously been undercut. Someone did those things to you, probably by rigging the system to secure an undeserved advantage. And that person was probably a billionaire.”
“The degree of support for these ideas in 2020 is astonishing”........
These are not ideas. They are facts. “
17
As the (millennial) journalist Charlotte Alter, author of the new book “The Ones We’ve Been Waiting For,” told me, “Socialism is a generational Rorschach test: Boomers think of Soviet gulags and bad shoes, millennials think of Swedish health care and free education.”
This "millenial" comment completely leaves out Bernie Sanders.
7
Lloyd Blankfein, the man who did God’s work, ex-chairman of Goldman Sachs, said that if Bernie is the Democratic nominee he will vote for Trump. You know why? Because “at least Trump cares about the economy.”
This is a man whose father was a postman in The Bronx and considered that he made it when he moved the family to Brooklyn. He is a man who is a cancer survivor.
But at least Trump cares about the economy of the one percent. At least Trump cares about Lloyd Blankfein.
I am disgusted by this clown. Disgusted!
34
And yet Bernie and Warren won’t say they refuse bloomies money
2
Envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
7
Well done thank you.
4
"Russia Is Said to Be Interfering to Aid Sanders in Democratic Primaries"
Do you people need a road map?
2
Them, long ago.
1
Pure ideological babble. This is how the author makes a living. I would not begrudge him one dime. I just would like to ask what percentage of his current income and how much of his net worth has he donated to charitable organizations. That will actually tell you who the hypocrites really are. Pass the latte.
10
Frankly I don't care that Bloomberg is $B-aire because he WORKED for it, did NOT inherit it, uses it to back PROGRESSIVE CAUSES such as womens' reproductive rights, gun violence/safety, climate change, anti-tobacco, and anti-sugar (soda). I do believe he has changed his ways. How I wish he had highlighted them at the debate.
I cannot even ding Bloomberg for being a recent Dem convert because Sanders is NOT a Democrat, instead a parasitic alleged democratic socialist who was uncloaked by Bloomberg to be a communist-leaning socialist. I'm waiting for his "free" offer of 2 chickens in every pot next!
Even over-the-top pitbull (sorry pitbulls!!) Warren WAS a Republican in her younger years.
I cannot stand this eat-your-young debates. We already know their policies .... these moderators are so TUNNEL-VISIONED it made me want to slap them silly.
I'd vote for Bloomberg before Sanders, that's for darn sure! My preferred ticket is AMY/Bloomberg.
13
This is all quite rich coming from a former McKinsey & Co. consultant. Talk about a cabal of wealth and power manipulating governments:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/world/asia/mckinsey-china-russia.html
For those short on time:
"At a time when democracies and their basic values are increasingly under attack, the iconic American company has helped raise the stature of authoritarian and corrupt governments across the globe, sometimes in ways that counter American interests."
There's your answer to corruption.
That's the thing, when you sit in a glass house the temptation of those stones looms rather large doesn't it??
5
The Democratic Party is unrecognizable. So lost.
3
While it is OK to be financially successful and for companies to earn billions, tax avoidance needs to be addressed t ensure that Google, Amazon, et al pay up. E.g., a laundry list of tax evaders from the Institution of Taxation and Policy:
"60 Fortune 500 Companies Avoided All Federal Income Tax in 2018 Under New Tax Law "
https://itep.org/60-fortune-500-companies-avoided-all-federal-income-tax-in-2018-under-new-tax-law
6
A piece that invents a reason for it to be written.
6
Right on. Trump sez what we all thinks. I wants to be a billionaire. Any old lotto will do. Trump sez we can all be billionaires. I didn’t get my Masters from Trump U, but Trump sez we can all be billionaires. In Amerika. I’m with them.
3
sometimes it takes one to know one
This is one of the dumbest articles the NYT has printed in recent memory. The wrong questions, framed in Trumpian language with just the correct amount of pizzazz to suggest you are reading something useful. Come on. FDR and JFK come to mind as do GWB I and II. It takes a lot of money to get you there but the money is only the means, not the determinant of what you'll try to do.. The President is like a puppet whose strings are being pulled by unseen hands and forces. Only history will judge the outcomes. Chance, media, and an incredible level of stupidity will decide the coming election. Meanwhile. the world burns faster and faster. Armageddon is around the corner and we worry about bank accounts?
7
I find it interesting that The “NY Times Picks” consists mostly of a “pro Billionaire” bent, while the majority of “All” comments tend to lean a bit more progressive. Curios, I hope I’m wrong...
8
You're finally catching on.
Historically we've always had a left vs. right narrative..or Republican vs. Democratic...or Liberal vs. Conservative.
Now the script is flipped.
It's no longer left to right..it's now top to bottom.
And guess what?
The Republicans have figured this out and the Democrats haven't a clue.
In the US House the GOP shares power between the Establishment and the upstart Populists.
IN the US House..Pelosi and her 75 year old Generals share not an iota of power with their upstart populists.
IF..and I mean this is a big IF...Pelosi wants to help America..she needs to step down as Speaker and take those bunch of oldy and moldy Generals with her.
It's simple really.
Put in place term limits like the GOP has in the House.
That allows for the dynamic interrelations between the top and bottom of the hierarchy that's reflective of how real democracy operates.
Unless and until some of the moderate D's get a spine...rally together as a strong group..and push Pelosi out...this discontent among the Progressives and Elitists will not resolve itself.
Meanwhile..those of us who've found peace in this new normal will grab our bag of popcorn and turn on that next Democrat Party debate..watching the warring factions beat each other up...unaware that the rest of America finds this both amusing and frightful.
1
Bernie wants this country to the era Mao Ze Dung. Billionaires like Bezos and Zuckerberg need re-education perhaps in the tundra of Alaska.
Most Americans love rich people and hate smart people. This is sad to write, but very true. Democrats need to get real before it’s too late.
7
"Pete Buttigieg... seems to be their [billionaire's] top choice."
They want to control both parties--to ensure favorable property tax and laws. Without them billionaire is impossible.
Private wealth is hardly a matter of how smart you are or how hard you work.
Punishment should fit crimes and criminals should be those who did the harms--or didn't prevent them when they could.
Reward should fit the benefits and the rewarded should be those who created them.
It's just propaganda to assume if you have money you must have earned it.
8
Unfortunately the ones that don't have billions are often not accountable either. So you think that electing a poor person is automatically better? Look at some of the crooks that Trump pardoned like Rod B. After he got into office he started conspiring to steal as much as he could. And how about Kwame Kilpatrick, former mayor of Detroit who wasn't pardoned. He wasn't wealthy but turned into a crook as well.
It's in the character. It isn't the amount of money.
1
I've applied the Author's analysis to the elite Foundations and corporate polluters like PSE&G who fund NJ's non-profit environmental groups.
Yes, it is indeed the "elite charade" the author writes so eloquently about. Those groups are controlled and co-opted by the money - total corruption.
And that corrupt model has expanded to funding the media, like NJ Spotlight.
3
The last thing America needs is another divider. Socialist Bernie hates billionaires and wants to exclude them, I don't. Many billionaires, especially self made ones like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have created jobs and wealth for our society and acknowledge billionaires should pay more tax.
America will always be a capitalist society that rewards hard work and success.
4
Why do so many Americans buy the baloney about billionaires having 'worked hard' or being 'really smart' as the reasons why they deserve to be sitting on vast piles of wealth? Millions of Americans are "really smart" and "work hard" but are not millionaires, let alone billionaires. Look at the reality of the nation's billionaires and you will find that risk taking, luck, family money, and family connections are very common characteristics of these folks. Most of them have also engaged in a little bit (or a lot) of influencing governments through campaign donations, flattery, gifts, lobbying, and other tactics that resulted in favorable actions for their businesses in the form of regulatory (or "de-regulatory") actions, tax laws, etc. If all of us were able to influence government as much as the few dozen billionaires have been doing for decades, we would probably have fewer billionaires and a more just society.
6
Enough with the canard that Bloomberg is trying to "buy the election." He's paying for advertising and a campaign staff, the same as every other candidate is doing, except he's using his own money (and he has more of it than the others). Is there some magic amount of money that's acceptable to spend or not spend? This notion of "buying the election" denies the agency of voters, saying that anyone who supports Bloomberg is a fool who was bought and has no mind of his or her own.
13
If you take all the money from billionaires, government will waste in a week, poor will remain poor, poverty will unchanged and crime rates won’t get affected. Bernie is targeting billionaires to popular with a generation which is ignorant of socialism. One cannot compare to Sweden which has homogenized population of responsible population who doesn’t exploit the benefits available. They have educated and responsible citizens
3
Economic inequality is way too high. Taxes are now way too low on individuals and corporations. When you have billions in the bank, you will have plenty left over. When you are poor, you have nothing left over. The tax cut for corporations was the worst step. Corporations are taxed on their profits, not total revenue.
Blue wave 2020 !
9
What bugs me about rich people is exactly what Bloomberg said to Chuck Todd’s question about should he exist, “I worked very hard at it.” Most of us work very hard at what we do. Sure some of us slack off, but most of us don’t. In fact, people sometimes work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Isn’t that working hard? What Bloomberg’s answer implies to me is, “I worked hard, so I’m a billionaire. You guys don’t work hard enough to be one,” which we all know is cow patty. I don’t think all rich people are evil (some clearly are as exemplified by one that shows up once in a while in an egg-shaped room,) but I’ve seem so many that simply don’t understand what “normal” people go through. Understanding something you haven’t experienced or seen takes imagination and intelligence. Presidents really need that.
10
Is Bloomberg what we need? Who knows. Maybe he'll pick an ideal VEEP, take the oath of office, shake hands for a month, restore the better Obama laws, say he’s tired of assaults on his character, and resign in favor the ideal VEEP who will become president. I know that’s what I’d do if I were a billionaire who had just defeated DJT!
Go team, go!!!
3
There's a cspan video of this author in conversation with Robert Reich---
"Robert Reich ("The Common Good") and Anand Giridharadas ("Winners Take All")"
4
Articles like this should not be written by columnists with a self-interest - of selling their book about billionaires' profits.
The points Mr. G makes are simplistic and one-sided. So let's continue with these trite-isms, which actually do apply:
"You can't judge a book by its cover."
"Let's not generalize."
"Stereotypes tend to be wrong."
"All billionaires are not bad."
"Some people DO do great things, for others!"
Sometimes to extricate ourselves from quicksand, we need help from anyone strong, even if their hands look "dirty.
A muddy billionaire trumps a fake violent billionaire.
ANY DAY!
I am hoping my country is not pushed into the Quicksand Of Corruption, by the MOST CORRUPT president we've ever seen.
We need Bloomberg, even with "dirty" looking hands!
No one has Shown they can solidly attack trump!
3
My view on billionaires is the same as my view on Kings. Unless I am one of them, off with their heads.
4
This quote from trump stooge Larry Kudlow says it all: "“Why shouldn’t the president surround himself with successful people? Wealthy folks have no need to steal or engage in corruption.”
In fact, there isn't a single one of these rich pirates who hasn't been using their positions in the trump regime to further the interests of the industries they've been charged with supervising for the public good. DeVos, Mnuchin, Ross, Bernhardt, all of them brazen accommodators of corporate interests. This line that the wealthy are above corruption is a total sham. The long and the short of it is that government run by plutocrats is simply rotten government.
10
Hey Democrats, let's
WIN. THE DARN. ELECTION.
Can we put our purity tests aside for 5 minutes and defeat DJT, whatever it takes. (Then and only then can we push for much needed campaign finance reform.)
A wealthy person wants to put their money to work, legally, to help win the election for Democrats...more "thank you" and less "finger wagging" are in order.
Otherwise, you are going into a knife fight with a pea shooter.
4
Bloomberg is a self-made billionaire philanthropist. Among the Democratic candidates, only Bloomberg can ridicule Trump.
3
I'll vote for any billionaire who is not a Putin puppet, if that's my choice in November.
1
Billionaire, schmillionaire - here's another shiny object to take our minds away from the real & current problem which is a president with neither morals nor ethics, and a following that agrees with his narcissistic, greedy, bullying methods. That should be ground zero.
This country was founded on the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. America has advanced as such for well over 200 years. "All men being created equal" has grown to include all women, blacks, nationalities, religious and sexual preferences. We are better for it, and struggling countries admire us for it.
Once the egomaniac is gone, it will take decades to undo the damage he has done. And until the remains of his followers die off or wise up, our country and our planet may continue to pay the price.
3
Your column doesn't present any real evidence that Americans are "boiling mad" about billionaires. On the contrary, I think the average American has been brainwashed by the billionaire class into thinking that the billionaires are more "successful" than the rest of us. What they are successful at is exploiting the labor of others and the natural resources that belong to all of us for their own enrichment. Think of Mitt Romney saying that America's working people are "takers," and vulture hedge-fund managers like himself are "makers." It's patently absurd, yet people swallow it as truth. That's how we got where we are today in this country, with the billionaires controlling the federal government and exploiting the middle-class and working-class taxpayers.
8
No, I’m pretty sure this is going to be another borders and citizenship election.
Basically, Trump wants to restrict citizenship and close borders, while the Democrats want to expand it and open the borders.
Billionaires are kind of ancillary to all of this. True - it’s easier for the mega rich to get richer when there’s a massive and ever expanding supply of cheap, foreign labor to pull from. Which is why the Democrats are the party of the corporate donor class and individual billionaires.
But honestly, most normal people don’t care one way or the other about what someone else has. Billionaires in the abstract are a pretty small minority. To the extent that they attract attention, it mostly comes from the same identity obsessed members of the left who can also typically be found scapegoating white cis males, “Zionists,” and conservatives, on behalf of some other weird identity groups like people of color or Palestinians or whatever. The right is simpler.
We tend to focus more on what’s in it for us. Billionaires? Meh, sure. Open borders people? Oh heck no! If you’re not America First, we’re not really interested. You’d have to be pretty complicated to NOT prefer America First, which I suppose many a leftist are.
Thus, Trump wins. Thus, the left loses and loses and loses, here and globally.
It really is as simple as that. Maybe progressives are just too smart to see it. By all means though, enjoy adding class to your identity obsession. It doesn’t hurt us!
2
Is it possible that Bloomberg’s candidacy became a call to action for all democratic contenders.
Forget the presidential race NYT.
Please give us some senatorial profiles of courage and progress
Please
Why is the left so obsessed with how much others make? if they paid their taxes and obey the law, who cares what your neighbor makes?!
I am far more concerned of the inherent immorality and duplicity of socialism where the state sees itself as the paragon of virtue. Where politicians and bureaucrats claim power over people's life to instruct them what to do in life for an occupation, where and how to live, worship, how much you and your family can make, and how and when you will die (healthcare rationing).
4
Dear poor people & middle class, the rich don't represent you or even understand you. I'm inside their bubble and your issues are not their issues. They think you're poor because it's your fault. As someone who grew up with struggling single mother and is now in the middle of the top 1%, I'm here to tell you that this is definitely a THEM vs US kind of country. Rich people don't see the struggle of poor people and because most wealth is inherited, most rich people have never had a poor person's experience. I am literally the only rich person I know who has been homeless, struggled for meals, and nearly died from lack of medical care. I don't share my story with my fellow rich people because they'd view me with suspicion because to have been that poor means I did something wrong. Rich people aren't waiting to welcome you into their club and if you continue to vote them into power nothing will change. Vote accordingly.
6
Why the obsession with wealth?
Percentage-wise, how much has Warren or, especially Sanders, given to charity?
Are any of the unfortunate homeless he's always yammering about living in one of HIS three homes ( I assume he can only use one home at a time....)
330 MILLION people in this country...500 thousand may be homeless, MOST of them by choice due to drug or alcohol abuse.
One tenth of one percent of the population.
At least Bloomberg is giving HYUUUUGE amounts to charity. How much has Trump given?
It;s not so much how MUCH a person makes, it's how generous he is that measures his worth. Or not. He EARNED it. He can do as he pleases. How a person helps others if they are more fortunate is the key NOT demanding that they do so to make things "fair".
I have NO problem with how much any one else makes or doesn't make. People in the USA have so much opportunity to help themselves, but they don't....they go under by a thousand debt cuts and then fall back on Donald Trump's favorite slogan:
"It's someone else's fault!!!!"
I live in Western PA town where the per capita income is 25,000. A couple is pulling down 50,000. Housing is relatively cheap, but it does cost something. EVERY DAY on my rural road, $60,000. dollar 4WD pickups fly by. WHERE are they getting that money ?!?!?
Poor decisions. Show off for the neighbors and sign that dotted line. Don't save for tomorrow. This is Trump country..New coal mine coming any day!! (NOT)
"He pwomised!!!"
4
Being a billionaire says nothing about one's character. Just as being a politician doesn't. Otherwise Gandhi and Hitler would be equivalent. Since 2008 Michael Bloomberg has given over $2.3 billion dollars to charities and progressive causes. In that same period of time, not only did Donald Trump not give donate any money to any charity, he actually stole money from his own charitable organization and spent it on himself. On garish oil paintings of himself for his tacky golf resorts for one.
Now, as to the idea of billionaires themselves, I don't think any society should have them - period. They are antithetical to the kind of socio-economic equality on which all civilized societies are based.
But, it's not the fault of the billionaires that they are allowed to accumulate so much money. Just as it isn't FedEx's fault that they pay nothing in taxes. It's the fault of politicians who's regressive tax policies have allowed it to occur. And that fault lies entirely with the Republican Party - and with them alone.
We can have new roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, fire-departments, community centers, libraries, universities, health clinics, homeless shelters, mental health programs, school lunch programs, reliable power and water infrastructures - or we can have a few dozen billionaires. But, we can't have both. And it's been clear, for over a century now, which of these two things the GOP prefers.
And their appetite for inequality has only increased over the years.
7
Mr. Giridharadas' book, "Winners take All:..." is a must read.
No doubt about that.
That said, this Nation was founded by rich white males for rich white males. Their wealth being gained on the backs of African Slaves, Native Americans, women, children, poor free men of all ethnicities, and the unmitigated, rapacious, exploitation of our Nation's natural resources.
This mind set remains very much alive and well, and sought after and desired, by a large portion of our population.
That is the existential problem with this Nation, one that no election can, or will, solve.
MB
3
@Lupito who thinks billionaires are parasites. Here is a nice example for him.
Check out Lloyd Blankfein. A newly minted lowly billionaire. He did God’s work at Goldman Sachs. Now he says he would vote for Trump if Bernie is the democratic nominee. Because Trump at least cares about the economy. Whereas Bernie cares about the welfare of the 99 percent including the economy for them.
I hope now God does his own work and we’ll see how Blankfein will fare.
4
“Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.” Balzac Today, it’s influence peddling courtesy of our Supreme Court’s Citizens United monstrosity.
4
Billionaires and multimillionaires could only siphon off so much before the pool that’s the nation’s wealth runs dangerously low. That time has now come. But during the siphoning years, they also managed to dumb down the population and lower their expectations by messages in mass media and now social media. So we may just slowly implode without any accountability for billionaire thieves.
6
Wake up fellow citizens !Our democracy is slipping from us, everyday Trump is in office. Last week he was out to neuter justice officials through a totally corrupt Attorney General. This week he's out to neuter the intelligence community because it warns us that the Russsians are back and waantin to keep him in office. And in the middle of these imminent dangers to our freedom to govern ourselves, we are worried whether it is right for a billlionaire to buy an election. It is like we're having discussions while the house is onn fire.
Wake up, the barbarians are not at the door, they're inside and we carry on as if we have all the time in the world.
2
Jeff Bezos started out selling books out of his garage. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were a couple of youngsters fooling with electronics in their garage. Bill Gates dropped out of school to pursue his dream. Sam Walton ran a small town variety store. Michael Dell figured out how to build computers faster and cheaper. The list goes on and on. Now we are told to believe that these are evil people
3
See, Philanthropy.com, February, 2020, “Bloomberg”. This man earned his current wealth of $60 billion by creating a data collection and analysis program which, with the world’s rapid adoption of the internet, apparently, every financial institution in the world has used and gladly pays for. His father was an immigrant. Neither his father nor mother earned any “wealth”.
According to Philonthrapy.com, Bloomberg has donated $9 billion to date, and plans to donate all his wealth before his death. I personally doubt that government could create better societal benefit with his money than he can, and will.
2
But Bernie using the Democratic Party rather than running in the Socialist Party is ok..
There has been a billionaire Democratic candidate for 6 months.
Tom Steyer.
What is so special about Bloomberg to suddenly warrant THIS argument???
(asking for a friend with the same ethical "coincedental interest" issue, you may know him...)
1
Wonder why millennials love Bernie Sanders? It's not for the environment or for human rights, it's because he's promising a generation that's been given participation awards and told from birth that they are all geniuses, and now, as adults, the idea of paying bills and paying back student loans is "unfair". They are triggered and he, the left's Donald Trump, tells his base whatever they want to hear, all the while knowing it's impossible to deliver.
I'm not thrilled over Mike Bloomberg and I detest Donald Trump, but both seem better that Warren, Sanders and Mayor Pete, any day. For the record, I voted for Clinton every time she ran for anything. I voted for Obama. I'm not a racist nor a misogynist, not solely because of my vote, but for the way I conduct my life towards other people. The progressives are brutal, selfish and care about nothing and no one but their agenda. It's a dangerous cult. If you're a white man voting progressive, you're just as bad as the poor person you rail against voting for Trump. The coded language of the left tells the truth, no more white men please. This white man will never vote for them. I thought basing judgments on race and gender were wrong? Phonies.
1
Simply fantastic, cristal-clear. If the public could have real access to this article, America would know where the vote should go. And overall where it shouldn't. But in fact, how many New York Times have renained available to the public ???
Don’t want billionaires. Well try this -
1. Stop using Amazon
2. Ask banks to stop using Bloomberg terminals
3. Don’t use Microsoft Windows or iPhones or MacBooks
4. Stop you Google searches, YouTube, gmail, google maps.
5. Stop using Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat
6. Stop pumping gas in your car...and don’t buy a Tesla
Just stop!
And if you can’t do that then please stop complaining, and start measuring people by their values and competency and not by their net worth.
2
It is so strange to me that being successful is somehow frowned upon by Democrats. I also find it even bewildering that Democrats want someone like Bernie to be in charge of the Worlds large economy and he has never so much as ran a coffee cart. He wants to enlarge our wasteful government based on theories because that is all he has.
7
The best predictor of a person to become wealthy in this country is a willingness to cut to the front of a line.
Yes, Virginia, you have been had.
9
Dear friends and fellow Americans...
Just found the poem 'The Old Issue' by Rudyard Kipling.
My goodness, 120 years old and it still has something for us to consider.
Look for it and read.
"no truce with Kings!"
4
There are so many people who say "I wouldn't do it but everyone else would" when asked about something wrong.
For example "would you go against your standards for money?"
If yes - how much would it take?
1
People point to all the philanthropy, how very generous they are.
The point is, with a fairer tax structure, that money would flow through COMMUNITIES to fund hospital wings or art museums.
I don't fault the billionaire, but communities should not have to depend on their largesse.
Fairer marginal rates plus campaign finance reform.
14
People point to all the philanthropy, how very generous they are.
The point is, with a fairer tax structure, that money would flow through COMMUNITIES to fund hospital wings or art museums.
I don't fault the billionaire, but communities should not have to depend on their largesse.
Fairer marginal rates plus campaign finance reform.
3
Repeating a point made by others, self-made billionaires are not exactly the same. Generalizations do not apply. Ya gotta know details, and billionaires who hope to be elected should reveal many. Giriharadas raises some important questions and invites citizens to ask more. Bloomberg has done a lot of good as Mayor and as a citizen with his money, but he is no more perfect than any of the others. I like that I don’t wanna have a beer with him any more than I wanna have a steak with Trump. For me, the central question is one of modern and moral leadership. We have neither now and the results are tragic.
2
The problem is how to fund election campaigns fairly. (It may not be possible).
It costs a lot of money to run a campaign, so candidates without cash have to find it somewhere. They can ask on-line for small contributions. Or they can sell seats at fund-raising dinners at $50G a pop or more. Basically, it involves selling political favors, to be redeemed down the road. And clearly, it's a nasty business. Enter the "billionaire" or someone who pretends to be one.
This election is also not the first time dealing with the "big money" issue. We've had Roosevelt, Rockefeller, Kennedy, and even Bush and Johnson, to some degree, who were able to fund all or much of their campaigns themselves.
Today, we also have no effective limits on what corporations can contribute to curry favor with a presidential candidate or any other candidate. Some would argue that the Congress has already been "bought" by big money or big business.
This democracy hangs on by a very slender thread. It's downright scary.
7
The obvious always appears a little too late. Now, we complain. Let's face it placing the genie back in the bottle when it comes to wealth is like taking a bottle of vodka away from a homeless person; they won't give it up in either case. Why, because they are intoxicated with their vices.
We could look at all of the root causes of wealth inequality until we pass out. In all seriousness, we are the cause and effect. Many tend to worship wealth and lavish lifestyles, praying that they'll win the lottery so they can be like "them" when in essence they won't even come close.
The stock market can create wealth overnight, even if you have little money. Marketing replaces self wealth with an idea that makes market investors find attractive enough to invest in. Then, it could lead to billions of dollars flowing into your pocket. It happens weakly with initial public offerings (IPO's). Some do fail, most do not.
In the political realm, money corrupts everything; now it's normalized, even to the point of foreign interference and contributions. Ther is so many $$$$ being spent and corruption, as a result, it would take almost every American walking off their jobs for several years straight before a small change to occur.
1
The other question: Why do we have billionaires?
Answer: Because we decide—collectively—to have them. Bezos, Buffet, Bloomberg, etc. have their wealth only because we have agreed, collectively, to honor and protect their claim. Without us, a Bloomberg would a pauper in a flash, his stash grabbed by some nastier brute or gang of brutes. Or maybe it would just be scattered to the wind by vandals.
The fundamental human reality is that as an army of one, you don't have a chance. You have to have a tribe, and ultimately the tribe will decide what you can claim as your own to hide away for your exclusive use—property. That means we can have billionaires or not. We decide. Sanders and Warren are demanding a debate on the question of should we. Their supporters, a very large slice of the electorate, wants to hear that debate.
Bloomberg and his peers, and a whole lot of people who somehow think they are kin, would sell us the notion that the current condition is God-given or the result of some natural law. That notion couldn’t be farther from the truth.
8
Our economic system has many design flaws that allow money to flow to a few not merely disproportionately, but massively so. Who do we admire more as a people: those whose efforts are to exploit those flaws for maximum personal gain, or those who try to remedy them?
People become billionaires because they exercise influence as millionaires. They aren't satisfied with boatloads of money;they require shipyards full. They socialize costs (see, e.g., industry bailouts) and privatize profits.
I can live with not begrudging the robber barons their billions, but that doesn't mean I want to put them at the helm of our political system so they can pillage us even more.
10
I have nothing against anybody being rich. But it's quite another when that wealth can let a few individual dominate the nation's politics. That's not healthy for any democracy.
Bloomberg literally bought himself a spot on that debate stage. Previously, he didn't qualify because he didn't have enough individual donations to his campaign. (i.e., not enough "little people" supported him.) But the DNC changed the rules and Bloomberg's endless ad buys, not to mention his own very media outlet, got him enough name recognition to qualify in the polling.
Americans of all American affiliations complain about how we, individual citizens, have very little power in the system. But when we go along with billionaires buying political influence - behind the scenes and on the scene, maybe we brought it upon ourselves.
11
Last time I checked it was an amount of money that made billionaires billionaires. I don’t question the values that traded hands to put more money in the hands of one person than another. I do question exploitation, corruption, deceit, and the other general ills that sometimes go along with the accumulation of wealth. The rare lottery winner certainly deserves his windfall regardless of the money he levied to win it. The long dead artist deserves at least a small sympathetic nod when his artwork sells for millions. I cannot judge the value in either. It’s a crapshoot.
1
It's not about eating the rich. It's about fairness. Jeff Bezos, a particularly egregious example, became astronomically wealthy by treating employees badly and having Amazon design teams steal the products others have created, among other unethical practices. It's time to balance the scales.
16
Economics 101. Is the economy of any country better off with a very large middle class and a much smaller share of the overall wealth concentrated in the very rich? Would the politics, culture and innovation be more representitive of the majority?
8
How much cheese do you need to be a happy mouse?
The 1% elite and those within $100Ms sit on more financial resources than even they can spend. I don't understand why GOP voters think it is such a bad idea to raise taxes on this segment of society. Review the history of taxation in the US. Currently the lowest rates in history, by triple.
The inequities and faults of our system are all too well known by the middle class ,what's left of it, and the lower rungs on the ladder. The 1% know and manipulate the laws, the rest of us bear the brunt of the flaws. The one time when trickle-down economics works.
Among other things, some of the revenues from these higher taxes would finance elections. The remitting individuals and corporations being the primary beneficiaries of business and government expenditure and investment.
This election should be a wake up call to the inequities of a process that eliminates potential candidates for lack if funding.
12
We have to stop the nonsense. Yes some billionaires made their without creating any value but the vast majority of the developed ideas, innovations, and inventions that everyone benefited from, such as Gates, Ford, Ellison, and Bezos. The didn’t force anybody to buy their products. As their companies grew thousands of their employees becomes millionaires. Now because they are successful apparently Bernie Sanders believes he has the right to take their wealth under the threat of force. Now you tell me which is the greater immortality, creating wealth or stealing it.
7
Socialists and other progressives further to the left have no respect for how products and services are invented and produced. They assume it just appears with minimal effort.
The far left severely underestimates what motivates people to invent. They make that mistake the world over.
You can’t make anyone be doctor, invent new medicines or perfect the IPhone. You can’t force someone to make you a sandwich at 3 am.
They’ve never gotten it. As for the European example, those countries don’t pay for defense and their medicines are subsidized on the back of the American economy. Take AMERICAN profits out of the equation and you will see no innovation except for boutique medicines and therapies for the rich in the “tippie top”.
4
@sjw51 Yeah, the Fords were so benevolent. When the workers wanted to organize to get a fairer share of the wealth they created through their labor, Harry Bennett was hired to discourage them on the overpass.
3
Actually, they own the joint. But when haven't people in leadership and power vied for control of the world? Some more generous than others, some more brutal than others. Can't believe how folks continue to act "shocked" by the concept of rich and powerful... this ain't our first rodeo.
5
" Or do you believe we need to take away a great deal of billionaire wealth to give millions a better life?"
How about just making things fair, starting with the definition of income, earned vs unearned, long term gain vs short term gain, passive vs non-passive?
How about making speech fair? Citizens-United make speakers with billions louder than speakers with thousands, John Roberts thinks that's fair, a lot of us don't, but, having fewer dollars, we can't speak very loud on the subject.
How about the earned income cap for FICA payments? How is it fair for those with no earned income to pay nothing, or those with large earned income to pay a relatively small percentage?
What most of us do know is that Republicans will never correct this, they're the ones who forced it on the rest of us.
15
Wealth disparity destroys democracy. Once the rich can influence the system to make themselves richer, we live in a plutocracy. There should definitely be a dollar limit on wealth. That number should be equal to the amount of money that allows an individual to distort the system and make it work specifically for themselves. Why does anyone need more than $100,000,000 to live on?
16
@LAM
Who are you to dictate how much money someone is "allowed" to have? People who demonize the rich don't consider the number of jobs that these people generate for others while they pursue their line of business. Those jobs create money and that money is taxed.
3
@LAM
Who are you to dictate how much money someone is "allowed" to have?
Anand,
Beautifully written, thought provoking piece.
My thoughts:
Money is important, but money in politics has not been good in perfecting how we govern ourselves. Free markets with fair, open access to products and services that markets prefer would seem to be a great system for every person to achieve a good life, especially the concept of families working together to nurture children created by the instinctual biologic urge to reproduce that we homo sapiens share with all species. My sociobiological instincts tell me we must work together for our species to survive.
Greed might be an instinct for our survival but I don't think so because it is regressive and in the end is not a productive way to share nature's resources. Therefore we need to govern ourselves in a system that allows us to consider how we behave for the greater good of most of the members of our species.
Financially successful people have been using government to abet their own industries by lobbying for regulations that harm their competitors and favor their enterprises, they also hold out the attraction of money to gain advantage by investing in the well known "revolving door. Money can do wonders in obtaining benefits in the tax code,. The end result in the yawning gap in income distribution and special preference for holding on to inherited wealth and retarding investment.
I strongly believe we would be better off by public financing of elections and restricting use of personal income.
7
I agree, personal money and PAC money should not be allowed in politics over a certain number.
So here’s my question: Since it is, we better not be naive and play the game well. Do you doubt that big money is on Republican side? So whether Bloomberg’s money goes to himself, or Warren, or Biden... IMO, it doesn’t matter. Everybody had better come down from their high horses and get real....
When we criticize the policies that Democrats say they support, it is all about the evils of redistribution.
We don't seem to recognize that billionaires are created by the evils of distribution. How we tax, what we tax, how we define or ignore monopolies, how we choose to tax profits on short term trades, how we choose to fund infrastructure, social programs, all work to create a billionaire class. Redistribution, distribution - all of them are essentially the result of political impetus, not some natural God given order of the universe.
People get rich through luck and skill. They get fearsomely rich through government policy.
Rich people are not bad people. But growing billionaires while strip mining the wealth out the middle class is bad policy.
19
Have you ever been to a country without private property or a country that doesn’t make anything? People that live in those places are risking their lives to cross the US border.
When government starts dictating what people make out of a sense of “fairness” there are a lot of unintended consequences. First it’s billionaires. Then when the money runs out, it’s millionaires, then when the money runs out it’s people making six figures, then when the money runs out it’s people living in homes larger than 2,000 square feet, and on and on and on.
The issue isn’t how wealthy the rich get, its ensuring that those who are employed are being paid fairly for their work in a way that they can do more than just survive.
Government controls the wages of civil servants. So if your locale pays teachers 25k per year, run for school board in your local community and raise the taxes and pay.
In the private sector, you are paid based on educational attainment, skilled trades or unionization. Fix the schools, build up apprenticeships and increase unionization and collective bargaining.
Stop whining about rich people owning companies and ensure people are getting the right skill sets to compete in a 21st century economy.
9
@Practical Thoughts
I agree!
Mr. Giriharadas' article reeks of condescension and elitism by concluding that advertisements determine the outcomes of elections. He, as well as those who profess that one is "buying an election", clearly know better than the majority of Americans. He has the insight to filter the truth from the exaggerations in a politician's advertisement, while the average American can't. We are all gullible but he knows better.
Interestingly, even his political consultant didn't have evidence to support his determination.
Also interesting is the results of the 2016 Presidential election: Clinton spent almost twice as much as Trump.
Perhaps Mr. Giridharadas should know his facts before further propagating the myth that money "buys an election" in our country.
5
@Michael Your sample of one (the 2016 Presidential Election) is laughable on its face. Let's sample instead the elections for every single Congressional seat and every single state legislative seat in every election from 2000 until today. What percentage of those were won by the person who spent less money on campaign advertising?
Money buys elections nearly every time. That's why politicians who want to win spend so much effort raising it.
7
The populists & socialists are just envious of what they don't have. Do you think Jeff Bezos points a gun to my head telling me to renew Amazon Prime year-after-year? Or perhaps the ghost of Steve Jobs promises to poison my first-born child if I don't buy the newest iPod, MacBook, iPhone, iPods? The American public, the entire world, willingly and deliberately puts money into the hands of those that produce desirable & useful products and services. Sanders & Warren, and Stalin & Mao for students of history, and those levying taxes, are those with a gun. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail.
Coming from a fellow 99%-er, you don't need that much money to survive well in the world. As someone in your 20's or 30's, you can take care of yourself in most major cities or towns with $1-2k per month. The random person off the street doesn't need or deserve a piece of the billions that Jobs and Bezos and others amassed. Yes, not everyone can live in San Francisco or NYC, or get VIP treatment at UCSF with a doctor of every specialty on speed-dial, or free education at Harvard, or have eight kids and three bulldogs. If you want nice things, you have to earn it.
Similarly, the vast majority of the millions of employees that "enriched" Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc. didn't do so under duress. The billionaire-founders paid their employees. Employees can always quit. We all make choices about our lives as free agents; we don't get to claim "exploitation."
6
No one can amass billions without making obscene profits at expense of the customers.
14
“Obscene” profit levels are an opinion. The reason companies make high profits is because they are either an unregulated monopoly/oligopoly, or they have created a “temporary” competitive advantage in the marketplace and are reaping above average profits. So, government should be proactive in preventing mergers and acquisitions that limit competition and encouraging more entrepreneurship to increase innovation and competition.
To be sure, there are criminal organizations and cheaters. But that would be a breakdown in regulations and law enforcement, not a flaw in e capitalist model.
3
@Turgut Dincer
I strongly disagree. It is possible to pay employees fairly while making a very desirable product/service.
6
Has another guy wrote, do you have a Amazon membership? Do you shop at Costco? Do you go to Home Depot?
If you do, you are supporting billionaires and millionaires. No one is holding a gun to your head.They had good ideas, and made it happen. Stop blaming them. If you had the idea, I bet you do the same darn thing. That’s the system we have had since day one. And you’re not gonna find a better.
The only difference is some of them give back, and some of them don’t. I would support the ones that do.
1
I have no issue with billionaires. I am working to become one. Does that make me bad? No.
And isn’t it the American dream for many to successful with money in the bank? Let’s get over this and see who can get the job done. I’m voting for Mike, I have seen him get the job done. He’s also an example of hard work pays off. He has a business.
The other Democrats choices do not.
2
@Oh My "I am working to become one." This is the kind of aspirational idea that actually has many Americans deifying the rich. They think they can actually become one of them. I don't have a problem with wealth or an overall capitalist system.
But you will never be a billionaire.
14
@Rebecca
I may not become a billionaire, but I don't NEED to become a billionaire to build wealth for myself and my family. Unlike others, I don't care if there are people in this world who have more money than I do. I VERY MUCH CARE that I have an opportunity to work as much as I want and to be free from being demonized for my success.
4
My father was a sheet metal worker from OK with a HS education. I’m no Bloomberg but worked my to the “millionaire” group through hard work and education. Who are you to say someone will never be a billionaire?. Someone right now is working on the next Google, Amazon or Uber.
"When I texted my friend Alexander Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of California, Merced, to ask if any scholarship could shed light on Mr. Bloomberg’s method of campaigning, he answered: “Most of the work on buying votes is about the developing world, which perhaps the U.S. is joining.”
This might be news to Americans but the U.S. stopped being a rich country at least 30 years ago. It is a third world country populated by a bunch of billionaires. As an immigrant from a developing country I know this first hand. Elections can be bought.
If this state of affairs continues I can see a day when rich politicians ship cash to poor communities or buy them some consumer device to keep them sedated. This happens in developing countries every election.
Which is why when I read about the pining of op-ed writers and commenters here and in the Washpost lionizing Bloomberg I get a massive case of indigestion. How did we get here?
12
If you think America is a third world country then you have obviously never been to one. Even the poorest American is vastly better off then 90 percent of people in the world.
1
The assumption that any candidate with enough money can convince you, through endless campaign ads and internet/twitter chatter, to vote for them, says less about the candidate in question and lot more about societies ability to make good choices. If an election can be bought through advertising then the electorate sold out. We need to do better, ignore all the ads and vote on policy.
7
This election needs to be about virtue and healing. Social change and reform at the federal level will still take the back seat, no matter the result. Experience, populism, wealth . . . No. I want to see level-headed, pragmatic leadership that's about shared values, not about who we are against.
2
I saw a statistic that opened my eyes. If you have 0 dollars in 2589 BC and started saving 10,000 dollars every day 4609 years later in 2020 you would only own one fifth of the average fortune the top 5 richest people .
8
@gene
What? You are obviously not including any sort of interest rate. Your arguement is not valid.
1
Yesterday Joe Scarborough and Donny Deutsch played the clip of Michael Bloomberg attacking Bernie for being a millionaire with 3 houses. They agreed that it was a winning moment for Bloomberg. I was sickened by their reaction. Most people have no idea what a billion dollars is. The other day I explained to my students that if they were born in 1492 and made $5000 every, single day from then until February 2020, they would still not have a billion dollars. My students were horrified. They agreed that nobody earns or deserves or needs this much money. My students, many of whom are enthusiastic Bernie supporters, know the difference between having a summer home and hoarding an obscene amount of money. The MSM needs to start making this distinction clear. A senator who made a million dollars from the sale of a book and a mayor worth 60 billion dollars don't live on the same planet. If my students are representative, the next generation does not admire the uber-wealthy. They know that billionaires have left them with the catastrophe of climate change and unaffordable college. They know fellow students who eat at food banks and donate their plasma weekly to pay their bills. The NYTimes refuses to support Bernie, but he will be the Democratic nominee because most Americans are sick to death of the injustice of grotesque income inequality.
836
@susan smith Do the math, it just a little more than $175 per person. What a big deal is the national deficit and debt.
1
@susan smith Yes indeed, re most people having no idea what a billion dollars is. And it only gets worse as one goes larger from there. A million of dollars or whatever seems like a lot. A billion, well, seems like a lot. A trillion seems like a lot. So the ginormous difference between say a net worth of 60 million dollars and Bloomberg's 60 billion dollars goes unrecognized. Or for that matter the difference between that and our national debt of 22 trillion dollars.
Perhaps we (and the media especially) need to more commonly break these down into sub-component pieces that are, well, more relatable. Bloomberg's 60 billion dollars equals the combined wealth of 60,000 millionaires. Our 22 trillion dollar national debt equals the combined net worth of 22 million millionaires.
Perhaps this will facilitate understanding of just how grotesque indeed it is for anyone to have a billion or more dollars in a country where half of all households have a net worth of less than 100,000 dollars and 40 percent of households couldn't cover a $400 emergency expense.
Oh but then an Opinion piece in Bloomberg.com (June 4, 2019) -- where else -- argues that the latter is simply a myth. That really a lot more people would be able to handle it by say *borrowing* the money (that it really isn't about having the actual $400 on hand). So sweet of Bloomberg's news empire to provide this clarification.
62
@susan smith:
You self-admitted to being a teacher. FIrst, kudos and much thanks for your hard work, dedication, and personal sacrifices (including financial ones, paying for school needs out of your own salary).
Given that, your views are quite clearn and more than likely influence (dare I say, shape) the views your students have. Your view that "all billionaires are bad" -- is bad. There are some billionaires, as in every subset of humanity, who are not only good but very good. There are several billionaires who made their money not destroying the planet and crushing people below them. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Michael Bloomberg all come to mind. Each of these billionaires spent a significant part of their lives trying to improve the world and to help the most underprivileged. Bloomberg is doing it now, and also trying to save America -- from one terrible person and the existential crisis that unhinged criminal created.
I suspect your altruism and personal choices made you unaware that you're limited way of thinking affects and hurts your students. Instead, please give them a critical eye to assess things, to see that no seemingly homogeneous group is entirely dark. The simplest concept is that of the "normal distribution" ("bell curve").
All billionaires are not bad.
Some are great for society!
Sometimes we must focus on the immense good being done, and forgive lesser "bads" from the past.
A muddy billionaire trumps a violent fake billionaire. ANY DAY!
34
In reading this article the concept is lost that it is not the billionaire class that was created in the 80's and 90's that is the issue. It is simply to beat trump. His actions are a danger to all. It is not just what I call the 40%er's who watch TV incessantly and follow the crowd but that our system is being undermined from within. Trump adapted and learned a lesson, that scorn and ridicule will allow for him to succeed. The GOP is feckless, impotent against trump. The impeachment was always just a show. It seemed more of a you impeached ours now we can impeach yours, simply tit-for-tat politics. In 2020 political ideology should take the focus of who can best take on trump. Neither Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren,Amy Klobuchar, have the tenacity, street smarts, or simply the ability to throw their careers away to get dirty against Trump. When dealing with garbage you will get dirty. These individuals value their careers and future, too much to get nasty with trump. Bloomberg has nothing to loose, he uses his own money and is not owned by any one. He can I'm my humble opinion get into a street fight with the big kid from the building next door. This is just an old fashion knock down drag-out street fight from uptown. Someone is going to get bloodied, bruised, miss a few days of school, and get their ego hurt, hopefully we all will be able to close this chapter in the history books and move on.
2
I see a number of comments along the lines of 'people should be free to make as much money as they want' and feel an important point needs to be made.
No one 'earns' a billion dollars. If you worked a 50-hour week every week of your life for 50 years you would have to be earning $10,000 an hour to earn a billion dollars.
No one who is a billionaire got their money solely through their own work. Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg might have had the idea for Amazon or Facebook, but they did not create it by themselves, a legion of other people worked under them to make those companies what they are today.
People in the creative industries have slightly more claim to have earned their wealth themselves, but even then there is an element that is not just their own work. J.K. Rowling is the richest author ever, and a good chunk of that is book sales, but another substantial portion is royalties from the films, from toy sales, etc.
Also, don't forget that to build a billion-dollar company you are relying on public schools to educate your employees, public roads to ship your products to consumers, publicly funded firefighters to put out the fire at your building, public utilities to provide running water, collect the trash, etc. And last but not least you are reliant on a population that has enough disposable income to buy whatever it is you're selling.
33
@Alan
The billionaires pay taxes on everything all along the way to becoming billionaires. They provide jobs fir many people and those salaries are taxed. They provide goods and services, which we all enjoy and which make our lives easier. Stop being envious!
1
If Bloomberg gets elected then we'll finally have a billionaire president
7
Them. Yes. Of course the world belongs to billionaires. But at least with Michael Bloomberg we’d be rid of Donald Trump and his cronies and horrendous progeny and we’d have a president who would appoint educated appropriate candidates to his cabinet. In order to defeat Trump the rest of us need to unite.
5
I am more scared by fake billionaires like Trump.
In any case it's not a question of bank account; it's about his/her integrity, transparency intelligence. Trump has none of these qualities and it's evident.
4
@armandol Trump is a daddy gave it me me billionaire. He certainly doesn’t have any brains or skills except for being a crook.
DONALD TRUMP is A FAKE.
2
Just FYI, Bloomberg is releasing women from the company's NDAs.
Pay attention - this is a man that can think, reflect and change. What a concept!
3
@www Bloomberg has integrity and he’s the man to make Trump cower and run. Go Mike!
A billionaire with integrity is 10 times more valued than another billionaire with none.
5
Why is the left so obsessed with how much other's make? if they paid their taxes and obey the law, who cares what your neighbor makes.
I am far more concerned of the inherent evil of socialism where the state sees itself as the paragon of virtue. Where politicians and bureaucrats claim power over people's life to instruct them what to do in life for an occupation, where and how to live, worship, how much you and your family can make, and how and when you will die (healthcare rationing).
4
@rvu For at least 2 important reasons:
1) Because billionaire's use their tremendous wealth to accumulate even more economic wealth and exert monopoly power on markets. That defeats competition and harms consumers, reduces economic efficiency and economic growth, as well as reducing opportunities for everyone.
2) more importantly, billionaire's use their wealth to consolidate political power and destroy democracy. They use wealth to buy politicians, scientists, think tanks, non-profit groups, and government regulators regulators tori the system in their favor and against you. This leads to more pollution, destruction of natural resources, and climate catastrophe.
11
@Bill Wolfe
So, you are saying that it is bad for private citizens to have that amount of wealth and influence, but you are totally o.k. with handing complete control of large sections of the economy over to one entity....the government? Exactly HOW is that different?
1
@Lyn Robins "The government" is no "one entity: It is composed of elected officials that are accountable to the public via elections and lots of laws on transparency and procedural due process. Civil servants are required to be qualified technically for their work and are subject to all kinds of due process and accountability related laws. That is FAR different from government under an oligarch authoritarian like Trump or Bloomberg, who cater to Wall Street and corporate power, not serve the needs of people.
9
Please, just stop. The whole Bernie Sanders billionaires-are-horrible-and-should-not-exist shtick needs to just stop. Even the much-admired Scandinavian countries have plenty of billionaires, per capita. I don't give one whit if someone made a billion dollars - I care about their platform and values and competence.
265
@Jack. It is not about a person having a billion dollars Sanders takes issue with; it is about the outsized influence on political life and economic life he is criticizing. It is a system that allows one to essentially buy an election, or avoid paying taxes, for example. More wealth for the wealthiest while the decline of the middle and lower classes damages our way of life: optimism about the future, stress on families, including the horror of being unable to care for the older and sick, ability to support and educate children! To have self respect! Sanders wants fairness for all.
104
@Jack The founder of Ikea left Sweden when they were Socialist in the 1980's..the last time Sanders has a memory of Sweden.
Since then the Nordic countries have gotten rid of Socialism.
They're still huge welfare states with incredibly high taxes, but they're also very homogenous populations with each country having about the same # of people as Minnesota..with 90%+ white AngloSaxon Protestants who speak the same language and share a single culture.
If Sanders wants to run as President of Denmark..he should give it a go.
17
@Jack
When they buy favoritism and own our gov. it becomes a problem. When our leaders sell out to those with money, it becomes a problem.
It is human history repeated over and over.
Civil Society shouldn't have billionaires, because civil persons wouldn't/shouldn't hoard that much money.
We regulate everything to keep a civil society.
Taxing wealth to keep so much money from being out of circulation and it's corrupting influence is in society's best interest.
71
"This is thanks to the financial crisis, to endless wars cheered on by corporate and media elites and to yawning inequality."
Yes Billionaires caused these problems and more, they've corrupted our democracy and ruined the economy for all but themselves.
The bottom 50% of the population has a negative income stream because of debt, while the top 1% takes home 40% of all income — and that's just income, it gets uglier when you look at who owns property.
They have to go, and in their place a nation where a 40 hour a week job gets you a house, a car and an education— with at least two weeks paid vacation and no fear of medical bankruptcy.
The pitfalls of contemporary american life are not normal or ordinary, they are extraordinary, a national shame. This doesn't happen in other advanced economies. It's time to stop treading water in fear and get our tradition and something of our soul back.
15
Think what it must be like to be a multi-multi billionaire: You could peel off just 40 % of $1 billion, never miss it, and inject $400 million into a presidential campaign.
Isn't it obvious that some campaign finance reform is overdue in America? Currently, in America, money talks more so than the people actually talk. Something perverse involving extreme wealth is on vivid display. Where is the anger? When will the U.S. electorate declare that this condition cannot stand?
11
It’s not the billionaire’s fault that politicians can be swayed and bought, and favorable laws and tax breaks are passed. Politicians are elected to work for the benefit of the public, and that’s what every politician talks loudly about and promises before the election. They are the ones who are really responsible for the outcomes. Don’t let them try to shift the blame.
2
Giridharadas asks us regular people some good questions about billionaires. My feeling is that as billionaires insert themselves so heavily into our politics with their outsize money and power, they are, unwittingly or not, robbing the collective of our power and voice. At the same time, they sort of hover above the citizenry, with their money, which, according to Citizens United, equals their voice, deciding what's best for us--which causes they think we should address, which ones they believe deserve their generosity, when really those decisions should rest with the collective, the many instead of the few. I think us wage earners and humble, anonymous citizens are sick to death of it--I know I am--and would like to get some control over our own destinies rather than have the paternalistic billionaires deciding for us. We want the system to be for us. If they want to come down here and join us, here in our lowly apartments with our cheap but serviceable furnishings and Nissan Versas, or in our tents with our shopping carts, they are welcome. But they'll have to give up their billions and help give us back our voices in our democracy.
15
Mayor Bloomberg, and his billions, are fine by me.
But ... not as a Presidential candidate, at least for what should be a sane party.
His ... approaching half a billion dollars ... on ads and promos is warping what existed only a few months ago.
Bernie has his pack of followers, but I am not sure how many more people will be voting for him when it comes time to have an actual primary vote, rather than song and dance caucuses.
Bloomberg's efforts seem to be draining support from ... well, Sen. Warren, who I really think would be a great POTUS. And most everyone else.
I don't believe that Bloomberg has much of a chance to get the nomination, and if Bernie gets nominated, I will vote for him.
I really don't like much about his potential as POTUS, but at least I won't sit out voting, as it seems many of his followers did in 2016.
But if we don't win the Senate, Sen. Sanders will be #1 on the "mostly like not to succeed at most anything" list.
8
I'm seeing quite a few top comments defending Billionaires and the 'good they have done' written by regular people.
To those people...
I understand your point that not all Billionaires inherently evil schemers with bad intentions. But please understand the system that allows anyone to amass that much wealth is unjust and immoral.
Billionaires don't accumulate that much wealth on the basis of their hard work and success alone. Let's talk about how:
In many cases, they were able to create conglomerate monopolies, denying others access to competitive markets. Look at Amazon, Walmart, and yes even Bloomberg LP.
In other instances, they are able to utilize their wealth to shift congressional priorities away from anyone who isn't already rich. This comes directly at your expense and at the expense of the middle-class and lower-middle class.
They are able to funnel earnings into tax-havens and off-shore accounts to ensure their wealth is hidden. Imagine what would happen if you (a regular person). In most cases, Billionaire pay less taxes relative to their income than you or I do - how is that just?
Finally, think about why Billionaires donate and create these charities. In Mike Bloomberg's case, it's one of legacy and political influence - writing checks in order to cash in favors. In other instances, it's nothing more than a tax write off that brings good press.
Open your eyes and realize these 'gods' are actually 'monsters'.
19
“Please understand that a system that allows anyone to amass that much wealth is unjust and immoral.” Please understand that it is not. Please understand that the author grew up in Shaker Heights and went to Harvard. Stop acting as if regular people’s glamorization and heroization of billionaires is an odious form of false consciousness. The well-off leftists in this country, who are mostly white, do exactly the same thing in reverse: Anyone who is poor, who is underprivileged, who’s a member of a minority group, is immediately heroized. Do we, these well-off white leftists demand to know, have any idea how much this person has been through, how dignified they’ve been in the face of injustice?
Do you think poor people don’t appreciate Walmart? And do you yourself not have an Amazon Prime membership? Big companies are extremely responsive to the public, even allowing people to take advantage of them repeatedly—all to satisfy the customer. The problems of wealth influencing the political system are inherent to a representative democracy like this. We can try to do the best we can to prevent it, but our failures are not nearly as stark as you imagine. And setting an upper boundary on wealth accumulation is a bad idea.
@Josh
Unjust and immoral? Who are you to judge how much money someone can have while still being just and moral?
Check out Lloyd Blankfein. A newly minted lowly billionaire. He did God’s work at Goldman Sachs. Now he says he would vote for Trump if Bernie is the democratic nominee. Because he says “Trump at least cares about the economy.” Whereas Bernie cares about the welfare of the 99 percent including their share of the economy.
I hope now God does his own work and we’ll see how Blankfein fares.
17
My worrying niggle about the possibility of Bloomberg as President is this:
Billionaire CEO's really don't listen to 'The Little People'.
They listen to their EQUALS-- who tend to be the other Important people sitting at the Table in the Boardroom.
There comes a point when the number of zeroes before the decimal point changes the way a person sees 'The Rest of Us'
We're either 'Little People' who can be moulded by the Marketing Dept, or we're the Employees who just need to obey.
We do not sit in the Boardroom with the other 'Equals'
A Billionaire CEO can actually CARE about the 'Little People'...but they don't need to and generally do not ASK US for our Opinions. Mayor Bloomberg was a better and good choice at the time versus the other candidates for Mayor...but a lot of New Yorkers got rubbed the wrong way when he started basically declaring policies as edicts: Remember the Sugary Drink thing?
Yeah, Sugary drinks are bad for us...but he was the Billionaire CEO who told us that in order to be healthy employees (Scratch!) excuse me-- CITIZENS -- we needed to have sugary drinks taken away from us.
The Billionaire CEO Mayor had Decided and thus it will be done. Our opinions were not necessarily invited...
Granted, Trump is a Black Swan of just how BAD a Billionaire CEO President can be, but I'm not all that sanguine about having a repeat episode with 'President Mike'.
I have a VOTE. I'd prefer a President who will be inclined to LISTEN to ALL of US.
6
sanders revealed his true colors in the last debate. his rhetoric calling billionaires immoral is strictly socialist. sanders is not a democratic socialist but a dyed in the wool socialist. if sanders is the nominee (t)Rump will label him as such and will mop the floor with him. sanders electoral loss will rival that of McGovern. the democrats will fail to gain control of the senate and will lose control of the house. as the democrats lurch from one failed candidate (HRC) to another (sanders) they will turn the country over to authoritarian dictatorship.
2
@lonnie I think you have a bias against Bloomberg because he is a billionaire. Calling someone a billionaire is akin to calling out their race or color at this moment. I trust Bloomberg, he made his money. He did an outstanding pulling NYC through crisis.
1
@Oh My you completely misinterpreted what i was say.
So many folks wish we would stop bashing the wealthy. They're just successful, darn it! We should admire their hard work. And so many of them are so so generous.
Blah, blah.
There are decent billionaires (Steyer), so-so billionaires (Mike) and indecent billionaires who are not really billionaires (Trump).
The problem is neither their money nor what they do with it. It is the implicit and explicit values that led to and accompanied their gold bricked road. A billionaire, de facto, values money more than a president should. A billionaire has made decades of life choices that are more about self-interest than collective interest. A billionaire has a world view that differs in multiple ways from what a democratic republic should represent.
A billionaire is, by definition, a product of and advocate for a lightly or unregulated market, which is counter to the interests of a just society.
I'd vote for Bloomberg to get rid of Trump, but it's really just jumping out of the frying pan onto a very fine Viking stove top.
9
@Barking Doggerel
You are basically saying that billionaires have their money because they did something unethical or illegal. Those are pretty strong accusations and generalizations. What happened to all of that tolerance and encouragement of diversity. After all, diversity comes in many forms. Decide what you believe in and pick a team. You can't profess to support diversity and then attack a group of people for having money while basically accusing them of unethical/illegal behavior. This is somewhat reminiscent of how things started to go bad for the Jews in Germany.
If I design a widget and that widget solves a problem and people want to buy my widget and I build a company that sells that widget and I become a millionaire and invest my money wisely and invest in my business and innovate and sell more widgets and become a billionaire, does that make me inherently bad? Bernie Sanders sure seems to think so. Because Sanders unequivocally views all billionaires as somehow leeches who only got what they have through stealing from the masses. Yet he offers no proof whatsoever that this theft occurred at all. Jeff Bezos is a billionaire because he came up with a great idea, grew it and built it into becoming Amazon. Should he be "capped" in what he can earn? Amazon has made millions of Americans lives easier, every single day. Yet Sanders and his supporters only see corruption and evil. It's nonsense. You want to fix the tax code? Great, do that. But hating on successful people because they are successful is, well, absurd.
5
Like everyone else here I'll never be a billionaire- and full disclosure I'll never be a millionaire either. But I do not lament or consume myself with so much jealousy that I seethe and fume because someone has had the good luck, intelligence, and great idea to become a billionaire or multi-millionaire. Good for them! Living in a country that has billionaires is a country that has a type of energy and 'ether' that we all benefit from. The creativity is in the air, the probability is minimal, but the possibility is endless, and I marvel at being in the mix. BTW, all of you who snort and sneer over billionaires- I wonder what percentage of you will, as a matter of principle, give up your iphones, your itunes, your twitter, your facebook, your instagram, your snapchat, your paypal account. I thought so.
3
Julia,
How can you "not trust him". He has a loooong, public record to analyze. Look at the causes that he has contributed to and that he has committed to the Gates/Buffet pledge to give it away.
Being a billionaire might get you into the game, but you still need to campaign, debate, and win on ideas. Yang and Steyer have discovered this isn't so easy. Bloomberg is finding this out now. Since he isn't really a Democrat, the super delegates will finish him off regardless.
I am more concerned about the generational transfer of wealth creating future billionaires living off unearned income and the out-sized influence billionaires have via campaign and charitable contributions (see Bezos).
7
the real question your article somehow Misses is how do we remove an untrustworthy and divisive (among many other things) person from the White House and replace him with something better, whether he or she happens to be a billionaire or not. Personally I think there should Be a means to prevent someone from buying a political office including the presidency. But like most rules, sometimes there needs to be an exception, and right now is the time for such an exception, in the event the next person elected happens to be a billionaire, that is someone different than the person who is presently occupying the White House
Am I missing something here? Why are being rich, and caring for the needy, mutually exclusive? Franklin Roosevelt was considered a God in my mother's low-income Italian immigrant family, and he was certainly a patrician. Let's look at the candidates policies, not their pocketbook.
5
I've studied much of Franklin Roosevelt, and Michael Bloomberg is no Franklin Roosevelt
3
The US has always had a super wealthy class of industrialists and entrepreneurs. The key to moderating that wealth is taxation. High marginal rates on income, and particularly on capital gains, wealth, inheritance, and corporate taxes. Taxes were cut because of the Republican lie that to grow the economy, we had to reduce taxes on the “job creators.” Demand for products and services creates jobs, and demand starts from the bottom. If we redistribute that wealth, we create a vibrant economy that makes everyone better off.
5
"Let’s face it. You’re unlikely to become one of the billionaires. But you can choose whether to resign yourself to living in their country — or to remind them that they live in yours."
We have become of nation of idiots.
4
What is disturbing in this column, as well as from the Democratic debate this week, is how it somehow is OK to assume that we can distill the entire essence of a person down to the magnitude of their wealth. If we were talking about any other attribute - gender, race, religion, age, etc. - there would be howls of protest. But it seems to be perfectly OK to say that we can know everything we need to know about someone by knowing their wealth.
I didn't have a good impression of Mike Bloomberg from his performance during the debate, and I don't know if he is the best candidate for President. But one thing that is very clear is that Mike Bloomberg is very different from Donald Trump. You may think that Bloomberg or Jeff Bezos giving away billions of their wealth is self-serving, and perhaps it is. But what has Trump ever done with his wealth besides build more tacky monuments to himself?
Bloomberg's spending half a billion dollars on ads to attack Trump puts any kind of a dent in Trump's chances of getting re-elected, then he has already done a great service to this country, probably more so than the other 5 members of the Democratic circular firing squad on the stage Wednesday night.
3
@luomaike First this debate was a big joke. Second no matter what Bloomberg would say, the others were out to slander, crush and take away his speaking time. It was poorly run, the questions poor. No he did the right thing in being conservative. This was his first foray in the increasing circus tv appearances for politicians. Doesn’t matter he is getting his message across.
I don’t need screamers, cry babies, fake appeals to minorities - honestly they turned me all off. Bloomberg none of those antics.
Billionaire charity is funded by tax deductions to charitable foundations. Ordinary taxpayers, then, without significant tax advantaged charitable giving, are funding the so-called charity of billionaires.
Congressional policy enables this 'charity' with a pure abdication of their power and duty to make public policy.
Trump scammed the foundation game. Bloomberg, Gates, et al, make the case for the privatization of public policy.
In this rural part of SD, at least two public schools have been built only because of major funding of local foundations of individuals with foundations. Many school districts are not financially viable because of our dis-functional public school districts.
5
Billionaires are good, bad, and everything in between, just like anyone else. Whether or not you want a particular one to be President depends on where they fall in that spectrum, just like anyone else.
As for wanting more or less billionaires - pretty much everybody wants at least one more, themselves. That's why 371 million Powerball tickets were sold for a $1.5B jackpot in 2018. Yes, that's more tickets than there are Americans.
The real problem isn't with billionaires or how much money they have, it's that they're not spending it. (The Velocity of Money has been going down for 30+ years.) When they invest it's in companies that don't spend their money either - Apple has $202 Billion-with-a-B in cash right now and very many companies are just buying back their own stock.
If billionaires have so much money that they don't have to work that's OK but, their money should. Problem is, they have a whole lot of really Lazy Money sitting around doing nothing.
4
I have never understood the belief held by some that wealthy people don't want to be wealthier. Of course they do, that kind of drive is what helped get them were they are, along with a ruthlessness most people don't possess. Does a champion athlete not want another championship? Please, people.
7
People should be free to make as much money as they want, and everyone else should mind their own business.
We forget that billionaires make money by providing goods and services to others. They do things that others find VALUABLE.
If a person or company provides a product that is valuable enough that people choose to spend billions of dollars on it, how is that the fault of the billionaire?
Stop pulling the other crabs down.
166
@Chase Boyd
I doubt if anyone has a problem with what you claim if people's ability to earn large sums of a money was the only issue, it is not. The issue is when wealthy people and corporations can take some of that money and lobby politicians to enact an agenda(tax policy, de-regulation etc.) that strictly serves the interest of the them at the expense of everyone else, in which case, they can greatly advance their agenda and speed up the amount of wealth and how it is accumulated.
173
@Deus
So we push for campaign finance reform.
21
@Chase Boyd If people who made large amounts of money couldn't game the system to divert further amounts of money to themselves, that would be one thing. But it's demonstrably clear that's not the case. That like a blackhole, high concentrations of money gravitational vacuum up everything that's around it.
These arguments aren't about capitalism, because in classic capitalism, no one has the power to do that. It's about plutocratic governance.
I happen to like what Bill and Melinda Gates contribute to, yet I don't see why Bill, for all his briliance, should be determining so much of this country's policies through his strategic investments of money that would have otherwise gone to the commonwealth and subject to the decision making under a democratic republic. If you don't agree, just be honest with yourself that you've given up on democracy. Benjamin Franklin was so right when he said "A Republic -- if you can keep it."
124
Should we really frame our election into a battle of opposing mega-haves and have nots? It may paint part of the picture, but misses the essential consideration of the quality, character and leadership capability of the individual. Let's face it, the current self-trumpeting Trumpian leadership is borderline treasonous. It makes a travesty of our legal system, and it mocks the the idea of hard-earned wealth and the meaning of elite as anything other than entitled through wealth and privilege. (Realistically, we don't even have Trump's tax returns, so we don't really know what a fraud he may be.)
I'm personally not interested in their wealth as much as I am in their vision to restore our country. I don't expect ideals. I expect to measure our candidates in terms of their strengths and weaknesses, their sense of measure, resourcefulness and humanity.
2
In the US, the land of opportunity, everyone or almost everyone wants to strike it rich. Whether it's by winning lotto, coming up with a great idea, becoming a sports star, etc. The fact that there are billionaires means it's possible to strike it rich either yourself or by inheritance from someone who struck it rich. My only problem is when billionaires, like Bloomberg, try to buy elections. That's an absolute no-no. You don't have to abolish billionaires to keep this from happening. You just need effective campaign finance laws which includes limiting contributions by PACs. A better solution would be the government providing funding for viable candidates where everyone would get the same amount, and that would be all that can be spent.
I admire anybody who has made serious money, and I wish them well. The problem is not billionaires or millionaires. The problem is a tax system that rewards those with the most and punishes those with the least. The problem is a health care system that only works for those with the best jobs. The problem is a Congress who create laws that benefit their biggest donors, at the expense of every other working American. The problem is that we have trillions to spend on unlimited all-war-all-the-time foreign policy, while claiming we have zero to invest in education, infrastructure, or health care. We have a long way to go before our nation can say we offer fair and equal opportunities to all, but blaming the richest among us will do nobody any good.
5
I would rather vote for billionaire Tom Steyer than Bloomberg. He has done the work and has been actively working most critical issue, climate change, longer and more rigorously than any of the others. Except the other democratic billionaire. Hmmm.
1
I remember an era when America had a vast middle class. Granted, there were lower and upper middle class families, but there were few really rich families. Somehow, social strife was diminished. We can't turn back the clock, but we can increase the minimum wage and generate a surcharge on incomes over $1 million to trim the extremes of income and move the population closer to the center income-wise. When we stop venerating wealth, we can start once again venerating character, that forgotten American virtue.
5
You must have been in a different 1960s and 1970s than the rest of us. I do not remember any reduced social strife.
2
This is not Star Wars where Luke Skywalker can destroy the Death Star with a luck shot and the Force behind him, or David takes down Goliath. This is a battle where size, strength,and cunning matter. It may seem unfair, but we will need a billionaire to take down another.
We are past inequality. We are in the midst of a major hijacking of Americans' wealth.
Billionaires have monetized everything in this country, taking for themselves the value that exists in everything from companies and home mortgages to our jobs and personal automobiles.
The era of junk bonds and business takeovers took the wealth and left debt-laden companies.
Global corporate expansions and consolidations took the value out of labor and the middle-class, and left financial insecurity, higher cost for consumers, lower standards of living, and lower tax revenue.
Banks took the value out of our homes and left us with mortgages that couldn't be paid.
The "sharing economy" is taking the value out of private autos, extra space, etc. and leaving higher costs and risks.
Now, billionaires want the value in our personal data and leave us with the risk of our data being stolen and used against us.
Industrial jobs are gone. Service jobs are being replaced with technology and whole sections of the service industry are shrinking. Uber destroyed the taxi industry. Online retail has been decimating retail and Amazon is decimating online retail. Air B&B gave us higher housing costs and reduced supply. Corporate consolidations gave us job destroyers, not creators.
Billionaires now come for our government. They took our Congress and now come for our Presidency.
This may be our last chance to stop them.
10
@RMS
So much nonsense. Where is the personal accountability in your comments? When is it a human beings responsibility to make good decisions for themselves?
Instead of talking in platitudes, how about giving some real examples.....
@RMS Your comment is both chilling and Dead on!
1
@RMS Very well said.
1
This is an excellent piece, perhaps the best that I've read in the NY Times opinion section, ever.
The author deftly articulates, without preaching, the problem with American capitalism that has been brewing since Reagan.
I'm heartened to see (mostly) the younger generation, filled with hope, responding to Sanders' message. Sanders is right, of course. I, being older and much less optimistic, am rooting for Sanders but doubt that Americans will elect him.
Still, the young people are fighting the good fight--and the right fight.
As for me, I don't have enough energy or life left to hope much for America. But, from Europe, where life is better in every way than in America, I'll smile if Sanders manages a win, and I'll hope that Americans turn a corner after all.
9
This obsession about Billionaires is all about envy. Envy that someone had the luck (which is a huge part of the equation), skills and knowledge to succeed in a truly remarkable way. The obvious outcome of envy, if it's acted upon, is to re-distribute to make it "fair".
But there's a huge problem with that action. The actual results are not what people imagined them to be.
It would be wise to take a step back and look at what history has taught us about envy. I'm talking back in the day when living a life only the basics of what was needed mattered. Not the imaginary stuff like safe zones and fair trade double shot expresso's with dairy free milk.
All Abrahamic faiths have very specific clauses about coveting, which is an ancient term for envy. And they all say the same thing - Don't. There's a reason they all say that, because in the simplest of times it was obvious that taking from the haves and giving to the have nots does not address or correct what is wrong. Period. Even other early religions, like Buddhism, had similar observations.
Yet the electorate continues to choose to ignore real history and instead put their faith in those who are, essentially, false prophets.
3
@Mark This obsession you claim is because of the boot on our necks!
1
The problem with many of the very wealthy who decide to become politicians is that they are convinced they are smarter than everyone else because of wealth.
There is nothing inherently wrong or corrupt by a wealthy individual deciding to become a politician and getting elected. We've had wealthy and relatively poor presidents.
But the best presidents have had real political experience prior to becoming president. They had political experience that gave them some humility. (At least Bloomberg has had that experience, although his "performance" in the debate suggests he "lost his fastball.")
What a surprise? Trump has had no creditable, real political/public service experience prior to becoming president, and he has no humility.
The fact that 60 million +/- believed voting for Trump made any sense for our country continues to astonish and frighten.
Let's hope Trump's real support has dwindled.
3
We also need to ask the reverse of this question that Giridharadas poses in the piece:
"Do you think being incredibly wealthy makes you immune to corruption, or prone to it?"
It's equally important to ask:
"Do you think corruption creates incredible wealth? Is it even possible to amass that much wealth without some amount of corruption involved?"
I think we all know the answer.
4
The normal solution to the problem of wealth is growth, so there is enough for everyone to have more. This solution is not working because most of the growth goes to those who already have much; they run things, and do so in such a way that the growth first and mainly enriches them.
This solution is also failing because our growth is straining the planet, so that our powers will increasingly have to be deployed adapting to changing climates and repairing what these changes damage.
So we need different solutions to our problems of wealth, and many of the wealthy (and many of the rest of us) prefer our current solutions and refuse to think outside the box or tolerate the spread of outside-the-box thoughts. We will fight this fight while our environment morphs under our feet and finally produces the population crash that will replace our problems with less pleasant ones.
The default solution to climate change is the individual one -- make enough money to buy yourself and your family and hangers-on a place in wherever on earth is still relatively livable, and keep most others out. This is what we get if we dont make something else happen.
2
"Do you think we shouldn’t have billionaires or should have many more?"
We shouldn't have billionaires. Keep reading.
"Do you think being incredibly wealthy makes you immune to corruption, or prone to it?"
Being incredibly wealthy alone makes you corrupt. It gives you tremendous economic and social power, substantially more than most people. Case and point is Mr. Bloomberg. He bought women's silence via NDA's and actually thinks that is consensual. He is oblivious of how he welds power and money to control others. Bloomberg is basically trying to buy the election. When questioned on his wealth, he says he gave it to charity. Which as Anand pointed out means Bloomberg bought influence. Billionaires are inherently corrupt and are way to powers.
"Or do you believe we need to take away a great deal of billionaire wealth to give millions a better life?"
Given how at the moment most of the wealth is going from the working class and middle class to the 1%, and given how much power billionaires have, we need to take their wealth away. Without question.
"Do you trust a news media that sells advertisements to billionaires etc to inform you properly about the level of power billionaires have and what to do about it?"
No. But ever since the internet and 24 hour news cycle I haven't trusted the news media anyways.
"Do you believe only a billionaire is qualified to solve the problems billionaires helped create?"
No. I'm skeptical. Foxes guarding hens.
6
What wealth are Bloomberg News, Microsoft, Apple or Facebook taking from the working class? I would bet most working class people, other knowing Mayor Bloomberg is a billionaire, could not describe how his business works or how he made his billions.
1
Could journalists please stop repeating the absurdity that Bloomberg (or any other billionaire) is “buying the election” ? No votes have been cast, no votes have been bought. Bloomberg used his ads to remind people that he has been a successful moderate mayor, and people chose to give him a chance (through opinion pools) to speak to them directly, in a debate. The result has been rather lame and the people will certainly take that into account when they vote. If Bloomberg did not have a solid record to remind people of, he would not have made it into the debate. If he continues to disappoint in the debates, we will be quickly out of them, let alone be the Democratic candidate. The same thing was said earlier of Trump, that he’s going to buy the election, because he pretends to be a billionaire. I hope at this point everybody realizes that, unfortunately, Trump didn’t buy the election - people actually voted for him. It would be reassuring to know that somehow he won only because of his money.
2
The "Magic Sauce" of our unique and precious American democracy has been the dedication of all citizens, particularly the wealth, to the ideals of the Rule of Law which itself is sustained and protected by integrity, honesty, and belief in a better life for all.
This has been made possible by a set of core values which we as Americans have generally held as fundamental to our society.
Have we lost our moral compass and allowed our core values to be eroded away by greed, ignorance, anger, hate and apathy? It seems that this is the case.
We need to rebuild from the ground up, starting at home, in schools and at all levels of government.
3
Personally, I could care less what a candidate is worth.
Whether it is Pete Buttigieg who's maybe worth $300,000 at best, to Bernies Sanders 2.5 million dollar wealth or Bloomberg's 65.5 Billion valuation, the two most important things to me are:
1- Can he or she beat Trump
2- Can he or she do the job.
Any one of the Democratic candidates are more qualified than Trump, the alleged billionaire.
Mayor Pete is the most intelligent, best rounded and grounded of all Dems.
Bernie will be a disaster in the general election regardless of how well he does in the Democratic primaries. He is a tough sell to independents and moderates and scares the hell out of a lot of people, including a moderate Democrat such as myself.
Bloomberg certainly has the experience and the temperament to do the job. He is certainly lacking in the personality and perhaps PC department. The fact that he will be beholding to no one because of his financial independence is a plus in my book. As for past digressions, Trump has now set the bar so low that Mike is a saint by comparison. That doesn't excuse him, but perhaps it shouldn't exclude him if he can beat Trump and do a good job.
Biden worth maybe 9 million, and as much as I love him, has passed his expiration date.
Amy is cool and worth about 2 million.
And let's not forget Elizabeth Warren and her 12 million dollar net worth. She is a scary as Bernie.
Forget about the money. Who is going to beat Trump and undo the damage to done to our Nation.
6
If only we have a crystal ball, but we don't. Hence, electability is anybody's guessing game. You believe Sanders could not beat Trump, I believe none of the moderates could do that.
2
@yulia
Do the math
Democrats make up slightly more than 25% of the electorate. If the progressives, Sanders and Warren together are grabbing 50% of the Democrats, that only accounts for 12.5% of the electorate.
Republicans are about 25% of the electorate.
Independents account for 44% of the people who are registered to vote.
The other 5% or so, are undeclared.
About 90% Republicans claim they favor Trump. That's about 22.5% of the electorate.
Trumps 35% +/- will never budge. So they must be made up of the 90% of the Republicans, a smattering of Independents and a few others.
So what does all this mean in November?
The only path to a Democratic win is through the Independents and Moderate Republicans who have had enough of Trump.
Hilary lost in 2016, discounting Russian influence and any other factors, because she was a polarizing figure who people loved to hate. (The Russians certainly fanned those flames). Many Independents and more than a few Democrats held their noses and voted for Trump rather than vote for Hilary. A lot of voters stayed home. Many of the Sanders supporters did just that.
Sanders and Warren will have the same chilling effect on the Independents and moderates of both parties. We cannot afford to take that risk.
Put your ideals aside for now and make getting Trump out of the White House the priority,
1
BFD....and by that I mean, "basics first, darling".
The "basics" behind our present boom in bullying billionaires are: 1. the Electoral College and its prioritization of property over people; and 2. Wall Street and its prioritization of shareholder value over stakeholder value.
The computer age has exploded this imbalance in basic priorities into an unsustainable cavalcade of demagoguery, corruption and unfairness.
A new "basics first" deal would start with the elimination of the electoral college, the return of serious trust busting (starting with the tech and fin sector giants), and a tax code that incentivizes fairness, social investment, and de-carbonization.
DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim with oppressor) Don is the identified patient in the dysfunctional American family. A new "basics first" deal will help return vigor, health, and decency to our American family.
5
@Glen Barry What he said!
It's not the money, it's the power they have. And when a corrupt person with alot of money gets into the highest office in the land and gives away all of our tax money to the richest people in the country, including himself, with the blessing of other elected officials who gain monitarily by those cuts, it reeks of corruption and a broken promise to represent this country. Everything is for sale and nothing is sacred anymore. Our country feels small and broken. Climate changes rage on and grow while they party on their golf courses and country clubs selling away our public parks to big oil and not giving a damn about the kids who are drinking bottled water for years because the water from their faucets are poisoned. If these billionaires solved things that were helpful no one would care how powerful they are. But they tend to do things to make more money and gain more power on our backs, to the detriment of our environment and risk our children's lives in doing so. We have serious problems in this country and world so if they can't help, they should get out of the way and let people run the country who are willing to do the hard work and make a difference.
3
@kay
First of all, Trump isn't a millionaire. He is a corrupt wannebe millionaire.
Trump is not the problem.
The problem is Mitch McConnell and the rest of the corrupt Republican party who are enabling Trump and allowing him to run roughshod over our Constitution.
The Republican party found the golden goose with Trump and they are not about to kill it.
They all need to shown the door in November.
Then maybe they need to be shown the door to a jail cell.
1
And so, the succession of billionaire candidates continues from 2016.
President Lachlan Murdoch in 2024, anyone?
3
How do you "work really hard" for 68 billion dollars? I know people who work their tails off for $20 an hour, so Bloomberg worked thousands of times harder than they?
18
@John
You missing the point entirely. Bloomberg created something amazingly successful in a space that was under-served. He built a company around that idea. He invested in it. He employed thousands of Americans in the process. The company was very successful. He took millions and turned them into billions, not because he is a crook, but because he is smart. It has nothing to do with how hard he worked versus how hard you work. Don't penalize success. Fix the tax code, but don't demonize successful people. Perhaps, someday, you might be one.
Billionaires are billionaires for one reason only: they love money above all things. They are not better, smarter, or faster than anyone else, and there is a reason why they are mostly white men.
They honestly and laughably believe that they ARE better, stronger, faster than everyone else and this arrogance has them making the mistake over and over again that their money can fix things.
I would argue the exact opposite of what Bloomberg and Trump claim: billionaires are corrupt and corruptible precisely because they have so much money. When are we going stop believing in the myth of the self-made, honest billionaire and realize that they all made their money on the backs of the rest of us?
8
I submit Mr. Chase has missed his mark. No body want's to "get rid of" Billionaires. That is a bumper sticker distillation of the concerns of citizens all over this planet. While it does make good blinders to narrow the scope of his article, it necessarily avoids delving into what this election is all about and the differences w/c candidates and parties.. Frankly I'm a bit disappointed his editor didn't jump all over this. However, I must confess his audience is increasingly unlikely to either spend time to read his opinion in totality or comprehend the nuance had he sought to articulate it. I know not the solution, I know only the state of affairs us not as presented.
2
Clayton Edward Kershaw, a pitcher for the LA Dodgers, makes ~$10,000 per pitch per game. Since both Warren and Sanders are against free market price discovery they will no doubt want to regulate Kershaw's salary as well.
Meanwhile, Warren/Sanders propose giving free everything to everyone. Day after day Warren/Sanders shout (literally shout) their ability to price goods and services better than a free market. Such modesty they have! Gotta love politicians, especially these two!!
2
@Ok Joe How about this, Bernie: nobody gets to own three houses until there are zero people sleeping on the street. Nobody gets to accept campaign donations from "ordinary Americans" until all other "ordinary Americans" have their prescriptions paid for.
2
@Ok Joe Spoken from the Main Line Philly Capitalist"Profit before People"
What years does the Make America Great Again invoke?
I think it was in the 50-80s when tax rates were higher. Rich people had far higher percentages due. And the country grew and for most prospered. That's when it actually trickled down.
GHW Bush first used the slogan, "Let's, Make America Great Again". The difference I see is that Bush's rendition is an invitation to work together and Trump's is an order for others to 'Make" it happen.
But what years were those golden years and how did tax rates and government projects and administration affect "Great". What was great?
History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2020
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
2
Its not the income inequality...it's the cost of living and the artificial scarcity caused by rent seekers. There aren't any billionaires driving up my property taxes or demanding high property prices -- those are local individuals who would rather rent seek than actually do the work to put a team together (or be on a team) and innovate something that I'd like to throw my dollars at...like cheaper power, better transportation, clean water, public schools where taxpayer's children can learn rather than sit in study hall, affordable health care.
The principal reason to vote for a presidential candidate is to enhance the security and well-being of your country, the people you care about, and yourself. But there is an important secondary reason--to honor someone who has worked nobly and hard for those goals in the past, an honor bestowed as a worthy end in itself and to induce others to pursue a life of public service.
There is no shortage of experienced candidates with a history of achievement in public life. It is not necessary to take a position on the intrinsic value of billionaires in order to make the choice.
1
A person who gains their power and influence by purchasing it, rather than by being publicly elected, will never be accountable to the people, and thus is able to see themself as an expert on making massive decisions on the public's behalf just because they've accumulated wealth. This is ridiculous, as the entire concept of democracy is to have representatives of the public make group decisions, because they are beholden to the will of the people through elections.
We have all fallen prey to Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz' campaign that began in the 1990s to make insidious the idea that government is incapable of helping its people, and that private industry can do better. Guess who drove that campaign? Private industry.
No one should be a billionaire. No one should hoard that much wealth when more than 11 million children in the United States live in food insecure homes. Period. If we are in agreement that we want to be nation with a government, aka not an anarchy, and yet we have billionaires AND that many starving children, we have done something extremely wrong.
Most of us are not and will never be billionaires. Let's actually have some class solidarity. They sure do.
9
If government had been taking care of business, then Speaker Gingrich and Mr. Luntz would have been out of business. You don’t sell coal to Newcastle unless the people running the show in Newcastle are too incompetent to get it out of the ground.
1
A distinction that seems to have been lost by the socialists these days is the founding ideal of “equal opportunity” which is distinct and different than “equality”.
I think we need to make a playing field that is not stacked against everyday people. Government must do this via some combination of regulation, taxation and services. Clearly we do not have that at the moment.
But we make a serious mistake when we say simply that there should be no m/billionaires. Like it or not, those who become m/billionaires (not inherit it) tend to be pretty outstanding in some way and often push us forward as a society. Do the rewards of that come equally, no. Is life always fair, no. But would our overall level of wealth and advancement come at all without the possibilities that are enabled by freedoms that also allow for the possibility of billionaires to develop? Also no.
I know that Trump will not be spreading wealth by enhancing equality of opportunity in any way. We need to focus on having a sane government that guarantees equality under the law and fair treatment of its citizens for a little while. Overall economic equality would improve with those conditions. But I hope we still end up with some billionaires that got there by creating fabulous companies that create wealth for all of us to enjoy.
1
No one has made a billion dollars, let alone multiple billions, on the basis of their hard work alone. They've gained from a system equipped to benefit them. People complain about handouts for the poor while ignoring the handouts the plutocrats receive every day. Billionaires paying their fair share, contributing to the economy that gifts them for their wealth over and again, would allow for so many opportunities for those the system is rigged against.
Or you know, maybe Mike Bloomberg is a humanitarian with 64 sexual harassment claims against him that will make America a utopia.
9
Why do we have to have a discussion about wealth distribution and what to do about it and describe it in terms of class warfare?
Stop and Frisk made Bloomberg open to attacks as a racist. Where's the real discussion about how we are going to take guns away from a very large number of people who shouldn't have them?
If we dump our entire health care system for Medicare for all, what happens if it's not fully funded? How are we going to provide all the additional patients without a massive expansion of health care workers and facilities?
As someone who is very concerned about health insurance, health care delivery, climate change, public education, nuclear disarmament, gun control, international cooperation on pandemic, global warming and nuclear proliferation, how does having a food fight in the Democratic debate that looks a lot like class warfare solve the real issues we need to start getting laser focused on?
It's time to stop the class warfare, the war on elites and science and start attacking the enormous problems and opportunities that the future is presenting.
Trump has tapped into an easy way to win elections by forming all problems as us against them. In watching the Democratic debate last week, it seemed like they used Mike Bloomberg as a punching bag that reminded me of the Republican party under Trump.
We are heading for a disaster if we don't start pulling together and working to solve the great problems that are facing all of us.
4
Let's talk about the millionaires, who have mostly been made by the fact that the deductions of tens of thousands of dollars, or many times millions, because of the IRS Tax Code, of the over 70,000 pages that has given real estate entities like the Trump Organization, the Kushner Holdings, etc. the real estate deduction over the last 2 decades so that they have paid little, if anything in taxes. Then, there are people like the Clintons, and the Obamas, and others who give hundred thousand dollar, and more speeches, book deals, etc. that have huge deductions, which is the only way they became millionaires. No, the tax code in this country is legalized extortion, that gives subsidies, government transfers, deductions, and credits to oil companies, farmers, those with children, many times over. All of the economic upsurge in the world economy was mostly created by borrowed money to keep all of the above, including you and I living the high life, not a life that most people lived 50 years ago. Congress votes in legislation that gives tax cuts, and throws those working class, and middle class with lots of kids deductions to keep them pacified. We are now entering a global health crisis that will affect the economy, our $23. 35 trillion debt depends, not only on the government, the American people, but the Japanese, and Chinese to buy out debt, to finance our ongoing borrowing of 34% of our budget each year, than what we are collecting in revenue. $500 billion in interest!
4
All Billionaires Are Policy Failures when we have 552,830 people living on the streets, 27.5 million without health insurance, One in Five Children at threat of going hungry. They Are Criminals, the wage theft they have inflicted on their workers is the biggest crime of the modern world. Mafias and Dictators have nothing on them and the system they have created to perpetuate their wealth. One way Or Another, We will Win. It is not a question, The world is Ours, and we will deal with them, One way, or Another
3
See graph#2 at: bit.ly/EPI-study
It shows that from 1945 to 72 GNP grew 100% & the median (meaning everyone's) wage grew in lock step w/ it.
Since 72 the median wage has been flat tho GNP has grown another 150%, 90% of those gains flowing to the <1%.
Since some wages have gone up (health/tech) & some in good unions have floated (7%) it means that the vast majority of America's 160 million workers & their families have had to endure 48+years of declining expectations in an economy that has otherwise grown by 150%.
A 48+ year trend is not possible w/out the complicity of elites in both parties. Those elite's fear being pushed out of the governing class.
Since US GNP >$22 Trillion, at issue is whether >$10 trillion will flow into 10,000 families pockets (roughly $1 billion per rich family) or to 160 million workers' & their families.
The stakes could hardly be bigger.
As the paid elites falter in the face of Bernie's campaign - Bloomy's chosen to bypass the elite & run... not to fix the problem of concentrated wealth but... to perpetuate it.
Pre1972 was the era of FDR's demand side economics given us by FDR. (Presumably when America was great)
Post72 is the era of supply side (wage suppression) economics.
Bernie's campaigning for returning to FDR's demand side economics
It will benefit 160 million workers & their families.
How long does Bloomy & his ilk think they can starve out the entire population? Forever?
I smell angry mobs baring pitchforks in the future.
6
Didn’t you cover WW2 in 6th grade? During 1945-1972, our global competitors’ infrastructure was in ruins. You want to guess what started happening in 1972? Our competition starting bringing to bear the new weapons of improved facilities and process while our supposedly Golden Age created few new facilities and even fewer improved processes.
Great article. In order to make a mere 1 billion, the average US wage-earner making 50k a year, who is able to somehow save 100% of that amount vs. use it to live on, would have to work for 20,000 years to make a billion. Think about that. No one "earns" a billion. Money makes money and it starts to snowball at a certain point for individuals with investments in mostly stuff that is bad for the environment, and/or exploits workers, ie there is no profit in anything that is 100% or even 90% socially and environmentally sustainable and responsible. No billionaire can claim to be the one to fight for climate change, social justice and equal opportunity for all. The billionaire trying to buy the election is 100% beholden to Wall Street; that's how he made his billions, and continues to earn exponentially every minute without lifting a finger, while the average American cannot afford a $400 emergency.
8
@Leah Sirkin Let's use 1 million and 50 dollars to make your example more realistic. While it is true that 1,000,000 divided by 50 equals 20,000, your calculation fails to take into account a return on invested capital. Let's say that the goal is to accumulate a million dollars over a lifetime, from age 25 to 75 (50 years). How high would the return on invested capital have to be to turn a savings of $50 a year into one million dollars? It's 17 and 3/4 percent. That rate of return over many years is very, very rare. But, when an entrepreneur founds a business that is scaleable, satisfies a need that people are willing to pay for, offers an exceptional profit making opportunity, and offers barriers to competition such as the network effect, first-mover effect, the disruption from below of fat and happy industries, or the corruptibility of political elites, high rates of return can be realized. When good government is enforced, huge fortunes are made by satisfying widespread human needs. One can make a billion dollars without being immoral. It is the inheritance of a billion dollars that is immoral.
Money like power corrupts. A democracy must constantly be on guard against the corrupting influence of both.
The difference between EXPLANATION and PERVASIVNESS is tectonic.
In the first case you are trying to UNDERSTAND the system of values of the other side and find the logical mistake in their implementation.
The latter depends on the debating skills, meaning the endless repetitive distribution of the talking points and stubbornness without any real effectiveness.
In the first case we are embracing the others and truly communicating with our neighbors. In the latter we want confrontation and conflict.
Over the last four years the liberal left has been attacking the evangelical Trump supporters as the racists, xenophobes, misogynists and deplorables.
What are the evangelicals?
The Christians!
Here are the famous Jesus words: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Do the evangelicals truly believe that Trump as a billionaire could open the heavenly doors for them? Did he ever renounce his wealth and his sins?
The biggest problem might be that Trump truly believes he never did anything wrong in spite of Christ words that all of us are the sinners...
What makes you say Trump is a billionaire? Because he said so?
There has been zero evidence to back this claim, yet you happily regurgitate it as if it were fact.... feeding the myth and supporting a false, self-serving narrative.
3
Warren dominated the Dem debate. I'm puzzled why had previously she gone down in polls.
Bloomie just handed her an opportunity on a gold platter.
He is so habitually arrogant, that he hardly bothered to prepare for the debate---believing he didn't even have to. What a case.
He has no valid answers to his critics anyway.
We see from many comments that some Americans worship the wealthy. They've been 'carefully taught' to vote against their true interests. Quite a spectacle to witness.
2
Anand, you're going to get a lot of pushback from NYT readers, who can't stomach the thought of people they don't know getting health care because the system is working so great for them.
4
You must not read the NYT comments section very much to think that prediction will happen. Don’t bet the 401k on it.
STOP the bashing of those who have become successful!!
Maybe it's because of where we live in California where we see the good the billionaires do, but it troubles me that not enough people and especially some of the candidates, don't know this fact. There are what I deem the bad wealthy like Donald Trump who are the least altruistic and then there are the awesome billionaires who do so much good!
There are the William Hewlett's, David Packard's, (HP) who left ALL their BILLIONS in wealth to charity. Warren Buffet, Bill and Melinda Gates. Michael Bloomberg (yes THAT Michael Bloomberg), Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Dr. Priscilla Chan (a pediatrician) BILLIONS benefit so many Americans yet the media doesn't give that fact much attention.
Ever heard of Pierre Omidyar? Gordon and Betty Moore? John and Laura Arnold? Michael and Susan Dell? Jeff Bezos just gave 10 BILLION this past week to climate change causes.
How many reading my comments desire to be successful which would mean greater wealth? It's NOT the wealth but how it is used! We are lower middle class and give 10% of our income to causes we believe in because we know that to those that much is given, much is required!
What about the tens of millions of dollars the wealthy pay in state and local taxes? And how about we insist that the Federal Government spend the tax dollars they already get, better?
188
@Beth Grant-DeRoos
Even ONE billion dollars is an obscene amount of money for society to have allowed one person to amass. Independent of their being "good" or "bad" (and many of those you name are whitewashed "bad", but that's not the point of this letter.)
Not more than 20 years ago people with 1 or 2 hundred million were considered obscenely rich because they had so many multiples more than the average person that it was staggering. Today's billionaires ? That same multiple ITSELF multiplied by over One Thousand.
The notion of 1 billion is surreal to me. Multiple billions? Multiple people with multiple billions? Do you understand how much money is missing from the economy, that could be flowing to other people?
(Others, don't bother commenting that it isn't a zero-sum game. At these magnitudes it effectively is.)
141
@Beth Grant-DeRoos
Among western democracies, I suspect that it is only in the US that one would you find a large number of people who view robber barons as superheroes. I find it unfathomable. Essentially, you're arguing that a handful of people who accumulated monstrous fortunes through some combination of skill, luck, ruthlessness, and privilege (and of course, clever accountants), should have an outsized influence on the fate of the planet. Exploitative labor practices, tax dodging, rule-bending, and environmental despoliation--all are forgiven once the benevolent billionaire starts throwing a few million at his favorite causes (and thereby further avoiding the taxman). Have you really thought this through? Is that really the best way to run a modern democracy?
155
@Beth Grant-DeRoos wrote: " It's NOT the wealth but how it is used!"
No.
It's the wealth and how it was amassed.
THAT is where the greatest problem resides.
And to the point of how it's used, no single person or foundation should have that kind of overwhelming power to engineer private policy.
113
Bloomberg- as is the case with many billionaires, had an idea and the management skills to recognize and fill a need that people were will to pay for.
That opportunity is there for the rest of us as well.
3
Everyone's angry about billionaires, but no one supports the common sense steps we could take to make our society more egalitarian. Bloomberg may have "worked very hard," but did he work 10,000 harder than your average Joe who makes a mere $50K a year? Step No. 1: TAX the highest earners like the United States did in the 1940's-60's. They'll still be ultra rich, they just won't make more money than the GDP of many countries. But anticipate that the Republicans will gaslight their followers into believing taxation is somehow un-American.
7
I'm with Bernie. Or rather, I'm with the Nordic model. Much healthier life than Americans live.
6
So what, vote for a millionaire? I suspect none of these candidates come from truly humble beginnings and from my perspective, anyone making more than $100 K a year is a heckeva lot richer than me.
1
If someone had 10,000 personal cars, we’d decry it as obscene and unnecessary. If someone had 50 personal homes, we’d decry it as obscene and unnecessary. If someone owns 500 pairs of expensive shoes, we ridicule them. If someone bought $5,000 worth of groceries in a month for their family, we’d be shocked. If someone had 25 phones we’d wonder what was wrong with them. And yet few seem to have a problem with the fundamental concept of an individual having more money than they could (quite literally) ever spend in their lifetime. The existence of billionaires is proof positive that our economic system has gone over the cliff into a world absent of all reason—a world in which we decry excess of every kind except an excess of money.
7
We have ourselves to blame for this. . . mess. When I say we, I point the finger of blame squarely at the Republican populace. This government was meant to be governed for, by and of the people, yet an electoral majority of "the people" feel vindicated in putting their own selfish needs ahead of the greater good of the country. Kennedy's famous quote: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", is perversely inverted in GOP parlance and reframed as - ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for YOU!!! I'm quite certain Rome and Greece met similar ends via a similar lost and cynical faction of their respective governments failing to recognize the needs of the many over the needs of the few.
I don't so much mind a billionaire as president so long as he/she governs like a middle class American and recognizes the need to service the many over the few.
2
Please, the billionaires have earned their money and should be allowed to do with it what they like. Just as I earned my money and am grateful for social security ((which I paid for). It is not our business nor should we be involved in their choices. We are (proudly) a Capitalist's society and most of us pray that we stay that way. Leave the man alone--many of us believe he is our only hope to get this corrupt man out of office.
2
Some years ago I had just taken delivery of a BMW roadster and was driving home when a lady newspaper vendor standing at the traffic divider where I was making a left turn said to me while I waited at the light and bought a newspaper, "Beautiful car, I hope I can buy one someday". I like to think that with that attitude, she probably has by now. The job of whoever is elected is to nourish that kind of thinking.
3
Anand: Here is a reasoned argument that the rich exert far too much power, including through philanthropy.
Times Reader: Our house is on fire and we are talking about renovating! I absorbed nothing from this article.
2
You see everything through the lens of money. Bloomberg for example, is wildly popular in NYC and is a strong advocate for pretty much all progressive causes. But in your view, because he’s a billionaire and not an ideologue like Sanders, he’s akin to Trump. Your extremist mentality is part of the problem, not the solution to inequality. Bloomberg is a self made; a real American success story. And despite the fact that you don’t agree with it, it’s busked visionaries like him that have helped to make this country what it is. This is not to detract from people of lesser means, simply a statement of respect for the job creaters. Your views cross the line into unhealthy fixation.
6
We, or at least we should be, the government of the United States. People of extreme wealth who give large amounts of money away should not be the ones deciding where that money goes. We, the people, should be deciding that.
2
In a country where there are many people who can’t afford the medications they need to stay alive, an obscene amount of money is spent by people trying to get elected, supposedly to represent the people who can’t afford their medications.
5
I wish people would quit telling me what I think as a boomer. I don't think of socialism as bad shoes and gulags. I, too, think of Swedish healthcare and free education. Does each generation really think collectively all alike? I don't think so.
8
UNIFY. I happen to be a town where the billionaires come to play. They also happen to support the arts, give generously to non-profits and for the most part keep out of the way (the two weeks a year they are here). You wouldn't know them by their wealth (the showy ones aren't the billionaires). An election that centers on the Democrats vilifying the rich is a loser. The Republicans win on the economy and redistribution of wealth does not resonate with a majority of Americans. Bernie supporters still complain that Hillary stole the nomination. They did not compaign or give to Clinton and I suspect many of them sat out the election. We are already divided and don't need further divisive politics in the general election.
1
@Disillusioned the correct answer is "I'll opt for neither. I want to destroy Citizens United. I want elections to be publicly funded entirely ."
2
We hear about how Bloomberg is giving away billions through his philanthropy, much to progressive causes; how he eschewed a mayor's salary and would forgo a presidential salary; and how he doesn't need the money of little people.
Therefore, we are supposed to view him as a rich, do-gooder and brilliant businessman whom we should see as the obvious choice to replace our bigoted, mean, selfish, lying, dictatorial, morally bankrupt, corrupt, likely fake billionaire and god-awful businessman who currently occupies the throne.
But there are a few problems.
First, Bloomberg feels he "earned" his billions, but he got a great start. How is someone like Bloomberg "worth" a $10 million severance package? You have that kind of start and have a half an ounce of business savvy, you, too, can turn straw into gold.
Secondly, he likely "earns" more in a year than all 20,000 of his employees combined.
Third, he wants people to look past his sexism and harsh tactics like stop-and-frisk because he's a philanthropist.
Donating to causes is better than nothing (and certain better than Trump's fradulent 'charity'), but philanthropy only benefits select causes and people including often overpaid nonprofit CEOs, while actually taking from as opposed to supporting the overall economy. It also buys influence, like the DNC rule changes.
Finally, it's people with extreme wealth who lobby for policies and tax reforms that keep the wealth at top, not programs that truly address inequality.
3
A conversation about billionaires is at best a waste of time and at worst a distraction.
Billionaires are a symptom of a systemic problem: the incompatibility of capitalism and democracy. The prevailing ideology that profit driven market solutions solve societal problems is a dogma still being sold but fewer and fewer are buying. The financial crash of 2008 laid bare that incompatibility - the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk. Senator Sanders understands this. Those who support him understand this. The fundamental incompatibility of capitalism and democracy is the conversation that needs to take center stage. Not a Santa Claus naughty or nice spreadsheet of billionaires.
When I was child my grandfather, a strident socialist, asked me, "Do you know why they pick up the garbage? Because the rich get sick too." The older I get, the more I understand what he was trying to tell me.
3
Who I vote for has nothing to do with how much money they have. Bloomberg has done a lot of good things including giving generously to Dem candidates and causes. And he admits that the wealthy should be taxed at higher rates. So what is the problem? I think he would make a great president and he can beat Trump by bringing moderate Republicans and independents along.
5
Mike Bloomberg made his wealth the old fashioned way. He works his way up the ladder. That he's being punished for that is a disgrace. What was he supposed to do, slow down? So that other people wouldn't feel bad? He's using his wealth for good. I voted for him in California and I'll vote for him in the general. It's an easy call.
4
Billionaires are like the old European nobility. Not accountable to the common people and as rich in comparison as the current billionaires. Some did great good, others were cruel sociopathic villains. Some were honest, others corrupt. Bloomberg's billions are his own, Trump's are on loan from Putin. So, it depends. Should billionaires exist in the first place in the world's richest country where homelessness, addiction and abject poverty are widespread and on the rise? No. Bloomberg and Soros and others may use their fortunes for the greater good, but what this country needs is not charity depending on the priorities of billionaires, but a thriving, healthy and well-educated working and middle class and a strong social safety net for the less fortunate. That is something that all Democratic presidential candidates should agree on and get behind. They should hammer out a National Democratic Platform among each other and with input from Democratic representatives in Congress and unanimously defend it, so the voters know what Democrats stand for and the choice is between the Democratic and Republican parties. We can do without the current media frenzy that turns primaries and elections into a bloody shark bowl.
3
Forget about Trump for a minute. Let us not let that man corrupt our sensibilities any more.
The road to becoming a billionaire involves more than just starting with a $billion, correct ? In the vast majority of instances, unless its an inheritance, it requires vision, hard work, persistence and above all, the sheer will to succeed. It also involves a income curve that's starts low and then trends high whatever the slope of the curve. So what exactly are we writing off here when we start pouring bile on the wealthy ? Wealth in most cases is a snapshot but it had a path. Did you look at the path it took get there? Are you then going to come after me because i have a few $million. I earned all of mine through 15 years of slog in school and 20 years of hard slog at work and through smart financial planning and savvy. Where does this insanity stop?
Trump is a criminal, period. But Sanders and Warren are increasingly sounding like demagogues to me. Are you not concerned with it ? After all, saying that a country needs to have better schools, infrastructure health care etc. can be done without besmirching those who have money. It can be done simply by slashing 20% from our annual defense budget and capping it.
4
I think this article makes a lot of unproven assumptions. Mike Bloomberg has a record in executive governance and philanthropy that seems to recommend him. If he's such a scoundrel, where's the proof? Where is the track record - a la Trump - of stiffing contractors, ignoring bills that are due, of manipulating the bankruptcy laws? I wish media voices would stop their rush to judgment about Bloomberg. I think he seems like a pretty good option, and just as I wouldn't dismiss him because he's NOT wealthy, neither will I dismiss him because he IS.
2
You could confiscate every single penny owned by every billionaire in the US and still not have enough money to finance for more than a few years the nonsensical programs that the squad tries to shove down our throats. And then we would lose the technological innovation, wide range of consumer goods, and stunning convenience that has transformed daily life over the past 30 years. I'm more concerned that the holy war being waged against the amazingly successful wealthy is just another tentacle of the knee-jerk anti-Americanism so commonly espoused by the Left. They virtually live on the internet, walk around with earbuds attached to 2000 songs in their pocket, order everything on Amazon Prime, and can't wait to tear the nation down so it can become more like the ones everyone tries to flee so they can live here. They never stop telling us how evil we are but never speculate on why half the world is desperate to have the privilege of becoming American.
2
I’m really interested to learn how you have benefitted from billionaires since you just trashed all the things that you said were the benefit of having billionaires - like AirPods and Amazon prime.
This article poses false choices. There have been American Billionaires who have been a definite plus like Carnegie and Billionaires that are evil like Trunmp.
The article like Warren and Sanders paints an over simplified picture with too broad of a brush.
What Warren and Sanders won't talk about, although they know it is if you took all the money in the country and divided it up equally between all the people a few years later some would be richer, some would be broke and most would be where they began. Some people are smarter than others, some people work harder and some people do neither of those things
1
Yes, there have been wealthy candidates running for office in the past but the American dream still existed then, at least for the majority of whites. Many people thought they still had the opportunity to be rich but today we struggle on the edge of middle class and poverty or poverty and homelessness.
Our opportunities to move up have become so expensive and unattainable for more people. The average cost of an undergraduate degree is 60K in the US compare that to Germany - 3K. Healthcare costs Americans double compared to the highest country. A horrible illness, even a temporary one, can bankrupt most families.
The goal of a business and all these billionaires it to make money. Being a business person can help to make you a manager but to be president you should be so much more than a business person.
You should be someone who cares about all your constituents not just the ones who voted for you and show up to your rallies. You should remember that you work for all of us and the goal is for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It does not make a good person evil to use the system legally to get rich. I will not vote for Bloomberg, not because he is a billionaire but because his stop and frisk policy was racist. Because 17 women have filed charges of discrimination and harassment at his company which even if he wasn't the perpetrator, he didn't stop the culture that allowed it. Because from his debate performance, he has no humility.
1
The other democratic candidates are trying to bash Bloomberg because they feel threatened by him, and rightfully so. Because he’s accomplished so much more than they have in his life.
Stop comparing Bloomberg to Trump simply because both are wealthy. Other than both being human, male, and businesspeople, they are polar opposites.
Second, stop holding the fact that Bloomberg is an ultra successful businessman against him. He built (not inherited) a huge business, left it for 12 years to run New York City and continue the 8-year streak of improving it that preceded him (does anyone remember what NYC was like in 1992?), and has given away billions of dollars to charity. What’s wrong with this?
If you hate billionaires, stop supporting their businesses. This includes ceasing to be a customer of: Apple, Google (and YouTube), Dell, Facebook (and Instagram and WhatsApp), Twitter, Amazon, and Walmart to start. Yeah, I thought so.
Most billionaires got that way because they built something great. The companies they built employ hundreds of thousands of people. Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the best form of government we have. Look what it’s built the United States into in less than 250 years. If you don’t like it, there are plenty of socialist countries who will gladly welcome you with open arms including China, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela.
Until you do that, or until you stop supporting billionaire-owned companies, shut up and just get on with your life.
2
The NYTimes Daily podcast added a little nugget to chew on this week that the article didn't mention but I find of value. Bloomberg funded a number of Democratic hopefuls at the last mid-term. If he becomes President and puts a bill to Congress and someone he's previously supported votes against it, how will he react come their re-election? By buying Congress, he buys 1/3rd of our government. Is that what we want?
2
Though the exact exchange is uncertain, Fitzgerald said to his friend Hemingway something like "you know, Ernest, rich people are different from you and me," and Hemingway replied with something like, "yes, they have more money."
1
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Money = Power
Are we the only ones able to put 2 and 2 together?
2
Should we trust Bloomberg? He talks as if he is honest, but should we believe him? Well, why not? What's in it for him to become president? He doesn't need more money. He wants power. Okay, suppose he gets power. Why would he use it to consolidate more money in the hands of fellow billionaires? That wouldn't do him any good. Trump wrote his tax laws because he depends on billionaires to stay in office. Would the same be true for Bloomberg? Good question. To find out, we'd have to risk electing Bloomberg and see what he did. With his record good in New York, I tend to take Bloomberg at his word.
1
I once read an article about a guy who started with nothing and made it rich in real estate.
I'll never forget his quote: "You have to be fearless about risk."
Bingo. I'm not fearless at all. I always wanted a secure job and no debt.
I haven't settled on a candidate for the primary, but I'm wondering if Michael Bloomberg had some of that fearlessness when younger, in building his businesses. He didn't have parental seed inheritance like Trump.
So despite his character flaws in the 1990s, which I think he has learned from, maybe he would also be fearless about protecting the United States -- in counterpoint to Trump tearing it to shreds.
1
Just some personal thoughts:
How do you work hard enough to earn a billion dollars? Or even hundreds of millions for that matter? How much work do you have to do? How can one person, as the billionaires like Bloomberg claim they have, do that much work? I would like to know. I question, in other words, if wealth of that scale is the result of working hard.
In addition to the "incorruptibility" pitch that billionaire candidates make to get your support, they also tell us that their immense wealth is proof that they can manage the economy successfully because they "know how the economy works" (I think Mitt Romney, while not a billionaire, also used this one). But, I would like readers to consider whether possessing billions is proof that you know how the economy works, or proof that you know how to work the economy. They are different things.
7
@Mike Mike, I believe that some very intelligent people can make billions of dollars legally and ethically by organizing workers, creating products and services that are worth purchasing. Consider some wealthy entertainers, tech moguls, or construction people. Then others can become rich by crime, stealing or finding lucrative legal scams.
1
The most progressive thing in America is the national debt.
The billionaires run America in completely different way than own businesses.
They try to make their private corporations as profitable as possible and the federal government as deep in debt as they could.
That's the perjury of the oath they had solemnly sworn - to protect this country, including its solvency and financial sustainability.
It's a job of the intelligence agencies to investigate this obvious discrepancy.
4
The three presidents in the past century who were businessmen are Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
The evidence speaks for itself.
4
Given the choice between a presidential candidate buying votes with his money and one buying votes with our money, I'll take the former.
3
It's the ability of corporations to pay billion-dollar fines while admitting no wrongdoing, or to pollute without cleaning up their messes, or to over-sell opioids through nefarious practices, or to charge hidden fees to the most vulnerable, or to neglect to disclose conflicts of interest, or sell arms around the world to perpetuate conflict, or to monopolize the internet, or to financialization investments that feed on the profits of those who produce.
And then —surprise — out of all this we get BILLIONAIRES!
5
Here's the deal: Ensure that every US citizen has free education through college, free comprehensive health care, a job with protected rights and parental leave and elder-care time off and allowances as well as a (truly, not fake) affordable place to live. Then I don't care how much any person earns, assuming they have the talent, motivation and come by it honestly without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation or disability. If we all start from the same starting gate, then I'm totally fine with a few billionaires at the finish line.
5
The destruction of great civilizations can be measured by the peeks in the concentration of wealth and power.
Bernie believes in social justice but he also believes in balanced and regulated capitalism. What we have now is raw, cruel unregulated capitalism that allows a few hundred people to control the vast and overwhelming wealth and and resources of our nation while most people just struggle to make the bills this month.
People like Liz and Bernie are fighting for average Americans. They are not billionaires and if either has a million, at their age and after all they've done, they deserve it. A million is one one thousandth of a billion.
The extreme corrupting influence of hyper concentrated wealth and a new and far more cruel guilded age is upon us even as the world faces an existential crisis and a high probability of an accelerating mass extinction event.
What is needed now is an evolution and a revolution in our thinking. We need to turn on a dime and put every person to work building a renewable economy and taking the leadership role, as capitalists with a social morality towards everything, employees, customers, the environment, our fellow citizens and children and old people everywhere.
When a civilization makes up its mind to do what is right for every single person, and to not just preach the tenants of ethics and morality but to live them every moment, almost anything good is possible.
The time for this is now. Otherwise it's all over.
4
@Tom Paine all very worthy but how do we get a majority of our elected officials to truly follow this path? We have a Republican majority in the Senate.
Only if we have a majority in both houses and a wise and capable President can we do these things. Oh yes, and right away revamp the public school system everywhere so that no matter what zip code one lives in one gets an education that teaches one how to think.
1
These days people can become billionaires simply because large sums of money basically attract more money. They could probably still be billionaires if they put everything in a typical passbook savings account. In this financialized society it no longer requires developing a good product or service to build wealth. Mr. Bloomberg created the Bloomberg terminal that speeded up stock market transactions to beat out the guy with a regular computer and a Wall Street Journal. He made a lot of money with that device and probably still does. Sam Walton created Walmart and his heirs can sit around and reap the rewards without lifting a finger. Generally speaking, hard work no longer creates wealth. Money moves around globally with nary a finger lifted by the beneficiaries. People are realizing that the American Dream is a myth. Bootstraps thinking no longer applies because it doesn't work. It's luck, who you know and a good education. These so-called socialist presidential candidates simply want the average American to have a decent life. There should be no need for food stamps and welfare payments but rather, all Americans should be guaranteed to have a real stake in the country other than a "handout" that politicians resent. Meanwhile the nation is falling on every level of national wellbeing. Remember that the founding fathers were OK with slavery and in many ways that still hasn't changed except that now a lot of white people are in the same boat as to wellbeing.
3
The Democrats are in good company. The Republican party has vilified George Soros almost as much as Warren vilified Bloomberg in the debate.
As a liberal who believes in progressive taxation, I would rather give my tax dollars to the Gates foundation than to the US government.
Billionaires are capable of great destruction and extremely good deeds. I was a little surprised when Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, both millionaires who have accomplished very little in their time in the Senate vilified Mike Bloomberg a man who was a highly effective mayor and has given a huge amount of his wealth to the causes of climate change, gun control and the actual election of democrats.
4
Allowing one man to have so much when so many go hungry is morally grotesque, as Sanders correctly pointed out. The profits of global capitalism must be countervailed by an aggressive, progressive tax scheme. After a certain point, wealth is self-sustaining while the advantages it confers are exponential.
3
First of all, it is decidedly a tenet of Democracy as practiced first by the Greeks and as written originally into the Constitution that the right to vote be determined by property and gender.
So electing a billionaire is not intrinsically undemocratic.
But restricting or hindering candidates of lesser means to run for president would be undemocratic.
So, public funding of elections, especially presidential primaries should be considered and the criteria for that support thoughtfully detailed.
Also, we should see the benefits of billionaires like Bloomberg running for president. He has money to pay his own way. He has money to respond to emergencies and fluky attacks like the Swift boat hoax that sunk Kerry's candidacy. He has money to live in the White House and support his living expenses after his term. He has money.
Finally, the billionaire candidate might have less appetite for corruption than the faux billionaire, like Donald Trump. Trump'sappetite for money knows no bounds, and the recent pardons he granted, his hotels' government sales these past three years, and his children conducting their businesses out of the White House clearly show it.
3
FDR betrayed his own class when he insisted on helping regular people through New Deal programs. The folks on New York's Fifth Avenue were upset.
But it took the Great Depression and 25% unemployment (average) and bread lines and shanty towns to get some fairness in the economy for little people.
The Fifth Avenue crowd has been working on taking it back since that time...and with Reagan they were able to take over by destroying union power and reducing the federal role in guaranteeing some livability for common folks.
Yes, they have rigged the system to profiteer in all areas to the point of homelessness like not seen since the Great Depression.
That is what Bernie has called out. We need the restoration of fairness in our budget and policy priorities.
4
I would be delighted if the influence of money could be purged from politics. Pending that, however, I must defer to reality. For the first time in my life I'm a one issue voter and that issue is the defeat of Donald Trump. If a billionaire is our best hope to do that, he'll get my vote and I won't worry about his net worth.
Wealth, in itself, is not a liability, nor is the lack of it a virtue.
7
Only billionaire is Bloomberg. We have no idea how much Trump is really worth. Just because he says he's a billionaire, considering the fact that he never tells the truth, does not mean it is true.
6
the author ignores the fact that only 55% of eligible voters voted in 2016 and the same is true for presidential elections since 2004 with 2008 being the outlier and then only 58% voted.
1
It seems many people believe that the economy is a zero sum game (the more somebody makes the less I make) and it isn’t. I often hear people complain about the gap between the rich and the poor in the U.S., but that is the wrong stat to look at. What is important is how much food, shelter, etc a person is able to purchase. The poor in the U.S. are some of the richest people in the World and literally Billions of people around the World could only wish they could afford the same amount of food, shelter, etc.
Why are the “poor” in the U.S. so relatively rich by World standards? The answer is capitalism, which is relatively efficient at producing wealth and this is the reason why a bus driver or construction worker in the U.S. makes so much more money than the people doing the same job in other countries. This is also the reason millions of people try to move to the U.S. despite it being a “horrible capitalistic place.”
I have been to nearly 60 countries and have seen real poverty, and often the reason is inefficient socialist governments which lead to waste and more opportunities for government theft of government owned or overseen businesses.
Is our system perfect? Definitely no, but it is pretty good and all the people trying to move here from all over the World is a sign that life in one of the most capitalistic countries in the World is better than the other systems.
1
Billionaires can be rogues who cheat their way to wealth or inherit $3B and end up with $1B or they be self made by hard work and good ideas. It's neither qualifying nor disqualifying.
Of course with wealth comes responsibility - or at least it should - and they should should be judged on how they treated people on the way, and how they tried to help others through philanthropy and public service.
In the case of Mike Bloomberg spending a fortune to get his message out; as long as that message is based in fact it is in no way disqualifying. In fact since he needs no outside funding we can only hope that means he is NOT beholden to wealthy donors - a good thing.
4
Yes, billionaires have a lot of money, but so do millionaires. Most of us can't even fathom accumulating enough money to be a millionaire. Yet, it seems that all of the candidates running for the nomination did so with relative ease. That is the advantage of position and power (and whiteness). Sanders and Warren obviously relish winning points by going after people like Bloomberg and Bezos. The rest of us, however, could just as easily hurl similar accusations at them. How did they get so rich when the rest of us are struggling? Although they have discovered that a harshly, mean-spirited accusation hurled at someone richer than they are rich brings applause, I would much rather hear that they have a plan to make life more equitable (for those of us on the lower rungs of economic bliss) with the lives of billionaires AND millionaires like themselves. I mean really. Whether you have billions or millions, my guess is you're pretty much okay compared to the rest of us. Enough with all this shouting and yelling and diminishing each other. My hope is that when they exhaust themselves by yelling about what's wrong with everyone else, they might consider talking about policies of immediate concern.
2
In the 1950s, under GOP Eisenhower, the marginal tax rate on the highest incomes was 91%. The middle class expanded, state college tuition was low or free, unions were strong with large membership. The Fed govt funded the largest infrastructure project ever--the interstate highway system , a job creator and great economic stimulus across the country.
Now we let the elite wealthy fund our politics. They then are allowed to send millions of our jobs off shore for higher profits. They use some of those profits to 'influence' the lawmakers we line up to vote for, to reduce wealth taxes, weaken regulations that would be in the public interest, and to offshore their profits away from taxes.
Then the super rich choose which causes they want donate to, instead of the govt that we elect being able to properly tax the rich, then using that money for the public interest.
Bloomberg thinks that his donations to the causes that help minorities and women will make up for his insults to them, and to our democracy.
Many Americans have bought into the propaganda that action by the govt they elect is the road to big govt tyranny interfering in our freedoms.
But more voters see now, that if govt doesn't regulate corporations, then corporations regulate govt--- for their gain and our loss.
The Giridharadas "Winners Take All..." Why should our gravest problems be solved by the unelected upper crust instead of the public institutions it erodes by lobbying and dodging taxes?"
9
To understand whether our system will devolve into one where billionaire plutocrats oversee a political system based on patronage, as Anand describes, we can look to history. The conquest of much of the known world by Ancient Rome let to the influx of mass slave labor. This destroyed the Roman middle class of small and medium sized farmers and gave rise to ancient billionaires with mass estates run by slaves. These billionaires then captured the state (Roman Senate and military) and set up a system of patronage which set the stage for the fall of the Roman republic and the rise of the Caesars.
U.S. billionaires have already captured the American state via their enormous lobbying apparatus (explaining the huge military contracts, and drugs that cost 10X what they do just over the border in Canada, etc.). Have we now reached the stage of billionaire patronage? Watching Bloomberg and Trump trade Twitter barbs and spend hundreds of millions on adds, it seems like we may be getting there.
6
@Tyler can't help but think of Eisenhower's dire warning of the military industrial complex: https://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later
And here is a more recent remembrance tying in our current "President" and this warning: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/tbt-eisenhower-military-industrial-complex-farewell-address/index.html
1
There are millions of us who will never vote for Bloomberg, especially if he doesn't win the nomination (ie, if he's selected by superdelegates, as he's hoping).
The Democratic Party will dig its own grave letting him take over the party.
5
Perhaps it takes a Good Guy with $60B to defeat a Bad President with a Billion?
I salute Mr. Bloomberg in his reply, “I worked very hard for it, and I’m giving it away.”
He also is a very competent manager - Government projects do require prioritizing (rather messy) but once settled it takes fortitude to see things through.
5
I don't have an issue with a billionaire being a candidate or President as long as the person earned and accumulated the wealth themselves and it wasn't inherited. I think it makes a person much more qualified than a life long bureaucrat.
7
@Kevin FDR, while not a billionaire, inherited his wealth.
1
The laws of economics are as unyielding as the law of physics.
1945 - 1970 or 1980 the US was really the only industrialized economy. Now that the world has caught up there is a global labor glut. And (most) Americans will once more return to a subsitance existance which has been the case for 99.9% of people throughout history. Happily even poor people in the US have indoor plumbing, electricty, computers, cell phones, microwaves, MORE than enough food etc...
The high standard of living of post WWII Americans was an economic and historical anomonly. Not likely to return.
3
@Reader In Wash, DC
That's nay-saying based on speculation not facts.
If properly distributed and motivated we have enough wealth and brains and technology in this country to go far beyond the past.
Human capital has the highest ROI. Just opening the borders is estimated to double GDP, almost overnight and without much investment. Getting rid of all tariffs (even if other countries do not) would also boost wealth. Of course we'd have to manage the climate change, but I'd say that going green is a huge and sustainable wealth generator.
If wealth were equally distributed we'd all have incomes of $70,000/year.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/01/immigration-wall-open-borders-trillion-dollar-idea/
Warren just had to take out a $3M line of credit. Plucky idealism is great, until it isn't. Bloomberg can take all the right positions but his (self-made) success in business somehow disqualifies him? If the Dems are signing on for a noble loss, count me out.
6
I believe, if anything, much has been learned, especially, in this case, that the two political parties in America that once were formed to represent the entire country in meeting the needs of ALL of its citizens, really no longer exist.
They are now just "shills" for Corporate America, lobbyists, consultants and political hacks hanging around Washington looking for jobs in the next administration, its various departments and endless amount of "think tanks". Without these, D. C. would not exist.
4
If there was any question that Warren could take on Trump, she answered it at the debate with Bloomberg. She could beat Trump. She has time and again seen the plight of the working class, identified solutions and fought to implement them...mostly while outside of government. The CFPB has returned BILLIONS to consumers from corrupt financial institutions who had been ripping off consumers for decades. As for the Constitutionality of the CFPB, it absolutely is Constitutional. The Fed is where it is housed and where it gets its funding. This was done by an act of Congress. If Congress wants to change that, they are free to do so. The fact that they are trying to use the courts for all the things they cant do in Congress is what you should worry about.
Billionaires are only concerned about maintaining their power. Just look at Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. He is only for regulation because he can afford it while driving out any competing product that cant. Warren is the only candidate that has a plan to deal with the consolidation of everything that makes these people billions. No billionaire should buy the presidency.
3
Curious why the wealth discussion in America focuses so heavily on this dialect: either obscene wealth, or bone-crushing poverty.
There used to be this income bracket called middle class. Kinda like Goldilocks and the three bears, not too rich, not too poor, but just right. Let’s reintroduce that back into the national discussion.
2
In my opinion there is only one task at hand and that is to rid ourselves of the con man at the White House. I believe that Bloomberg is the best equipped for that and here is why: In the last congressional elections the democrats were successful in flipping 40 seats. This was done with great help from suburban women. Of the 40 seats only two were progressives so it is important to consider that moderates are crucial. Recent surveys show that in general people are happy with the economy with surveys giving Trump anywhere from 49% to 60% approval on handling the economy so that tells me to leave that alone no drastic proposals or new programs. I don't believe that the same group of suburban women and middle america in general are against self made people so we need to end the smear of billionaires. So why did they vote for moderate democrats? I believe because they are tired of the of the vulgar corrupt man and the circus of a government that he has. They want change but not drastic change. Also Bloomberg can get the votes of the many disaffected republicans. Finally he has an important weapon which is to disclose his tax returns and challenge the bully to do the same and that, I believe, will undress the con man.
Regretfully both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have painted themselves into a corner.
A Bloomberg/Klobuchar ticket would make a formidable competitor.
2
@Conrad If Bloomberg is the nominee, I will not vote for him (and I am not a Sanders supporter). I refuse to vote for one autocrat to replace another. Bloomberg doesn't care about any democratic priorities. He only cares about Bloomberg. If you've watched his career, that should be obvious.
1
This gets it all wrong. The election is not a referendum on billionaires. Please. It is a referendum on our political culture. For years, billionaires or not, our politics has been pay to play. Everyone knows this. If you have money you can get things changed. It didn't matter if you were a billionaire or a millionaire. More often, that is irrelevant as it is large corporations sending their lobbyists to DC, not individuals. The health care industry is a great example. Beyond pay to play, there's the fact that our political culture is deeply cynical. No one I talk to these days believes in the goodness or potential goodness of government. They all think it's rigged, nothing is taken on face value. This is why few support Scandinavian style governance! They don't trust government. Anything good government does, like social security or public education, is somehow an anomaly, a fluke. We've lost faith in ourselves. Finally, there's the media. Our media is largely broken. There's no simple way to fix it. It's awash in misinformation and distortion. Journalists are now politicians in all but name. They think it's fine to take a side and many don't even think anything of it anymore. So we don't have fact-based arguments anymore, just spin and more spin. We don't have crusading journalists anymore trying to speak truth to power; they are all lining up for access and the best book deal. Please stop confusing people that this election is about incomes.
5
We're always taught to be proud that our American colonies overthrew King George and his aristocrats, and demanded Representation For Our Taxation.
But now in the 21st C we don't have it. We have to fight for it.
Using slogans of 'freedom from big govt', an elite class of wealthy corporate donors functions as an updated version of the colonizers we overthrew in the 18th century. They take our national productivity and give little back---all legalized. But the politicans we stand in line to elect get their share.
This small, elite donor group as been allowed to fund our elections, set norms, limit lawmaking in their favor, and define what is center or left in politics. All with the blessing of our revered Supreme Court who pretended money is 'free speech' per 1st Amendment, thus using our Constitution to muffle the voice of the average citizen.
NYT article 2015 -- "Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House."
Now Bloomberg, the privileged, arrogant billionaire, inundating Americans with ads, steps in to take advantage of the Trump mess.
Voters are more awakend than ever to big money poisoning our politics. Polls show most voters and many politicians of both parties want to reverse Citizens United. We're more disunited than ever, after limits were removed for donors.
When will the media start talking about it? They make big profits from the ads funded by billionaire donors.
Now what?
6
I’m a lawyer and no matter how you change the rules, some people will figure out how to get around them. That’s reality.
Our focus should be on making the system fairer *and* growing the proverbial pie. All the talk about redistributing income is great for the far left’s base, but it is downright scary to most Americans who only hear that the government is coming to take their money away from them.
I echo the comments of others: judge someone on their character, not their wealth (or lack thereof). FDR gave us social security and tons of public works programs. If FDR had run for President today, the far left would have him disqualified because of his wealth.
3
@New Yorker
"Growing the pie" is old thinking and is growth for growth's sake - the ideology of a cancer cell and of rich people.
Shrinking the pie to a sustainable level and redistributing fairly will boost everyone's happiness index while also boosting their average wealth.
1
Class warfare? Remember the more liberally inclined billionaire Warren Buffet's quote: "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." Indeed.
Only Bernie, and maybe Warren, are not taking donations from big money and this has big money nervous. So after the failure of numerous "centrist" candidates who did have big money support, why not throw in big money directly with Bloomberg, a very weak candidate but with oodles of cash to throw around.
Remember that when the Robber Barons were taking it all at the turn of the 19th century there was a strong working class opposition. At that time self-proclaimed socialists won hundred of state and local elections. That opposition is now reconstituting and it is generational. Irrespective of what happens in this election that class struggle will continue with Climate Change as its centerpiece. There's no stopping it.
4
"There are candidates who would leave undisturbed the opportunity to create wealth on that scale ..."
If a firm can create tens of billions of dollars of wealth, that's wonderful. If it concentrates tens of billions of dollars into the hands of one person, rather than spreading most of it among the millions of customers and non-CEO employees who were also involved, that's not so wonderful.
2
@dsws
Concentrated wealth is concentrated power which is used to keep everyone else down. It is oppressive and becomes evil. I also believe that such concentration creates an emergent property much like a runaway AI that preempts opposition and accelerates exponentially destroying everything in its path - exactly like a cancer..
1
I wanted to read your entire piece, but all those zeros got me sleepy.
I think its wonderful that someone could become a billionaire and beyond in this country. That I would hope would not permit them to have a larger voice than those with less, or even more, for that matter.
4
It's been said that the best government is a benign monarchy.
2
It is truly naive to believe that wealth will not, should not, or can not, buy influence in the government, whether in a democracy or not. Wealth, after all, buys stuff, including people.
So there is nothing new with all this talk about the influence of billionaires. Moreover, while it sounds like it is something new, it is only the normal process of inflation that has made “billionaire” seem scarier than “millionaire.” Perhaps the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is more than it used to be, and to the degree that it is, a prudent policy would be to take measures to reduce the magnitude of the gap.
The historical reality of communist revolutions in the past 100 plus years, though, should be an object lesson. By and large, at the cost of much blood, those revolutions replaced one set of masters with a different set. In fact, a case can be made that the American political system has so far done much more to flatten wealth disparities than most other systems, imperfect as that effort has been.
Fear of socialism has long been a boogeyman used by those in power to stay in power. Socialism has also been used by those out of power to get power. Like any -ism, it is complex and deserving of a degree of skepticism. Moderation is always a better choice than a helter skelter rush to absolutism.
2
Draw a picture of the ship of state like it's a real ship. I see a ship stuck on the high seas, listing dangerously to one side, and furiously taking in water from the weight of wealth in the pockets of the one percent, the appalling disinterest in the lopsided, life-threatening effects on the rest of the passengers, and in-fighting that could literally cause the whole thing to sink. Yet, I think Bloomberg the billionaire is the only one who could, in one term, tow us back to shore, and set us on a fair and rewarding course. He alone is capable of re-launching the ship with minimal disruption, yet still bring reasonable change. He is phenomenally capable even though he has, like so many Americans, all kinds of issues in his past regarding how he has thought about about hot button issues. Dwelling on those issues indicates a disbelief that we are sinking. Bernie is interesting but it's going to take 20 four-year terms before he can turn the ship around.
Bloomberg is the only one who could shrivel Donald Trump and fast. He is capable of learning lessons. He is unquestionably the most qualified in governance and vision. His company is a true success. Let him rescue us; we're in unimaginably big trouble. Be grateful he is willing to tow us in rather than let us drift aimlessly for four more years. Take Bloomberg with his flaws.
Mr. Bloomberg, I am not asking you, I am begging you to stay with this fight and tow us in.
4
People such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are either oblivious to or absolutely dishonest about "sin taxes." If you predicate substantial spending on cigarette taxes, then if you are effective at the desirable goal of getting people to cut down on their smoking, you no longer have that tax revenue to spend. Warren and Sanders essentially want to abolish billionaires, yet count on taxing them to pay for their programs.
It is unlikely Warren and Sanders failed 6th grade math. Thus I am forced to conclude less charitable explanations of their "plans."
Bloomberg has billions. Bloomberg spends huge amounts on promoting gun control and dealing with climate change. What are the odds that if you distributed his billions throughout the population or even among all those who work for his businesses that they would be spending that money to promote gun control and deal with climate change? Close to zero, I expect. That is not an argument for perpetuating huge income inequality. However, until the Messiah comes, we need to deal with reality. And that includes the fact that it takes a billion bucks to run for President, and I much rather have Bloomberg where I know the source of his money than another candidate who will depend on dark money and special interest that will demand payback.
5
@Steve Fankuchen
Working class? What working class? Sorry folks, but this isn't the 1930s or even the '50's. Yes, there are millions of poor and exploited workers but, by and large, especially among younger ones, there is not a sense of class consciousness.
Think of unions. It is not only because of some government and broad right-wing opposition that they have shrunk hugely, especially in the private sector. Face it, union organizing was much, much, much harder in the late 19th century. Rather, it is largely because young people have not for decades imagined themselves as as class-conscious "workers." Ask a kid today what he or she wants to be, and I'll bet not one in a thousand answers "a union member" or even "a worker." Even the lowest paid techie considers himself or herself as a "professional."
I would bet that the vast majority of Sander's and Warren's supporters do not consider themselves "workers", with few being, let alone aspiring to be, union members. Their support for the "working class" is about "them", not "us."
2
The United States is not a great producer of new wealth since the 1970’s. The great expansion of the years since then has been the result of new wealth created globally. The U.S. has been collecting a great share of that wealth but the vast majority do not share in it as they did when the greatest generator of new wealth was the vast industrial production in our country. The people who earned wages were also the greatest consumers, so the more that they made, the more that they could buy. Since then, consumption in our country has been great but it relies upon debt and overtime the relative wealth of most people has stood still or diminished. The result is that public services and infrastructure have knot been funded even enough to meet the public’s needs.
Under these conditions the billionaires are not just the lucky people who have prospered, they control the wealth produced by all and with no social accountability. It’s an unsustainable situation, with the result being a far poorer country that cannot support itself. But the programs of the Democrats all fail to grasp the futility their proposals unless this country can grow in a manner that includes all and makes all a lot wealthier without accelerating global warming.
Rational voters know that Trump is a fool and Republicans still are waiting for Reagan’s hypothetical solutions to restore the post-WWII roaring economy. The hope that Democrats can be reasonable fades with the impractical strategies of Sanders et al.
3
There was a time when rich guys and their corporations were able to buy politicians via lobbying and control the government indirectly..The rise of the likes of Sanders has started giving them the jitters and now they are trying to take control of the government directly...
6
It has been said, given human nature, that no scientist is honest enough to be allowed 7 independent variables. It is probably true that no one is hones enough to be allowed a billion dollars.
Yet, I am glad to see financially powerful people " step up " for causes that support the general welfare.
Wealth disparity probably is a problem behind this but also corruption of truth.
3
An excellent and much-needed analysis. I get no comfort from billionaires like Bloomberg and Bezos giving to “good causes.” Instead, they should pay much more in tax and have their wealth reduced. We should, via democratically elected governments, determine which causes we want to support and how.
7
I forget who supposedly said it, but I believe the adage that "Behind every fortune is a crime." Or more than one. The idea that because you're a billionaire you're not corruptable is not only laughable but also contemptible. No one makes that much money without cutting some corners, and having that much money doesn't somehow purify you beyond the normal state of human imperfection. Time to stop revering the uber-wealthy (and the wealthy, for that matter) and return to reality.
4
Wealth is capitalism’s scorecard. Any other measure is subjective and thus irrelevant.
Great article. Thank you for printing. Billionaires can't exist without us. Corporations also can't exist without us. It is too much for any one person. It just is. How many lifetimes would it take for a billionaire to spend his/her money? How much of a toll on the environment does a billionaire create that they spend so little on to fix? How many people suffer from low wages, high rents, bad schools, environmental degradation, unhealthy food options, no paid leave, no savings, horrible transportation options so that a billionaire can exist? We can't live in fear that they will "give" us less. The way things are going are unsustainable for everyone.
5
According to this article,
"A country more ardently capitalist than most is asking itself, as seriously as at any time in the modern era, whether the ultrarich, just because they are ultrarich, endanger democracy."
The danger to democracy is found by looking in the mirror. It is each of us. It is the media, both Fox News and the NY Times, who feed us slanted versions of the "truth" which we are too willing to accept without questioning.
The US Constitution was signed in 1787. US democracy has lasted over 230 years. Why?
Some of the reason is the Bill of Rights, which protected our freedoms.
But those freedoms are being eroded and nobody seems to care.
Freedom of speech is compromised by Amazon refusing to carry the works of David Duke. And by liberals refusing to allow Charles Murray (an author of the Bell Curve) to speak on college campuses.
Freedom of religion is compromised by liberals refusing to allow Franklin Graham to speak because he believes "homosexuality is a sin."
The right to a fair trial by jury is compromised by the eagerness of media to try cases in the press. And by the Me Too movement which destroys lives on the basis of unchecked allegations.
These of course are sins of the left. I haven't mentioned attempts by Trump to politicize the FBI and the Justice Department in what seems to be a defense of his own criminal behavior.
What I see in Bloomberg is our best chance to back away from the highly destructive partisan divide.
2
I particularly liked this essay, especially the elegant language with which it highlighted the questions we need to ask ourselves.
"Who is rich?" the Rabbi asks. The answer is "he(/she) who is happy with what he(/she) has. How much is enough is a question we all must ask ourselves. Perhaps the old joke about wealth being a way to keep score is not so far off the mark. Perhaps the desire to do good becomes subsumed in the drive to acquire more, more, more. Is Jeff Bezos now striving to become the first trillionaire? (Even my spellchecker doesn't like that word.)
My issue with billionaire philanthropy is that it arises from the idea that one person can choose which problems need to be addressed, while being unmoved by those that may be more urgent.
I can imagine a meeting of the (fictional) liberal billionaire's club where the issue is discussed: What to do about Elizabeth Warren, who knows too much about how things work. Somebody (Bloomberg?) says, "Don't worry about her, I'll make sure she gets sidelined. He succeeds up to a point, with the inevitable surge of Sanders, who with half the wit, gets twice the support. (fiction, I remind you.)
So we're left with Mike Bloomberg, who has amassed a fortune enabling Wall Street without getting his hands dirty, and has steered New York City through troubling times, using sometimes troubling means. He has done good work, but he has some very bad ideas.
2
For me, this election is not about billionaires. First, it's about how to get rid of Trump. Second, it's about who is most electable in a general election. Third, it's about who has the most realistic chance about getting something done if they do win. Fourth, it's about the climate crisis.
But because of this debate on billionaires, it seems that we will be unlikely to do anything like this. For the record, I have a long thought that the concentration of wealth upward is a huge problem. But not the most urgent problem.
Timing is everything. Renovating your house when it's on fire makes no sense.
Get Trump out of office first. I don't think Sanders can win in the general election. Too much baggage. Maybe Warren, assuming she can get out of attack mode. Assuming all the Bernie core will vote for her. More moderate independents will, too. She is more of a unifier. Someone who is going to get things done. Very smart!
Overfocus on the unequal wealth problem--and it is a serious problem--is a distraction from what we need to do immediately! It will sink us!
If I'm wrong, I'll be thrilled.
5
You are wrong. Trump is not the fire, wealth inequality is—if I may modify your facile and worthless analogy.
1
Being a Billionaire doesn't make you bad or good. Right now we have a theoretical Billionaire who does atrocious things every day and has done so since before he was a Billionaire. Then there are the Uber Billionaires like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and others who are giving away their fortunes to finance things for the good of us all. Then there is Mike Bloomberg, who might have done something you don't like and thinks it disqualifies him and put down his truly remarkable history of philanthropy and his skill in creating a great company. Look at the news, the best on TV. Multiracial, men and woman also the best on TV. I would be happy if he handled his duties as President with the same intelligent fairness and good purpose that he ran his business and that he tried to do as Mayor of NYC. Compared to Trump, a wannabe Dictator, Mike is someone you can be sure of to defend your and our nation's interests no matter who you are. The other thing, Mike is certainly not looking to be a President for Life. When his term is over he'll walk away and build his Library and give his money away. Don't be sure Trump will do the same.
4
To suggest we don't accept funds for solving climate change because they came from an ultra-wealthy individual is breathtaking in its contextual tone deafness. When facing an existential crisis at (or perhaps past) a tipping point, Mr. Giridharadas may still want cling to niceties of what should be true in an ideal world; I'll choose to include anyone, at any extent possible, in minimizing catastrophic outcomes.
4
State and local taxes continue to increase while the wealthy are given tax breaks at the federal level. Trickle down philanthropy rarely addresses real need. We have Sackler art galleries but no Bloomberg opioid treatment centers. A cap on wealth or a moderating mechanism that redirects wealth back into areas of need is long overdue. To those that decry Socialism I ask; what do you have against the US military? It's the greatest Socialist institution this country has. USA,USA,USA... for everyone, not just the 1 percent.
3
If someone can amass legally billions of dollars by creating value in a system that allows it, so be it. It is an example of human capability. Is he to be blamed? Does this disqualifies him to run? I would have any day a luminary billionaire in charge than a Che Guevara galvanizing social problems and pushing social experiments. A free capitalistic market, that creates opportunity, promotes best ideas and people, puts price on human decency, will always be superior to any form of economic government.
Nobody notices billionaires, as long as most of the population is doing well.
And don't forget how they become billionaires: shares in a company that are worth $1 at IPO, are moving up as long as it continues to create value and adapt to the market. Your 401k fund kept buying that stock which is now $200. So, is not that that they amassed dollar by dollar, but that the market increased the perceived value of what they are worth. Of course, at any time that can convert this perception in actual hard cash.
1
Maybe try thinking about systems instead of living in a fantasy world where nothing is causal.
1
Pretty soon only millionaires and billionaires will be the only people running for elections. Elections are long and expensive. Take Warren for example; she walked balk from accepting money from super pacs. She needed the money. Booker and Yang had to drop out because they ran out of money. It’s extremely dangerous territory we’re in. We need a Supreme Court that can overturn citizens united and we need to place a cap on campaign spending. We have a long way to go.
5
First off, Donald Trump isn't a billionaire. More like a man who owes a billion.
Secondly Mike Bloomberg will make a fine, calm, productive and somewhat uniting president.
So, if Bloomberg is elected we will still only have had one billionaire ever as president. Although FDR was very very wealthy.
10
@Clearwater
Bloomberg is the only one running for which I see some Republicans voting for. Yes, he can be a uniter.
3
In my opinion Bloomberg is by far the best choice for President given the other choices to beat Trump. We don't need
another charismatic, wide smiling Obama to run the country right now. We need a highly experienced, world smart, climate smart, health care smart leader and Bloomberg is it. We don't need a ranting or an arm waving person to lead this country. We need a measured, thoughtful, articulate leader who can help depolarize our population and who will appoint good people to important posts.
7
I have never been more worried that democrats would lose as I am now. As a matter of fact, I am pretty convinced now that we will lose in November. It is the Us vs Them mentality of Bernie supporters, like AOC and Rashida Tlaib that will turn off voters. And since they do not care, we are doomed. I was set to vote for Bernie, Warren or whoever was nominated.
Bernie supporters need to take a lesson from successful African Americans who have persisted. Just because the system is unfair does not make ALL who benefited our enemies. There is nothing wrong with being angry. I too am angry that the economy does not work for everyone. However, the work ahead is to persuade others, not to lash out at them.
If it were not for men who supported equal rights, women would not have gotten anywhere. If it were not for whites who marched, some who also died, we would not have civil rights today. I fear that they have not learned anything from past movements. Bernie has some wonderful ideas, but he is far too silent on divisive, tribal behavior that serves none us.
6
I never admire people for their financial wealth, but rather for what they accomplish with the resources available to them. Wealth is a resource, but there are many others including intelligence, artistic talent, athletic skill, leadership skill, etc. And for every one of these I can identify people who have accomplished much for the world and other people who have squandered their opportunity. Billionaires who practice true philanthropy are fine by me. Those who do not are not.
4
I wonder whether the issue is less the presence of billionaires than the absence of a safety net. Just as "the poor will always be with us" has some degree of truth, in that it may be impossible to eradicate poverty, the same may be true for great wealth. The main problem many of us have with our present economy has more to do with how many people are left out in the cold. If everyone could earn a living wage, if everyone could afford health care, if everyone could afford higher education, if everyone had economic security, if everyone had access to quality public education, I don't think the presence of billionaires would be such an issue.
7
Billionaires buy politics anyway. The GOP is bought and paid for - has everyone forgotten the furore among GOP donors that the tax cut must absolutely happen or they would withhold their funding? And no amount of money will help you on a debate stage, or compensate for a lack of that all important "charisma" (Ross Perot anyone?). And how many billionaires would actually want to go through the utterly brutal election process if they can pull the strings even more effectively with a couple of calls to Mitch? At least Bloomberg has had the courage to put himself in the firing line. He might get sliced and diced every which way to Sunday - and he might even deserve it - but if he had hit that debate stage with the oratory skills of Buttigieg, or the fury of Sanders, or the practicality of Klobuchar, or the impassioned informed hyper-wonkery of Warren, then we'd be having a different conversation today. There is too much money in US politics period. Bloomberg's money is nothing compared to the impact of Citizens United. Start there, and start by changing the name to Right Wing Billionaires' Political Corruption Club.
7
I'm not sure this debate makes any sense.
In a big world with the following rules, you will end up with billionaires--which one of these rules is "wrong":
1. Individuals can start companies and retain as much equity ownership as they can absent their agreement to the contrary (i.e., agreement to take on outside investors).
2. Companies can grow as large as they can subject to antitrust laws.
3. No one is taxed on unrealized gains on equity (i.e., paper wealth) until there is a realization event like they sell their equity for profit.
I imagine #3 is the scenario we are debating with Mayor Bloomberg. Because I'm not aware of any proposal that says Bloomberg should have taken on equity investors or sold shares of Bloomberg LP in an IPO. Or that Bloomberg LP the company has too much control over the free flow financial information such that it poses an antitrust issue.
So now we are debating some form of wealth tax on privately held equity. And the rationale is what ? To prevent undue societal influence by founders of really large businesses?
But we'd be OK if instead of one billionaire, Bloomberg LP was held by 1,000 mere millionaires?
And that is supposed to reduce the influence of the rich?
It's just doesn't hang together as a very compelling case to me.
5
@Mmm This is a good example of the "Stacking the Deck" fallacy.
@Steve If you want to abolish billionaires, I think you have to address one my 3 "rules". Don't see any other way to stop billion dollar wealth creation via business startups like Bloomberg LP.
Our household likes most of the Dem candidates, but probably at this moment would install Warren as president if that were an option. Still, a glance at Bloomberg's website "platform" planks reveals some very likable goals on behalf of global warming, gun violence reduction, tax structures and the environment. There is no way to know if, or how, he would follow through, but it seems that in many categories he seeks to do what we of the "proletariat" support. I don't know why he would want the job, unless, in contrast to Putin's republican party, he wants to repair the damage done by trump.
6
What I find interesting is that liberals seem to see wealth as the only determining factor in human character and value. I think it goes back to their rejection of spirituality. Because they reject any inherent human value arising from spiritual creation by, say, a supreme being, their only other option is the outwardly measurable. They are unable to say that a human has value other than that which can be measured, despite trying to convince us that they really believe that we are all worth something. They are intellectually unable to differentiate between net worth and self worth.
It's an intellectual, moral and spiritual conundrum which the left won't even acknowledge, and therefor can't solve. It's interesting to watch.
1
I read the profiles and backgrounds of the previous Presidents of this great country and I noticed that from JFK’ and on, Presidents were coming from notable and wealthy family.
4
It takes large scale participation from society to produce a billionaire; who, because of our flawed concept of ownership, is free to determine how much of the profits from the shared work of society they are entitled to.
2
The world in fact belongs substantially more to plutocrats/oligarchs.
Only if a Bernie or Liz were Pres -- with a Dem congress --might there be some substantial movement toward:
wealth and income equality; some affordable college and very affordable community college, and a reinstatement of some free public colleges and community colleges such as we had in NYC from 1856 to 1972; and some affordable healthcare, preschool, and daycare. Where I had free and almost free bachelors and master's degrees and had an affordable PhD program. I went from poverty with pretty lousy parents and lousy sister to a become a college professor who co-authored a very major book and lived in eight countries over 39 years...
Who does that for poor girls and boys today within a widespread system such as New York City once had.
My college was dubbed the "Proletarian Harvard" by the press, and the free Cooper Union was an unsurpassable free college of Art and Engineering dating back to before the Civil War. How's that for innovation?
All that was available when the USA was one-third as wealthy as today!
We need a Bernie or Liz in the oval office to have a determination to fight climate change in a context of international cooperation.
10
Quality comment.
1
“Do you trust a news media that sells advertisements to corporations owned by billionaires...to inform you properly about the level of power billionaires have?”
Very refreshing to see this question posed in the NYT, who criticized Sanders for daring to suggest that Bezos’s Post and Bloomberg’s Bloomberg News do not cover him fairly.
Oh, and here’s the advertisement that popped up in the middle of THIS article:
“Warren Buffett announces new solar program for home owners!”
You can’t make this up.
7
“History is written by the rich, and so the poor get blamed for everything.” — Jeffrey Sachs
5
@Zareen And let's be very clear. Bernie Saunders is very comfortably well off—a multi-millionaire no less—with one, two, three! houses.
When the Oceans start rising and flooding the lands,
billionaires will have NO place to go along with the rest
of human kind. Spend it while you can.
5
Any Functioning Adult 2020
3
The U.S. on two pillars stands:
greed and stupidity.
A blind man, though, sees how it ends:
vast inequality.
Money is power. Duh. Wake up.
Take this to an extreme.
A crisis is the final stop.
The stupid ones will scream.
You think America is immune
from social strife and war?
Just wait. Unrest will come quite soon.
You don’t know what’s in store.
The Nordic countries got it right.
Taxes there are quite high.
So is equality. Its might
does violence defy.
Republicans no longer are
defenders of what’s fair.
They pinned on Trump the Golden Star,
a conman millionaire.
Good luck with that. Just stay the course,
Keep Mammon on your mind.
History has no remorse.
It won’t be very kind.
4
If you sell your soul to the devil, then it belongs to him.
1
What is a key difference between Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Obama Barack and Pete Buttigieg?
There is none!
All if them were the young ang eager politicians craving for the fame and power, packaged by the billioners as the change and sold to the public as the leaders.
Do you like the situation you are in?
Who put you there?
The aforementioned "leaders"!
3
There is actually a huge difference between the Democrats and Republicans you list. The former selects or did select Supreme Court justices which opposed Citizens United, support gun safety legislation and environmental protection whereas the latter support gerrymandering and control over women's bodies. Obama withdrew hundreds of thousands of troops and Bush deployed them. Any American or Democrat who forgets this does so at our country's peril.
3
The 2008 financial crisis set the stage for a new order.
After being ripped off for decades by the ruling class, the middle classes fully expected Wall Street to get what they deserved.
Instead, the parasitic vampire squid took a bigger share.
People are angry
5
I am bored of this tired, old, Marxist view of our country, our politics, our humanity. The paradigm follows ... Rich people are bad because they oppress and exploit and get rich with their "feet on our backs." True of some, though not all. Poor people, working-class people, etc. are all virtuous, well intentioned and honorable. Again, true of some.
Your heroes on the far left are just as divisive as Mr. Trump. And your Marxist views simplistic and overstated, as they have always played out badly, historically.
The last debate was indeed a nasty food fight and the perceived enemy at the gate was Michael Bloomberg, a man with a questionable past, but a human who has spent his own money on good causes ... bailed out New York City on his own dime, fighting for Climate Change education and funding of alternative energies, fighting for our schools, our kids, for strict gun laws ... He is no angel. And he is not my choice for President, though he can beat Trump.
Then there is Bernie, savior of minions, who can't get along with anyone, let alone pass legislation. Dogmatic, angry, red-faced, with a coalition of nasties. Sounds familiar. He rails against, "billionaires," leaving out millionaires since he became one. Three houses, a bankrupted Burlington college in the wake of a land deal he helped to broker with his wife, and a disgusting sex essay written in his clouded past that should still reverberate among women.
Straight up the middle is the only way to win.
mlm
6
Senator Warren, people in glass tepees shouldn't cast stones!
2
Your argument is well taken and I shared them until Hillary lost. While still valid, now it's like looking at America before and after Pearl Harbor. Today, the overwhelming issue is defeating Trump and if Bloomberg can beat him, then I say "do it". When the enemy brings a battleship, you don't go after him with a row boat.
7
Bloomberg's appearance on the debate was like Richard Nixon's to Jack Kennedy ,he was stiff as a person, aloof & arrogant and not TV friendly, a surprise for a man who has been on TV and owns a broadcast news network. He had his chance to appear endearing and committed to running for President ,instead he became defensive and when asked about the now well known female non disclosures segment of his professional life was looking downright annoyed from those charges and segment to have that look as if it is all settled by his lawyers years ago.
Actually possible female harassment charges bought up again as news by Senator Warren it is not just a trifle past issues settled by his lawyers, it became explosive news. A trained communicator of his stature should have known this and not looked so disturbed by Senator Warren's questioning.
I hoped for a better first try from what I feel is the only viable candidate to pursue Trump out of office.
1
I have nothing against wealth, it's rich people I despise. With rare exceptions they wrap themselves in cloaks of entitlement or self-serving philanthropy. Rules are not just for plain folk to follow and I have no desire to genuflect in front of their gifts like some serf in front of the table-scraps that his lord deigns to hand out.
It would pay for everyone to re-read the US Declaration of Independence.
4
I have no problem with billionaires. I have a problem with the carried interest tax loophole where billionaires who are hedge fund managers/investors only pay 15%. That's ridiculous.
7
It seems that in the world of this author, the issue with Trump is that he is rich. That has never been the real issue. The issue is he is a moral-free pathological liar and egomaniac. This is another example of the fallacy that what Democrats hate most is wealth. That is a falsehood. I want ethics.
5
A flaw in this piece's argument is that Trump is not even a billionaire (unless you consider OWING over $1B to Deutsche Bank and Putin to be a "billionaire"), he is a cult leader. We didn't elect a billionaire (never mind that he didn't win the popular vote), we elected a racist bully. The net worth of a candidate is irrelevant, and tells very little about what kind of leader they would be. Washington, Jefferson, T.Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson were all very wealthy.
5
What is the purpose of highlighting Warren as the "Senior Senator" and Sanders as the "Junior Senator" from their states? Sanders is by far the more experienced politician, having been a member of Congress since 1991 vs Warren's 2013 congressional entry date. Your not so subtle bias is so very evident and inappropriate. Like all MSM people your lack of clarity and shadowing facts undermine Senator Sanders. Please be clear- More people favor Sanders than anybody else. The Clintons and MSM engineered a coup and stole the nomination in 2016 and you would like to see that again.
3
@Quadriped What is MSM?
'Does the world belong to them or to us?'
Outstanding question !! Really well said !
Well, in USA, it belongs to them. More and more every day. That is because people here are all about money not about fellow human beings. The extended hand of money is the billionaires. Hence, they are supernatural beings and deserve to lead Americans, isn't it?
In a nutshell, that is the summary of democracy in USA in recent years. Or recent decades.
2
I like Mayor Pete, but he is not being fair with his characterization of Sanders as "a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil...." Sanders believes that capitalism needs to be regulated so that the US economy exists to serve people not vice versa. That value is at the core of the Bible Buttigieg likes to say he believes in. He knows perfectly well that his phrase is actually taken from the New Testament, which states that "the love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). That is to say the love of money as over love of humanity is evil. Unregulated capitalism seeks profit above all else. Morality does not figure into its calculations. I cannot help but be struck by the irony that by opposing it, Sanders, a Jew, is being the truer Christian than Buttigieg, who is bearing false witness.
3
WHY does money in politics matter so much? It only matters to a constituency who are easily brainwashed, fall for pat slogans and refuse to do any independent research or question their long-held assumptions. Such people should not be voting in the first place. A George Bush or a Donald Trump could NEVER win an election in a country of intelligent and decent people, no matter how much the candidates spent.
5
Many pundits are saying that Warren won the night, not so among many of my friends all centrist liberals. We felt that Mike won the night, we intend to vote on March 3 for the only one who looked presidential. Anybody who ever worked in the private sector rather than sit on committees in Washington knows that harassment issues come up among employees. Mike's answer was the appropriate pass before a hostile committee. This reminds me of when pundits all thought Harris was so smart for trying to hit Biden as a segregationist, it got her a splash but it didn't help her. This is looking like an election about leadership among an decent aristocracy versus demagogues both sides. Now I'm solidly for Mike.
3
The country to the north of us, Canada, has a thriving participatory democracy where the elections are financed by the government. And by the way, Canada's election for their Prime Minister lasts merely 100 days.
Canada is able to focus its energy and efforts at solving issues that are more important to the electorate than the wasteful, dark money driven circus we have in the US.
2
There are six-hundred billionaires in America. That’s all.
If we taxed each of them a hundred million dollars a year, it adds up to just sixty billion dollars. That’s all.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against such a wealth tax. The ultra-wealthy can easily afford to pay it, and they should.
The thing is, it doesn't solve our problems… especially when two of our Democratic candidates are presenting plans that will literally double the national budget.
Worse, I’ve heard progressives use the phrase "millionaires and billionaires" a thousand times, but I have yet to hear them espouse a single coherent economic plan other than vague declarations that “We need a revolution in this country!”
If this election becomes –as it already seems to be– a repetitive rant about billionaires, instead of offering solutions for the fact that increasing numbers of regular former ’middle class’ Americans cannot pay basic bills like rent, then we absolutely deserve to lose this election.
And we most certainly will.
6
@itsmecraig We are 37th among developed nations in terms of healthcare. Obviously, the way we have been doing things is grotesque, idiotic and ineffective.
America is awash in money compared to the vast majority of the world, but somehow we can't afford to take care of our own citizens and our preparatory education is a stomach-turning global scandal, with teachers forced to make Go Fund Me videos to afford basic supplies for their classrooms.
You have been sold a bill of goods. We have much more than enough money to provide decent healthcare for all and quality education for all. It MAY require drastically reducing the worthless and obscene spending on the military and for wealthy corporations (as well as wealthy individuals) to pay their fair share.
Perish the thought!
3
Warren & Sanders want to alter the system of taxation that allows a Bezos, Job's, or Tom Perkins, to accumulate such massive wealth---they aren't after them because they got all that money and now we need to take it away. An equable tax system, similar to the post WW2 structure, never would have made it possible for so much to go to so few. That was when America was great.
4
Tedious. Billionaires are not the problem. It is an unengaged, illinformed and uncaring electorate, many of whom do not bother to vote. It is hard to address this, it takes work. So much easier to focus ire on the billionaires, which seems to be the author's specialty.
3
Excellent piece. Billionaires need to be cut down to size, largely because they equate wealth with human worth. Bloomberg thinks he's just terrific because he's contributed to certain causes. Actually, most citizens aren't asking for his help, just a little humility & human decency & the ability to be a voice in the solution to pressing national & global challenges through the disposal of resources mediated by democratically elected government.
3
Since net worth is the single metric that that Mr. Giridharadas (Mr. G.) chooses to condemn, what's so special about that number. How about those with a hundred Million, or Ten Million, which by the way is just enough to live an upper middle class life in coastal California.
For many, the prime example is not necessarily Mr. Bloomberg,as their wealth is contributed for eleemosynary goals that are not funded by Government. A recent documentary on Bill Gates described the projects he works on, to prevent polio, still rampant in Africa, and then there is a nuclear energy plant using non-explosive depleted unanimity, no danger of pollution, that happened to be nixed by DJT.
Most Billionaires have agreed to give away at least half of their net worth, and do not spend their money on conspicuous consumption. And most agree that their income taxes should be higher and for a return to estate taxes.
I had been impressed when Trump promised not to accept campaign promises to prevent policy being shaped by such. It was his first big lie, that because of his being a classic skilled demagogue he did without any confrontation.
Wasting your time attacking Bloomberg for his financial success, amassed by a very different route than Trump is a simplistic diversion.
4
There are no free lunches, no matter what Bloomberg argues about his largesse. Billionaires erupted in the country because rules and regulations were gutted. Michael Milken turned out not to be such astable genius after all, but a common thief, and that’s mostly the story behind the new brand of billionaires. Our democracy is in tatters, but they don’t care. Bloomberg wants to help Israel, not working families. His record is not that different from Trump’s. The money quote below speaks done inconvenient truths:
“Mr. Bloomberg is a dedicated philanthropist — and has leveraged his giving to develop “a national infrastructure of influence, image-making and unspoken suasion that has helped transform a former Republican mayor of New York City into a plausible contender for the Democratic nomination.”
3
If you aren't rich going in to politics, you most certainly are on your way out. I don't mind a rich president. America loves the lifestyles of the rich and famous. That's why socialism will never fly here.
Well, if you don't know the answer to that question by now, you've really lost the plot.
Money can't buy me, money can't buy you love.
There was a time the Catholic Church sold indulgence papers to the billionaires of that time. The “philanthropy” of our times of Bezos, Bloomberg and the like is hardly any different. One one hand you ruin people’s lives with what you do, with the other hand you give them some free balsam to ease the pain you caused.
The author here wrote a brilliant book which I truly enjoyed and gifted many friends with. So I won’t add anything to his great work.
I will add though a simple idea that the philosopher of the 20th century, Professor John Rawls published one his magnum opus A Theory of Justice in 1971 while he was teaching at Harvard.
You create a society where everyone goes to sleep without knowing who they will wake up as, and are indifferent to the fact.
That is a just society. It maximizes the welfare of its least well off before it optimized the utility of the rest.
In such a society (Scandinavia comes very close), can there be billionaires? After maximizing the welfare of its least fortunate, if the numbers allow it yes (highly unlikely but not impossible since the Wallenberg family in Sweden may be billionaires albeit minor ones). That is possible where the society as a whole is extremely well off. Hypothetically it can happen I guess.
Let’s focus on what us likely. Bernie is focusing exactly in that. Steinbeck would be proud to rewrite his dictum if he was alive.
3rd try @ 9:55am
3
I hope Bernie along with maybe AOC or Warren third party Bloomberg. And if he keeps trying to buy the election or the DNC double-crosses him again, he may just do that...
All it is going to take is one false move by Bloomberg or the elites of the Democratic party.
If Bloomberg wants to be president why does he not stay a Republican, which he obviously is, and run directly against tRump?
Or he could have spent his add $ to help Dems flip the senate instead of folks like me that can maybe send 5 or 10 dollars to Dem candidates when we can but not much else. But then again he is not a real Democrat , is he.
When Warren took him on all I could hear is $$$. Not once did I
hear him talk about people. Did I miss something?
1
Good job Anand!
You will hear everlastingly, in all discussions about newspapers, companies, aristocracies, or party politics, this argument that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man. G. K. Chesterton
2
What a joke.
Of course the world belongs to the Billionaire class.
Without a doubt.
What “other” billionaire?
All this, not another billionaire, is nonsense. Trump lost millions...
2
Obviously if two super wealthy persons in a row become president, then if follows unassailably that all future presidents must be as rich. You know, like FDR, Truman and Eisenhower.
2
I will not vote for Bloomberg.
4
@Zejee copy that
1
Just three men.....Bezoz, Gates and Buffett are worth over $300 billion.
If those three men could scrape by on just $225 billion.....they alone could provide $135,000 to every one of the 550,000 homeless Americans to necessitate housing for these individuals.
But we can't expect these three men to crimp their lifestyles by surviving on only $225 billion.
5
@John Yeah and what would the homeless do when the $135K was spent?
I have nothing against billionaires. I do have a big problem with corrupt, lying, sociopathic criminals though. I will vote for the person most likely to be able to remove the criminal from the White House, and my criteria for evaluating which candidate can most readily do that does not include how rich he or she is.
2
Silly article. The world belongs to the 1%. They run the show. They move the puppets around. THey have a Mandarin class of upper middle class (the remaining 4% out of the top 5%) who make it so (like orders from the Star Trek captain to his subordinates). The 1% own the media, that continues to sell simplicity, lies, spin, and overlooks the long history of class war, class status, and the rule of the few over the many. More people should be familiar with Orwell's Animal Farm. THe Pigs who took over become the new Masters (like Putin and his Oligarch associates).
Many educated people of the top of the economic structure may complain, but few give money to any candidates. Talk is cheap, walking the walk means real sacrifice, which few are willing to do. So progressive groups need a BENEVOLENT BILLIONAIRE, not a pie in the sky dreamer who has trouble paying for anything when he/she shakes his tin cup to ask for pittance to fight the MASTER CLASS.
We certainly don't need more Do-Gooders, like Hillary, who was obsessed with her own moralistic social change, in spite of being oblivious to the real economic world of the working people and the power of the corporatist class. She and Bill work on Maggie's Farm, for the Masters. They live good in their country mansion and are driven in limos to podiums where they woo the gullible with social platitudes. (NAFTA etc). We also don't need Bernie, who has an idealistic, naive and simplistic view of how to change EVERYTHING. BOL
2
If you want a police state: vote Bloomberg.
2
I am surprised at the lack of coverage of the debate attacks on Bloomberg. It's almost as if the Establishment is instructing NYT/WAPO/CNN/MSNBC to cover it up. Never before have so many candidates piled on another candidate in such a fashion. Bernie came out on top - but thanks to zero coverage, you wouldn't know it. Hmm. . . 2016 all over again?
2
This article is completely wrongheaded! Read Simon Tisdale's column in the Guardian for a right headed distinction between selfish billionaires and Bloomberg.
3
There's a reason why Zuckerberg is so afraid of Elizabeth Warren.
But, you'll all be manipulated into supporting the agendas of the wealthy like you always have. You all secretly believe you're gonna be just as wealthy some day, if you work hard enough. Gotta protect that future wealth, right guys?
1
Talk about going down the rabbit hole. Sanders, who wants to outlaw billionaires, has fed at the public trough all his life. In contrast, Bloomberg started a company that employs tens of thousands in good paying jobs......no peach pickers or chicken pluckers.......and he is called immoral by the socialist who now wants to be president. If Sanders is the nominee we will have to choose between a corrupt autocrat and a socialist who believes that succeeding in business is immoral and should be prohibited. Who do you think will prevail?
3
You can travel first class but a virus can still sneak under your door or hitch a ride on the hands of those who serve you.
You can underpay, underinsure and undereducate workers who prepare your food, wash your dishes, care for your children, your elders and yourself in the hospital but their lack of health and well being will eventually slip over the border into your life.
Even in a bunker in New Zealand or on the Moon.
2
"We are going to get them this time!" Politics is a joke foisted on the little people, just like the proverbial 'crumbs' or 'cake'. Notice how no one but rich people like politics or do politics. It is their little gambling mecca.
What's new ? American leaders are billionaires and British leaders all went to Eton. Elections bring out our inner serf.
This election should not be about vilifying billionaires and the wealthy, this election should be about requesting the wealthy to complete the circle, and pay higher taxes to help their fellow Americans also realize the American dream. A foundation of affordable health care, college and early child care, can be the platform from which more Americans can succeed, instead of being weighed down by these essential costs that rise inexorably beyond the rate of inflation year after year. The election is also about reducing the influence of the wealthy in our elections, and their corrupt practices of monopolization and financial tomfoolery.
2
About Bloomberg. His billions of dollars matter less than what is in his head and his heart. If we can know that and know his sincere intent, then we can measure him as a candidate. I believe that the Bloomberg of today is a composite of his life experience and with maturity can come wisdom, understanding and compassion.
We should not assume that Bloomberg may be another Trump who lied to the American people and brought his m.o. of corruption to the White House. The fact that Bloomberg cannot be bought by special interests is hugely important. We need to use all of our critical powers to assess Bloomberg, and at least for now, give him the benefit of the doubt when we evaluate him. He is committed to beating Trump, no matter the cost.
1
The fact that Bloomberg can buy his way into the race at this late stage in the game is, in an of itself, indicative of just how rotten our political system is. He himself doesn't have to be bought to show how corrupting wealth can be to our elections.
He hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt. This is the same person who endorsed and gave money to help the re-election prospects of Congressional Republicans. He endorsed Bush in 2004. He doesn't believe the Constitution applies to black and brown people. He has supported cuts to Social Security and Medicare. He looks down on farmers and factory workers, as evidenced by his comments that he could teach anybody how to farm or work in a factory. And after all this time, old as he is, he has shown no wisdom, understanding, or compassion for people who are less wealthy, or less white, than he is.
3
If someone can get to billionaire status, I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with them buying legislation. evading taxes, hoarding/hiding money in tax-free accounts, and failing to invest in the American economy for their own profits. I'm against their immunity to white-collar criminality in our justice system.
If the government would just tax them the same percentage that they do me, that'd be a great first step.
3
Here’s what I want. A country where a person can put CAPITAL at risk to create a business, employ potentially thousands of people, creating products and services that people want, which then creates demand for ancillary products and services which then create the same value chain. It is called capitalism. The capitalist is the person who is taking the most risk in this scenario. It can fail miserably. To bankruptcy. And when it succeeds let the person reap whatever rewards they can. The employees are not taking anywhere near this risk. Nowhere close. What’s fair is to be rewarded for putting capital at risk. And this value creating process has what has led to the largest economy in the history of the planet.
3
Mr. Giridharadas
"Just when the accountants thought they knew every tax-avoidance trick, here is the ultimate: become the leader of the free world."
Thank you for a thought-provoking article on the connection between plutocracy and power. Citizens of all democracies are having to re-think the power of plutocracy in this new stage of capitalism.
Please though, Mr. Gridharadas, and your colleagues at the NYT, refrain from using the phrase "leader of the free world" in relation to the US Presidency. In the age of Trump, that phrase, which rolls so easily off the American tongue, is a complete antonym of the global reality.
A presidency and administration that daily flouts the very bedrock principles of democracy has jettisoned the right to that title. Consider Trump's challenges to the essential rule of law as shown this past week, his politicization of justice, and dubious claims and actions that undermine the election process.
The President's abnegation of so many of the hard-won global agreements and treaties such as nuclear proliferation and climate change, and his seeming delight at the rifts facing a key free world ally and partner, the EU, are all bitter pills for those of us who believe in the necessary triumph of the democratic experiment.
Under this presidency, the US has moved to a troubling position of being a threatening outlier in the global democratic community.
1
@DP Agree 100% on the "leader of the free world." But I would say that misuse of this phrase goes beyond trump, whom I despise. It is the ultimate of American arrogance, our "exceptionalism" to use another cliche. People in Denmark or Spain to name two, have no reason whatsoever to think of ANY American leader as their leader. Talented writers such as Anand need to examine and purge their vocabularies of all such cliches. May I suggest "the party of Lincoln" to describe the GOP as another meaningless and very tired trope that needs to be excommunicated.
2
Thank you.....keep writing!
How about a $200 million dollar cap on personal wealth, with every penny in excess of that going to fund the general well-being of our society, including fixing the roads, bridges, highways, improving healthcare, cleaning up the environment, improving schools, hospitals, etc etc etc?
It seems to me anyone with a shred of decency would applaud this, including the wealthy, as they will still have more money than they can realistically spend in their lifetime and their excess earnings are making a better world for them and all the rest of us to live in.
4
If a billionaire could buy the nomination - or the presidency - Tom Steyer would have been running in the top three or four a long time ago. That's just a nonsense argument, even if it is true that spending a lot of one's own money can make it a lot easier to become a contender. But you still need to convince people to support you. Bloomberg is more than just the money he's spending, and his poll numbers compared to Steyer make that crystal clear. Unlike Steyer, he has three terms as the mayor of the largest, most diverse city in the country, larger than 39 of the 50 states (with plenty of baggage that comes from having to actually confront the problems that come with that - easy, as Buttigieg has pointed out, to criticize from the sterile confines of the Senate or Harvard Law School or Burlington, VT). He has a spectacular record of supporting EXACTLY the causes progressives say they support, with his money accomplishing more than they could ever hope to do preaching at us from the debate stage. The idea that the alternative to not being beholden to money donors means he's beholden only to himself is perhaps the dumbest argument of all - this is, after all, a democracy (at least for now), and he is beholden to the voters. And he's everything Trump wishes he were, without any of the things Trump actually is. The binary choice presented in this article is a false choice - the world belongs to both billionaires and to us - and we have the opportunity to make both work for us.
3
@Michael Hogan I really like this post and it makes me feel better about my probable primary vote for Bloomberg. That said, I hope if he is the candidate Bloomberg will talk about some of the "stuff" that has brought us to htis dreadful and defining moment: Citizens United, elimination of the Voting Rights Act, state-by-state (and easily corruptible) federal election standards, the Reagan era end of The Fairness Doctrine, with nothing since to replace it, the propaganda network that is Fox, an out of control Facebook, a GOP that apparently does not care about foreign interference in our elections. Then I hope Bloomberg will remind us all that "I alone CANNOT fix this;" and ask all of us to join him in campaigning and voting against Republicans in all federal offices, and then taking the new majority democratic congress to task if they don't put fixing the above as their most important job one.
2
@karen Amen Karen. And I think there's very good reason to be hopeful on the last bit, given that Bloomberg's financial support was critical to the victories of quite a few Democratic candidates for the House in the most critical districts in the 2018 mid-terms. He gets it.
2
When Bloomberg referred to Senator Sanders as a Communist, it was apparent that he was more than happy to demonize his opponent based on a negative label rather than debate real issues that would support the American public. Bloomberg claims that he is progressive although hires corporate lobbyists as his top tier campaign managers. Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college because so many stayed home as she failed to engage them about issues that would benefit them and their communities directly. Bloomberg is an expert at spending money on advertisements, meme creators, social media influencers and billboards although has a dismal record based on his past callous statements about throwing any potential suspects against the wall or creating a culture of sexual harassment in the Bloomberg workplace. The American people expect more and need a candidate that inspires them as well as passionately fights for them like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Billionaires are inherently out of touch with reality which is why NBC's bending the rules to allow Bloomberg on the debate stage last Wednesday was disgusting.
2
@Dunca , Bloomberg is way too smart to believe Sanders is a communist. He is reminding the audience that Bernie-- if he is the nominee-- will be portrayed by trump and the GOP as a communist. And on that basis, plus his utter lack of appeal to the swing voters, Bernie will lose this election. A loss that will cut very deeply for We the People.
1
How easy it is to label and demonize those not like us. We Democrats just love to point out the many ways that our Republican counterparts do this. And rightly so! So, why is it now permissible for us to do the same?
The substance of one's character is not a function of one's wealth. Attempting to claim some moral high ground by demonizing anybody with a net worth above some arbitrary high number is no less odious than doing the same for anyone with a net worth below an equally arbitrary low number.
Sure, some people amass great wealth and use it to cause great harm to our society. Donald Trump is Exhibit A. But there are countless honest, hard-working people who have built wildly successful businesses and who are now busily giving away most of their wealth to worthy causes. Bill Gates is one. Michael Bloomberg is another.
So can we please stop demonizing anyone, wealthy or poor, who is dedicating time and resources to the most important task at hand: removing a malignant president and the amoral party that enables him?
5
Mike Bloomberg on his $60 billion in wealth: “I worked very hard for it, and I’m giving it away.”
Implied in this statement is the idea that the meritocracy works. Bloomberg is implying that he worked hard and others did not, which is why he's a billionaire and they're not. This is ridiculous. Most of the poorest people in America work harder (and longer hours and retire later in life) than most of the affluent do.
I agree with Senator Bernie Sanders. Allowing people to become billionaires is an immoral obscenity! And I will go much farther in saying that American capitalism is an immoral obscenity. Not all capitalism is immoral, but US capitalism most certainly is. Just listen to Sen. Sanders talk about the homelessness and the gross income and wealth inequality, the starvation wages paid to workers by some of the richest billionaires in America, including Trump (who often stiffs workers and has used and abused undocumented immigrant workers for decades all over America), and the Walton's who own Wal-Mart whose employees needed Medicaid and food stamps as they acquired obscene wealth.
5
No he worked hard and put capital at risk. His employees, and you, collected a pay check. His enterprise could have failed miserably to bankruptcy but instead succeeded. Resulting in the employment of tens of thousands of people. Massive value creation. The creation of countless hundreds of thousands of ancillary jobs in IT, data, news and consulting because of his business successes, resulting in countless thousands more ancillary jobs in restaurants, autos, travel, and other service industries. Why on earth do people want to destroy value creation on a scale like this.
4
@E
If he put the company at risk, the employees that worked for him and helped him accumulate that money were at risk also.
3
@E
Trump is the icon of US capitalism. Like it our not, "yes" he is. Trump is the king of corporate welfare and he's sacrificing the environment for the benefit of himself and the 1%. The US has income and wealth inequality that are obscene. Pure capitalism is inherently anti-democratic (the corporate oligarchs in the US own the government, and money controls US elections anyway), anti-Christian, anti-human and anti-environment.
If a nations wants capitalism (as it should because it is a good wealth generator) is must also have a good, powerful regulatory mechanism to control and limit capitalism's inherent evil.
I'm not against all forms of capitalism. But the US cowboy, crony capitalist system is vicious, anti-human and evil. It's bringing out the worst in our nation: the divisiveness, violence (guns), racism, mental illness (alcohol and drugs) and abandonment of morality (Trump and the entire GOP).
3
I'm sick of the wealthy. What I mean by that is: I'm sick of the wealthy dictating our policies. I'm sick of the wealthy interfering in and twisting our democracy and government to their personal ends. I'm sick of our media endlessly worshiping them in every cultural arena and saturating us with their presence, their quirks, and their terrible ideas. And I'm sick of the impact that has on our democracy, on our society, on our environment, and on what we find meaningful and valuable in our quality of life and in our relationships.
Not only do we not need any more oligarchs buying their way into our politics, we need to swing the pendulum back to democracy. We need to remove the influence of money from our politics. We need an equitable country where the wealthy finally pay their fair share after 40 years of bleeding us dry and wrecking our planet. We need the American PEOPLE to decide what policies OUR government should address, not more pet projects for plutocrats to stuff down our throats. The line between our democracy and full-blown oligarchy is much too thin. This primary, and the election in November, will decide on which side of that line our country ultimately rests.
4
The rich have always run everything. Trump was elected, in part, because he's rich. His voters didn't even care how rich he was--the billionaire he claimed to be, or the ordinary millionaire he probably is. Voters equate rich with smart, and are happy to be lead by a rich guy. Besides, millionaires are a dime a dozen these days. Your doctor is one. So is your dentist, and maybe even your insurance agent, or plumber, or the guy you bought your car from. Millionaires are no big deal anymore. If you don't want one for president, vote for Buttigieg. He's the only candidate that's not even close and made just a little over $100,000 as a mayor. Lots of people earn that much, or near enough. He can relate to them. If you want a regular guy, he's the one.
Bloomberg rose from a poor family to realize the American Dream. Let's demonize him for his success. The recent debate was an eye opener to a vision of a bunch of terrible candidates. Except Bloomberg and maybe Amy.
6
@Joe Exactly. Being a hard working entrepreneur who builds a big company then successfully runs NYC is a BAD thing. Not to mention that he gives millions to climate/environmental and gun control causes. Lets just have Trump instead, since Bloomberg doesn't shine in a tit for tat hideous debate forum with several crazies.
The very idea that Billionaires can not be corrupt is belied by the fact that they are billionaires. If they had no need or desire for more money they could have stopped at being Millionaires. After all, you can only spend so much money and after that, it just comes now to looking at the size of your stack.
1
"And a country just as committed, contrarily, to its founding ideal of equality is asking whether to resign itself to a gilded revolving door in which you unseat billionaire leaders you hate by electing billionaires you don’t mind."
"founding ideal of equality " == No.
Founding ideal of equality under the law and of equal opportunity. Not equal outcome.
If Ms. Warren believes this election is about a decision to “substitute one arrogant billionaire for another.” she completely misses the point. Trump is a racist demagogue and his presidency is a threat to our democracy. We should be glad we have an arrogant billionaire with the resources to mount a credible campaign, something the Democratic party and the other candidates seem to be unable to do. Perhaps at some time in the future we can reduce the role of money in politics, but right now that is a second order priority.
2
Bloomberg says he "worked hard" for his wealth, implying that people who don't "work hard" don't deserve wealth. Has he ever worked two or more jobs, sleep deprived, depressed, heart broken and frustrated to stultification? I doubt it.
He believes he deserves his wealth, what?, billions of what another human being is worth? He may give it away to charities he deems worthy, which means, whether we like it or not, we subsidize Bloomberg's choices; he dictates where our subsidies will go, just as we subsidize Romney's and others' contributions to Mormons or whatever good or hinky charitable corporation they choose.
Bernie isn't my choice for several reasons, but he's right that we are, witting or not, subsidizing billionaires, like the Walton family, while people become homeless because they can't afford housing on Walmart wages.
It is obscene, immoral, even insane that some individuals can amass billions while others suffer immeasurable misery and pain because they can't afford the relatively small amount needed for the basics of life.
It should be a crime to monetize people's health and make healthcare just another product of a rapacious capitalism.
"Billionaire" should become a dirty word, too obscene to print.
3
I am more interested in a candidate's capabilities, competence, decency and transparency.
Those items on one's balance sheet are what really counts.
And in this election, what matters most is the candidate who can defeat Trump -- who is clearly an existential threat to our democratic republic -- and who can also rid Washington of his pernicious co-conspirators.
4
The centrist establishment dislikes Trump not because he is uniquely dangerous, but because he is putting an ugly face on the things they were already doing before he took office and plan to continue doing once he leaves. We had a crippling, democracy-destroying wealth gap before Trump. We were watching our infrastructure crumble as we fell further and further behind the other industioralized nations of the world before Trump. We were only doing incremental, ineffectual things to deal with climate change before Trump. We had endless war abroad and committed crimes against humanity in Yemen, Syria and Somalia before Trump. We had police shooting unarmed black people without consequence, and building racial and ethnic hatred before Trump.
Electing as a replacement for Trump "our own billionaire" such as Bloomberg, or even a Buttigieg, Klobachar or Biden all too eager to front the one per cent's agenda, would simply enable the public to go back to sleep temporarily while these existential crises rage on and our democracy continues to erode into one of only form, without substance. If Bloomberg were to replace Trump, I fail to see how anything would change other than the tone. We need actual change, not simply a change in "teams" who in actuality are both playing for the same side.
2
Who doesn't love billionaires? They stifle and destroy the competition, tilt the playing field in their favor, buy legislatures and lobbyists who write the laws, allow us to vote for the law makers they select, kill the chances of any politician who doesn't support the status quo, crash the stock market periodically so we lose all our savings, charge ridiculous amounts of money to use their hospitals and doctors' networks when we are sick, and let us see their art in their dedicated museum wings. After all, what do a few dead relatives from the opioid crisis matter?
Charity: They decide what causes are important like increasing resistance to insecticides in mosquitoes or putting ipads in the hands of every child in schools, and they congratulate themselves on how wonderful they are to give up a few of their millions to help us poor peons survive so they can keep getting our payments. They don't pay taxes and glorify themselves as "creators" when parasites would be a more accurate description. Who cares about the kind of world we are leaving to our children, their stock price is all that really matters. What does it matter that they pollute and destroy the natural world. They are our gods! Do I seem angry to you?
4
@sofia
yes, so am I!
1
Trump is not a billionaire. Whatever wealth he has, derives from the depreciation deduction, which We The People, through our government, have granted him over the decades.
Trump is Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds. He is the incarnation of Steve Bannon, sowing and normalizing chaos, distrust, hate, falsehood -- a sort of anti-matter version of the Furies (mixing religious metaphors), annihilating good, and amplifying bad.
In this context, money has little to do with anything; in this context, money is not intrinsically bad, contrary to this article's suggestion.
I'll take a wealthy individual who embraces and embodies noblesse oblige, anytime and any day, over our present President.
Billionaires have done the math, and they've figured out that this planet cannot support all of its inhabitants. They've decided that if anyone survives, it should be them. So they've decided to make the rest of us fight among one another (as they always have).
The very billionaires that have destroyed the planet and sent jobs elsewhere have convinced Trump supporters that the enemy is liberals, as if liberals ever had that power. And they've led a lot of liberals to believe that we're smarter than working people--and that those working people are all racist xenophobes.
There is still hope for this planet and its people, but we have to recognize who is working to destroy that hope. It's not all billionaires, but there's certainly a cadre of them.
1
People’s hatred of Trump blinds them. Anyone is better than Trump, so therefore a faux Democrat neoliberal who hates labor, loves oligarchs, ran a city like a racist police state, and is definitively elitist and essentially a Republican looks like a viable option to many. That’s what billionaires have done to this country. A benevolent plutocracy run by an autocrat is just fine. Rather than sticking to core principles and beliefs and, heaven forbid, taking a risk that Democrats might lose standing up for something, many would rather feed the inequality that creates this mess. If Bloomberg becomes the nominee, I never again want to hear the complaining by Democrats that their candidates on the national stage have been “forced too far to the right since Reagan.” Voters have no one to blame but themselves.
2
Billionaires aren't the problem. A corruptible government is the problem.
If someone works hard and is able to make a fortune out of her/his commitment, it is something to be admired in my opinion, not to be stigmatized. On top, if these people donate their brain power and money to the rest of the community, that is even better!
2
Regarding billionaires who "give back" through philanthropy,
this is anti democratic, self aggrandizing and often trouble making. In a democratic world we all do the hard, messy work of deciding how to share our finite resources. Regarding billionaires as gods or gurus who know what is best for others is to place oneself in the position of a child or worse, a serf. And really, that is what we are to them. Either incapable of making sound decisions or existing to enable their wealth acquisition.
3
Excessive wealth is the consequence of the same process that results in the excessive weight - inability to control our cravings, thus it's indicator of the moral flaws and not of the strong character values.
Really, why would you work tirelessly for decades to create the wealth you are not going to spend, thus depriving self of the most precious time with your children, family and the friends?
And if you leave it all to your children how can you be sure that the endless supply of money is not going to turn them into the lazy an spoiled brats prone to drugs, wild partying, gambling and many other addictions.
Most importantly, how could you know that the excessive wealth is not going to attract the wrong people around them, the ones that love the money but not your children?
How could you do it to your own daughters and sons?
1
Early summer 2011. Monday morning. It was 8:00 am.
I was driving west on Houston street to park at pier 40. At the underpass just before West street nypd had set up a random traffic checkpoint.
All drivers were stopped, questioned and asked for license and registration. NYPD ran my CT drivers license and said their system had my license suspended for not paying a NY seat belt ticket from 2004. Mistakenly.
They handcuffed me. Towed my pickup, threw me in the back of a squad car and booked me at the W Village precinct and put me in a cage with two others. After a few hours I was lead to an NYPD van and brought to central booking downtown across from the tombs. And booked again. For driving with a suspended license that wasn't suspended.
In 2011 half a million people were stopped & frisked.
87% were minorities from uptown and Brooklyn. That means about 32,500 were non-minorities were also stopped and frisked for nothing. And sometimes busted. I'm one of them.
I am convinced that mayor Mike Bloomberg knew the statistics looked bad by then. And that NYPD downtown was ordered to bust sketchy looking, non-minorities for pot, or whatever. To make the stats look better. It happened to me and I saw it happen to others.
Locked up I was for 16 hours. In a cell with about 30 others.
No phone call allowed to anyone. Just disappeared.
Do I blame Mike Bloomberg? I do, actually.
If you want a police state: vote Bloomberg.
4
"Do you think being incredibly wealthy makes you immune to corruption, or prone to it?" Prone to it.
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose", has been known in every nook and cranny of this country for decades.
These type of attitudes will certainly generate one result - the re-election of Trump and the further destruction of our country.
2
The billionaire thing doesn't bother me. Bloomberg and his awful, yet revealing, performance the other night bothers me. If we must have another billionaire in the White House, give us Tom Steyer, please.
Only a true billionaire can beat the self-proclaimed "billionaire" Trump.
I think...enough of this billionaire bashing. Sure money seems to grease your political system. But has nothing to do with policy.
People like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos Larry Page who have created something out of nothing deserve every single dollar they make...that’s what America is about. What it’s not about is CEOs and upper level managers, Wall Street Executives, CEOs of non profits like hospitals making millions of dollars while the trench workers get shafted. Paying teachers and home health aides and other unsung heroes more while ripping the Golden Parachute away...that’s what we need to do...not vilify success like the Warren’s and The Sanders are doing and corrupt success like the Trumps are doing.
There is nothing wrong with people being billionaires. It is how they spend their billions that should matter. Mike Bloomberg thinks his billions will win him the presidency without having to make much effort in campaigning. He is buying his way into the election. As we saw at Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate, it will take more than tons of money to win the election. Other qualities also apply. You must relate to the voters and have personality and a caring demeanor. You must be sincere and likable. Michael Bloomberg has none of these qualities as displayed on Wednesday. He is relying on his billions to become president and it will just not work. He is a cold fish and void of any charisma. He cannot fool the people with his wealth. They know a fraud when they see one.
Don’t let Trump, the supposed billionaire, skewer you’re view of all billionaires...Gates and Bloomberg, among others, give away more money every year than Trump is worth. BUT more than that they have their EGOS in perspective.Bloomberg appears to be the only chance of kind of a normal presidency. He can handle media’s love to live in the past and has presented the most comprehensive programs to build on, unlike the “one trick ponies” on the left.
People need to get their heads around a simple fact. There is a dangerous demagogue in the White House. He is an authoritarian who, for his entire life, has had no regard for the laws or institutions of this country. His life is based on the contempt for those he has been able to buy. He needs to be stopped. If it takes a billionaire to do it so what?
Matthew 19:24
Jesus: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".
Luke 16:13
“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon.”
Those who claim to be Christians should study their Bible. There is no justification for the obscene income inequality that has evolved in our capitalist society, nor the obscene disparity in power that results.
Even those billionaires who devote some of their wealth to good causes, like Gates, Bezos, Bloomberg, are serving a false god.
3
I like Bernie, but i am tired of him screaming, he always screams, about how evil millionaires and billionaires are.
For cryin' out loud, Bernie is a millionaire, (multi?) himself.
I'd rather have Bloomberg with all his wealth than Trump. End of story.
1
The DNC “ non”debate produced a hilarious oxymoron with the millionaire pots calling the billionaire pan rich! I prefer the billionaire who is not beholden to a plethora of monied benefactors who all have their greedy hands in the future pie of state...
1
“Socialism is a generational Rorschach test: Boomers think of Soviet gulags and bad shoes, millennials think of Swedish health care and free education.”
Got news for ya, lads and lasses: I'm a Boomer and, when I think of socialism, I also think of Swedish health care and free education. Not to mention Denmark's high minimum wage!
4
The smear of Mr. Bloomberg because he is a billionaire has to end. I don't believe that the average suburban woman that helped the Democrats flip 40 seats in congress has anything against a self made person. Here in middle america there is a different point of view
Is Mr. Bloomberg competent? Yes he is if not why did the Times endorsed him on Oct. 23, 2005 when he was still a republican here are two paragraph of the endorsement:
"Mr. Bloomberg, who is running for re-election on the Republican line against Fernando Ferrer, the Democratic candidate, has accomplished a great deal in four years. His greatest achievement has been to teach New Yorkers that good government is not a zero sum game; that even in a city where every neighborhood, block and building jealously guards some ancient prerogative, change can make things better for everybody.Mr. Bloomberg has not been nearly as exciting, or entertaining, as Edward I. Koch or Rudolph W. Giuliani. But he has been better at running the city. If he continues his record of accomplishment over the next four years, he may be remembered as one of the greatest mayors in New York history."
1
The content of this piece seems the equivalent of throw-a handful-of-disparate-muck-material-against-the wall-and-see what-sticks.
For all its twists and turns, the bottom line in this thinking is that people w money=bad, people w/o money=good. If money corrupts (as all of your quiz questions imply), then aren't those who seek it (all contenders except Bloomberg) just as corrupt as he (who has it)?
And if the worry is that MB is beholden to no one so he can do whatever benefits him, is it any better to have those seeking it beholden to those they get it from?
The bottom line is as it always was: evaluate each individual on his/her actions and statements, bank account notwithstanding.
Please, no more "How do you know she's a witch? She looks like one!" I've had enough mob mentality from the supporters of the current "regime."
Note to author: nobody cares about this issue. We might care about our own weath, and we certainly care about what a candidate says and does. These debated tend to manufacture issues that are nonexistent.
Cut to the chase: The debate exposed Bloomberg to be a Republican Trojan horse, parroting Trump talking points, as illustrated by his blatant red-baiting of Sanders. Straight out of the Trump playbook. And not only on that point. Stop and frisk non-apology. Tax returns. All Trumpian.
The DNC deliberately let Bloomberg parachute in, to tilt the playing field as far to the right as possible. It is nothing less than a Republican intervention and interference with the Democrats' nomination process, courtesy of the DNC.
Liberals, do you stand with or against Trump? Make up your minds. Otherwise you all aren't fooling anybody. We're wise to you now.
2
Bloomberg is a billionaire, trump is not.
Before our first President with Dementia who was a very effective snake-oil salesman, there existed a progressive income tax which meant the more you made the more you paid. Reaganomics changed that with supply-side trickle down theory. We need a return to the days before the California con-artist and tax the rich at those rates. That's not socialism its fairness.
2
Billionaires did not create their wealth. Rather they were able through monopolistic practices to appropriate wealth surpluses that rightfully belong to the public at large. They have no right to keep their wealth. https://www.laprogressive.com/billionaires-have-no-right/
I'm glad Mr. Bloomberg has joined the charade. His stage performance won't matter so much. He seems like and has certainly behaving like a stark contrast and nemesis to the billionaire incumbent president, as his record shows. He's corrupt to the core, and his life is the body of evidence and is still unfolding. I'd love to see, though, Bloomberg articulate his vision better and illustrate his contributions he has made since and during his term as a long-term NYC mayor to make up for his missteps and media faux pas. He's been a believer and change agent. He left GOP and joined the Dems to remove the current CEO from the WH. That's why he's running, because his rivals don't seem to be able to get it done. We may need a billionaire who has redeemed himself more than ever, esp., to restore our faith in the benevolent, democratic capitalism and make the reality more bearable. I wish him best.
1
Bloomberg's less than stellar performance at the debate affirms my assertion that Bloomberg - like Trump and members of his family who believe they will settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - imagines that because he is wealthy and successful..."he knows."
Yet, he didn't know how to engage in the debate well.
Certainly some aspects of wealth and success provide tangible knowledge that maps onto other arenas of life and business; but it is ego that drives the belief that "you know" about things with which you have had no regular or real experience.
The ultimate irony is that the wealthy and successful folks who believe - and believe is the key word here - "they know," have significantly less overall knowledge than the average person...because their wealth and privilege shelters them from an enormous amount exposure and experience that we regular folks undergo day-in and day-out.
Somethin' to keep in mind; somethin' to keep in mind when selecting a President.
2
If the rules to become POTUS focuses on the maximum amount of money that can be spent, largely thanks to Citizens United, the Dems will always have a disadvantage to the Repubs who have access to almost unlimited money from high worth supporters.
5
Are billionaires of necessity bad? What is the upper limit on what a person can earn and remain credible?
2
@Peter Aretin I think it depends on how they got their money & what they plan on doing with it. At least with Bloomberg, his billions are pretty legit. His company created & leases Bloomberg terminals to companies worldwide & he owns a media company (Bloomberg TV/Radio/Internet). He gives away his money to many charities & is greatly concerned about the environment & global warming. However, Bloomberg is one of those people who thinks that the poor & middle class need to be told what to do & how to think and HE knows how to make people better. This is where Bloomie crosses the line in my opinion.
2
I have a friend who has many millions of dollars in the bank. He works, as desired, into his 60's, lives a quiet life, does no harm. Please tell me at which amount is the dollar Rubicon beyond which the person becomes rotten and power hungry?
Sorry...it’s a matter of scale. Trying to equate millions to billions is just not relevant when it comes to the happiness of a person (or family)
1
@Jon Alexander Goodness, that doesn't address my point!
@The Pessimistic Shrink Its not about how much money you have. Its about intent.
If you are a billionaire and earned your money honestly, pay your workers well (which I will give Bloomberg credit for), want to contribute to society & respect all shareholders, then I'm fine with you.
If you are a billionaire that puts tens of millions of dollars to work oppressing worker rights, lowering the minimum wage and rigging the legislature to make laws that only favor you, then you're rotten.
1
1. So much of what’s happening now has to do with the delusion of equal opportunity, which has never existed and probably never will.
2. Over the course of US history various people have gained wealth through being unethical, ruthless businessmen who grew wealthy by being unrestrained by law. Think of Rockefeller and others of his era; they were ruthless in destroying their competitors in order to form monopolies and no one did anything until after the deed was done! This is still happening today. Facebook, Google, and many others have been allowed to become huge monopolies, making untouchable billionaires in the process.
3. Employees have increasingly become beholden to their “masters”. No one really paid for their part in creating the Great Recession, so we taxpayers did. Very few jobs are protected by a union; even fewer offer any kind of pension or a 401k augmented by employer contributions.
This last one is what drives the wealth disparities that allow billionaires to underpay and take full advantage of their workers, offer few if any benefits, and run so many enterprises that only employ “contractors” (1099)!
No one should be able to build an Uber with 1099 employees, an Amazon with overworked and underpaid employees, or a FaceBook monopoly that is allowed to buy up others in the social media sphere.
And don’t get me started on the part SCOUS plays in keeping the field tilted against the majority in favor of the wealthy!
5
When was the last time we had a discussion about the moral fibre of a candidate, the actual policies they propose and their history of effective governing, or lack of it?
Can we stop with the "them versus us," and "we the persecuted masses?" We must consider that no matter who promises what in a campaign, the likelihood of those promises coming to fruition depends completely and absolutely NOT on who is in the White House, but who is in the Congress.
If the there is gross corruption, gross departure from traditional norms, the two houses of Congress are the vehicle for curtailing it and calling that out.
Only one house of Congress has done that.
It will not matter how much money a president has or how they got it while the Senate either quietly cowers, or silently cheers the president on.
You want change in America? Change the Senate.
6
@mouseone Also, please participate in local elections because that's where most of these Congress people come from. Unfortunately turnout in non-POTUS elections is dismal.
1
@RBC . . . I have seen many "Bye Bye Susan" bumper stickers here in Maine.
I plan to volunteer to go neighborhood by neighborhood to get out the vote.
The only power left to us as citizens is to vote! vote! vote!
No matter who is elected, all citizens need to be active in the electoral process!
Voting begins to make our government belong to us again.
We cannot sit back and be complacent if we want our government to work for us and represent us!
1
How about this for a campaign slogan, or at least a campaign ethos: "In a country as plucky and resourceful as the USA, I don't think there should be a limit to how rich you can be. But in a country as fortunate and compassionate and abundant as the USA, I do think there should be a limit to how poor you can be."
4
I have no problem with the existence of millionaires or billionaires, as long as they pay their fair share of taxes. There should be no 'cap' on how much a person can earn or own -- not in a capitalist society. And if they want to run for president on their own dime, fine. It still takes a vote by the people for them to win.
4
Great article. Agreed on all fronts. A billionaire versus a billionaire in the general election would be the most devastatingly perfect representation of everything that’s wrong with this country.
4
What do you expect in a capitalist system? There are a few billionaire winners and a large underclass. Sure, the system is unfair to many. Remedies? One person, one vote. No electoral college. The overturning of Citizens United and ‘corporations are people too’. A livable minimum wage. A health care system that doesn’t bankrupt you if you need extensive medical care. Term limits for office holders. In our capitalist system is real reform a pipe dream? Do we have the will to change any part of the system?
5
When discussing billionaires, does it matter how the fortune was made. Is there a difference is a person was born into money, or earned it by hard work, intelligence, and and some luck? Does it matter if it was gained by corruption? Does it make a difference if employees were treated with respect, or simply reduced to burned flesh? I think it is important to also contemplate the quality of the person.
1
I am not willing to disqualify Mr. Bloomberg simply because he IS a billionaire. I am not willing to QUALIFY any candidate simply because they are not. What I want is a person with a proven record of success in governing, who has the best overall ideas, and who can beat Donald Trump. The only candidates who fulfill those requirements for me are Klobuchar and Bloomberg. I am a bit hesitant about Bloomberg's age, but at least he hasn't had a heart attack, and is not hiding his medical records. I wish Bloomberg did not have the racial and "anti-woman" baggage he carries, but I also think his programs geared towards those communities have been very effective in moving them forward. We are not electing a patron saint. I would rather vote for Bloomberg, who has a good chance of winning the general election, than Sanders, Buttigeig, or (to a lesser extent) Warren, who have nearly zero.
5
The intense debate between billionaires and socialists has me convinced. The Democrats need to nominate Klobuchar.
To me the very biggest problem is that young adults don't vote! For very good reason, younger voters offer passionate support for Bernie. But, voter draw during primaries is substantially less than general elections and is likely to draw disproportionately from the most intensely passionate.
When the general election comes around the balance is going to shift. All the ho hum Trump supporters or disinterested Democrats who don't want a "Socialist" (don't know what that is, but God help us!) may push the vote over to Trump.
All I can say, is those Democrats who find it so compelling to nominate Bernie Sanders had better get out and grab every potential Sanders voter and drag them kicking and scratching to the polls in the general election. If you don't, Trump WILL win.
I have nothing against Sanders for President. But I have full confidence that young voters won't vote in the numbers required to elect him!
Passion for Sanders isn't enough. The general population has to vote for him, and I don't think they will. But I do think they will vote for Amy Klobuchar.
3
@DGP Oh god, anybody but Amy Klobuchar. She would steal your heart, literally, cut it out, if she, herself, needed one.
Who was the first billionaire?
Bloomberg is a billionaire.
If Trump was he would have released his tax returns and Duetsche bank would not be embarrassed to be the only bank to recently loan him money.
3
Sanders and Warren who are millionaires are using the citizens money to grab the power of the presidency just like Bloomberg but with his own money. They all want to extend healthcare benefits for Americans, address and fund climate change, immigration, gun control and education, but would use different methods. Who would succeed at getting all these things done? In my humble opinion, Sanders and Warren will get bogged down by their own tactics and their lack of allies at the city, state and federal levels. Bloomberg on the other hand has spend hundreds of millions of dollars building the infrastructure needed to navigate these policies. Sanders and Warren voters just like Obama’s would go back to their jobs and couches and most likely skip the next midterms elections and complain about why Sanders or Warren did fail at delivering the big change!
After Obama’s hope and change and the fake billionaire populist, I think it is time to try the real billionaire. If that ends up being dull, then it will be time to vote for an Asian and try their grit and mastery of arithmetics.
1
Mike Bloomberg has on his campaign staff loads of lobbyists and former corporative operatives. Corruption is already built into his election structure, a much more effective and efficient use than Trump ever displayed.
It is the privileged billionaire mindset that asks Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar to step aside, so that his exalted and righteous path can be cleared of democratic obstacles.
4
The idea that a billionaire’s right to their wealth can be demonstrated by philanthropy is a very authoritarian viewpoint. It basically amounts to saying to that highly asymmetric power in a society is justified because those with disproportionate power will *sometimes* use their power to champion good causes. It is the same argument that monarchists use to make a case for “benevolent kings” who they feel will act with society’s best interests at heart. The billionaire’s interests appear to some to be more noble than the public’s, who at least in theory would be able to determine what would be done with that billionaire’s wealth if it were taxed (and in fact, with the wealth taxes being proposed, quite a bit more of the wealth of the superrich would be available for public spending than they are giving away). In other words, plutocracy is a better driver for policy than democracy, or whatever’s left of it.
3
I am not a billionaire and the probability that I will ever become one is virtually zero. Nonetheless, I am offended by this essay. Being a billionaire is not equal to being evil, and there not all billionaires are the same. I am opposed of condemning any group based on a stereotype. I am disgusted by trump because of his behavior, not because he is a billionaire. Trump is no Bill Gates. Can we please stop using identity politics and focus on policy differences? Please?
1
As resentful and angry as many Americans may be about billionaires in politics, I think that if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that we (as a nation) do confer higher societal status on billionaires. In fact, we worship them. We think they are special. We marvel at what Steve Jobs did and Jeff Bezos. We do not marvel at what good teachers do, however, and we do not give them the status we give billionaires. Billionaires may create jobs, but good teachers shape the people who make up our entire society. Too bad we don't worship them the way we worship billionaire entrepreneurs. Maybe we'd have a better society if we did.
8
The increasing disdain for billionaires is simply a symptom of a system out of balance. Most people realize they will never amass excessive wealth, and perhaps most do not have a desire
to do so. Most people simply want to live a decent life, have a means of taking care of themselves and their families, and access to a social safety net in their times of trouble.
The frustration of the average person comes from the constant fear of living life on the edge. Always afraid that the factory will close and they will not have a means of income. Always afraid of having a medical emergency and not having the ability to access care because of no emergency funds, no health coverage or poor health coverage. Always frustrated because of an increasing tax burden, while at the same time realizing tax loopholes allow those with wealth to avoid their fair share.
The billionaire class and those with wealth have always been among us. However, what makes this period different is that in the public mind, the concept of the benevolent billionaire is dying, while that of the predatory billionaire is on the rise.
5
The worst thing (among many awful things) about a Bloomberg or Steyer candidacy is that it sets the precedent for a Zuckerberg or Bezos candidacy in the not-too-distant future.
Hopefully, humans will develop a degree of immunization to advertising before that happens.
8
If you made 1 million dollars a month it would still take 84 YEARS to earn a billion dollars. (And that's assuming no taxes/expenses etc. If you added that parameter in it would take longer)
Michael Bloomberg and other billionaires insist they "work really hard". Does he work $1 million/month hard? And more importantly is earning that much acceptable when the only way it can happen is by deliberately manipulating and depressing salaries/benefits/entitlements/public funds for the people who make less than$15/hour (who also work really hard).
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure he and his billionaire buddies could scrape by with a lot less so that the folks at the bottom could do better.
9
@g
I believe, like most, have no problem with those that can earn a great deal of money as long as that is all it is. The real problem is, those with that money in America can now legally bribe and influence politicians to set the government policy agenda(tax policy, regulation, offshore business etc.)which greatly advances and speeds up that accumulation of wealth at the expense of others.
6
@g
There are no squirrels with nuts stored in a thousand trees. There is something irrational and likely unrelatable about trading your time for more wealth after a certain point.
It might be a compulsion or a pursuit of status or power or using work to hide from personal demons, but none of these should be a reassuring explanation to voters.
When my salary hit a certain point, I bought a new couch, a TV and new bed. I could not think of any other "stuff" I wanted and my favorite forms of vacation are a road or camping trip.
Years later, I still have the TV, I gave the couch to my free-range chinchilla (that turned out poorly) and the bed did not survive the last move. The whole idea of spending life on wildly excess wealth just seems squirrely.
2
According to all the centrists that supposedly care for the future of the country, the only way forward is Bloomberg.
But I ask, do you care about the country, or do you care about yourselves?
I care about the country. I'll vote Bernie or Warren, thanks.
11
The author has some good points but the whole article seems stoked in naivete. Have we ever had a time when persons of influence (money or power) have not set the tone in this country from the very inception? To single out Bloomberg is ridiculous.
Secondly, there are billionaires and there are billionaires. A self-proclaimed billionaire like Trump is cut from a different cloth. Bloomberg is not Trump and to put him and Gates, Buffet etc. in the same bucket as Trump would be nonsensical.
I do believe people like Bloomberg can be more objective and less prone to external influences based on campaign contributions.
I also believe people like Bloomberg, who have worked hard to get to where they are, know that true work gets done only in highly effective teams filled with smart and successful members - not sycophants. And at this point, I believe someone like Bloomberg wants to leave a lasting legacy and that is his motivation to step into the stage. And I also believe, Trump's only motivation was to enrich himself through the President's office!
But to answer your question - I don't believe there should be any multi-billionaires in this country. Other than bragging rights and the ability to live a large life, what is the point of more wealth than a billion dollars! One can live on that amount alone for a dozen generations at least! So tax anything over a billion dollars at >50%. And charge carried interest in hedge funds just as much as regular income!
2
I agree with G from NY and Dave from Arizona. I don’t doubt that Bloomberg May have worked hard at some point in his career but he didn’t earn his billions without the help of many people earning less, and I mean LESS, than he. I’m a proud Union member because at the age of 12 a member of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union of which my mother was a member, said to me that I should ALWAYS want for Others, at the very least, what I had. I have never forgotten those words.
Today, as an AMERICAN Federation of Teachers Union member I enjoy excellent health care and pension benefits. I want the same for everyone else. That is why I am a Democrat. Democrats have passed all the laws that EVEN republicans enjoy: Medicare, Social Security, Workers Compensation Law, Affordable Care Act, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and many more laws that Always benefit ALL Americans as opposed to laws pass by Republicans which usually affect ONLY the 1percent. Vote BLUE 2020.
1
@Sundu "I am a billionaire businessman who can't be bought" is another Trump talking point. Matters are actually the other way around: If you're a billionaire, you're already bought and corrupt.
2
We have always been subjected to the golden rule.
The one where whoever has the gold makes the rules.
The biggest plus of our political system is that we change leaders either every 4 or 8 years.
We will survive as long as we can continue to do this non violent exchange of power. If it falls it will not because the elected one decides to stay, if will be because the electorate will not want him or her to go. That is how we will know if our republic has fallen
1
@Norville T. Johnston
I believe history has shown time and again, Oligarchs and democracy are descriptions of individuals and societies that do NOT go hand in hand.
4
A hundred years ago a relative of Freud brought psychology into the marketing of mass produced goods and it made big corporations even bigger. All it was was understanding what people’s motives were, especially unconscious ones, and offering satisfactions to those needs being associated with goods for sale. The money in politics is for marketing candidates, that’s all that it does.
If people understand how they are being manipulated by political marketing, they can consider it in context and take it or leave it. Once that they do and begin to investigate the issues and all of the people running, the importance of money can shrink to little significance in our elections.
Now the mass media needs political advertising because they are businesses, so they are not eager to inform anyone about why money has become so important.
3
Anand Giridharadas doesn't look much further than Bloomberg's billions. She doesn't look at Bloomberg's accomplishments in NYC, making it a better place for its inhabitants. She doesn't mention the jobs training programs, the small business initiative for minorities and many other social programs implemented on his watch. She brought up only the notorious Stop and Frisk program, which was a well-intentioned mistake. When it comes to Bloomberg, you have to look at the whole picture.
3
@Anne The whole picture is that he didn't enter the race until it looked like Bernie or Warren might win it. He's more scared of them than he is of four more years of Trump.
1
There’s a quote from scripture about it being easier for someone to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. It would seem that through his many philanthropic donations, Mr. Bloomberg is trying to buy his way through that needle. I give him credit for trying at least to benefit others. Unlike a certain resident of the White House who seems fixated only on his own fate and the ruination of his enemies.
2
"The Billionaire Election: Does the world belong to them or to us?"
Sadly, we all know the answer to that question.
We'd like to think the world belongs to "us" (the 99%), but we know the answer, based on who gets elected, insane tax and economic policies that have consistently favor billionaires for 40 years, , and the fact that two "leading" candidates for president are billionaires. (Well, one is, while the other claims he is ...)
3
The article had many good points but there is a dilemma that people don’t want to face here. Billionaires are billionaires because they can be very efficient at what they do. Often that is providing services at cheaper costs. But sometimes it simply vulture capitalism. Okay. But if you take away their money through taxes you are giving it instead (through taxes) to the government. That is—Taxes going to either the federal or to state governments. That’s where the money would go.
And what would be the fate of that money? The government translates into hordes of bureaucrats. The money disappears into that maw. And it will only rarely reappear in society in any creative economic way. the government will simply eat it up in the form of salaries to an increased number of drones, and lots and lots of paperwork before anything ever gets done.
Those seem to me to be the choices. I distrust the power of billionaires. But my experience with, say, getting a new driver’s license at the California Department of Motor Vehicles makes me wary of the alternative fate of the money.
I think this is a problem we need to face.
If America had a firewall between great wealth on political influence, then maybe billionaires wouldn't be so dangerous, but in America, money is political speech.
9
So sounds like we need rules that eliminate the power of money in our elections. There is no reason to spend billions of dollars to "win" a place on a ballot--unless that will guarantee a political platform that you need to maintain your class and lifestyle. Or keep Wall Street, corporations, and those with enough income to invest locked in their ivory towers. Why are elections on TV or You Tube or even Internet outlets? If we elect on platforms, policies and real progress for America all we need are words, not images and a bunch of yelling candidates. Inequality starts with unequal access to everything and slaves and serfs have been a staple of all nations since history was codified in language and writing. Will the Democratic machine help change this? Incremental change has not worked as evidenced by the years from the 1960's to now. We need a strong government commitment to the welfare of our citizens and and an election process that is not owned by political and media cartels. Tax at the right rate, clean up lobbying and graft, give everyone access to health care, housing and good education, and let's see what happens.
If we are lucky, the Democratic power structure will realize (before they lose again to the Repubs and Russia and a TV show clown) that they could be remembered for leading a bloodless revolution and for joining other nations who have put their citizens welfare above money.
3
As others have pointed out, Citizens United looms large here. Fundamental electoral reform is needed, sooner rather than later. Until then, our political system--and country--will continue to be subject to a great deal of instability, both from forces within and without.
3
There is a parallel to Bloomberg's run and Putin's first campaign. In the latter private money worked to corrupt the media and effectively create a propaganda machine. Mr. Bloomberg's money threatens to do the same.
Mr. Trump by contract was outspent in both the primary and general election campaigns.
Mr. Bloomberg has now spent more money than Barack Obama did in his 2012 re-election campaign. If he succeeds the US political system will truly become the plaything of billionaires and the press will have little ability to perform its historic function.
Mr. Bloomberg's election would end American Democracy as we know it in the name of saving it (from a truly awful president).
I will not vote for him.
2
Since Citizen's United has upended political contributions and enabled unlimited financial contributions to influence or even control elections I suggest that we go one step further. With the new trend of self funded billionaire candidates there could be a new opportunity for voters to benefit financially from the campaigns. Rather than spending millions to influence voters and pandering to voters with false promises, I think that candidates should simply pay voters directly for their vote. Let's eliminate the middle men, the media advertising and political strategists and let's have candidates buy votes from the source. Legislation could be passed that changes a vote to a "chit' the equivalent of one vote and could be transferable. Voters could sell these chits to the highest bidding candidates. The candidates with the most chits wins the race. This gets politics out of elections and replaces politics with unfettered capitalism. Let market forces prevail; problems solved.
1
You can have Wealth in the hands of a few, or a Democracy.
You cannot have both.
6
The bottom line is that as long as Citizens United is the law of the land and money rules politics, billionaires are the new political leaders.
5
I know quite a few millionaires that earned every penny of their wealth. From my 40th high school reunion, 2 electricians, a plumber, a guy who lays concrete, a couple of guys who flipped burgers. They now own large companies, or own a couple of major burger franchises or more. One friend worked at a nursing home, and now owns over 20 nursing homes, (no college). There was a merger attorney for Jones Day, a president of a large food chain, and some doctors too. I saw more millionaires without degrees in my group of friends. I have 3 brothers and a sister that would fall into that group, with only a degree between all of them. Becoming a successful lawyer or surgeon isn’t lucky. Working at the bottom up to own a company takes more than luck too. I don’t know a lucky millionaire, but of course, anyone that inherited a million wouldn’t probably talk about it. The only way to become a lucky billionaire is to inherit it.
2
Were Mr. Bloomberg to use his wealth to help this country, I have no problem with his level of wealth nor his leadership style. He needs to release his tax returns as soon as possible. He needs to favor taxing the wealthy and ultra-wealthy more equitably. Can he utilize some of his wealth to help oust GOP senators and eradicate student debt, and keep funding green energy initiatives? Let's get it done.
I believe he has been contributing significant sums to many of these causes already. Including helping dems retake the house in 2018. And his tax proposals are very progressive. And he has vowed to sell his company if elected.
1
Mayor Bloomberg has already spent $400 million. At that rate he’ll be broke in about 150 years. But I suspect this will be the best investment of his life, one to save our priceless Democracy.
3
@Patrick McGowan
I would not worry, "Mike" will not have to avail himself of a food bank any time soon.
Of all the candidates - the ONLY ones who have held non-legislative positions are bloomberg and mayor pete.... B ran the biggest city in the us and did a good job at it.
Why do you care that he is a billionaire... He does not strike me as someone intent on making money at this point - he strikes me as someone intent on making a difference and he wants to make a difference for the people. I want that.
7
@The Ed Wrong, Bernie was previously mayor of Burlington.
Taxes on the wealthy were way way higher in the boom years of the 50 60s and 70s. Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax will not apply to you until your 50 millionth and $1. That
ought to be enough to live on- we definitely do NOT NEED any more billionaires.
Higher taxes on the wealthy are absolutely required to support the workforce, most of whom are WOMEN, who are ALSO responsible for bearing the babies, raising the children, running the household, and caring for the elderly.
Redirecting excess wealth for relief to regular families is the best way to help each citizen to reach their potential, and strengthen the United States.
3
I hope Bloomberg wins the nomination and the election. For two reasons: 1. We get rid of the vile autocrat who is Pied Piper-ing so many of our more conservative citizens towards an authoritarian cliff. 2. We get a clear demonstration of the pernicious effect that allowing unlimited personal and corporate funding has on our elections - maybe sufficient to catalyze a movement and legislation to make a correction.
1
The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment guarantees anyone the right to buy an election (see Citizens United).
And if this right extended to outright buying votes, I am certain that a majority of Americans would put up their vote for sale on E-bay. This country’s business is business. Money is her God. Always has been. Always will, Mr. Sanders notwithstanding.
As the CEO of Network told the legendary Howard Beale: You, Sir, are meddling with the fundamental forces of Nature!
4
What you'll NEVER hear in the progressive news media is that there are many more billionaires in the Democratic Party than in the GOP.
Take most any wealthy family for an example. The creator of lots of wealth spends his time building the business and never seems to even get involved in politics.
But his children wake up rich, feel lots of white guilt about that, and devote their lives to looking progressive enough to be invited to all the nice events.
The heavy Leftward tilt of foundations shows the same thing. The wealth would NEVER have been there had the first person been a big-government, high-taxation advocate.
But that person leaves the scene and the Foundation built with the proceeds does all it can to make sure that no future creator of jobs and wealth comes along in the same way again.
2
There is no “progressive news media”. If only.
1
When the majority of the country no longer has a say in. policy, things need to change. The ultimate issue I have with billionaires is that they are imposing their policy views on the rest of us. If that means taking their wealth, so be it.
7
@Véronique
Lenin and his henchmen said the same thing in 1917.
They took their wealth and their heads. No Thanks.
I don't believe people get value of enjoyment beyond income of a few hundred thousand or wealth of a few million. That is enough to get a great residence or two, great home furnishings, great vacations, great food, great wine, great clothes, great medical care, and a great car or several great cars. Beyond that level of wealth, there are lots of disadvantages -- risk of being kidnapped, risk of your kids being kidnapped, risk of being surrounded by sycophants, risk of insincerity in friendship and love, restrictions on movements in public, etc. I think that the reason that people persist in trying to make billions instead of being content with less than $10 million is that they are power hungry. I don't want someone who is power hungry in politics in any capacity.
7
@Kay Sieverding
Take a course in economics. Surprising what one can learn.
An honest appraisal of what happens with a so-called democracy where money dictates politics...and preserves, even magnifies, excessive wealth of the few, as to justify a name for it: 'reverse socialism' (the rich and powerful taking the poor's resources...to enhance their wealth). From my perspective, capitalism devoid of ethics may be worse than socialism or communism (of note, essential U.S. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, the Military, are social programs!); giving free reign (licence, really) to selfishness and greed. You see, a democracy ought to be incompatible with the current rising, and odious, economic inequality. And the close relationship of money to politics, as the 'elites' are able, and willing, to buy elections...so to keep the statud quo. Now, a touchy point: do you think, by venture, that any of us, no matter how smart and hard working, and lots of luck, deserve to be a billionaire, even supposing we made it 'honestly' (in which case you would have to explain to me what private equity's social value is, if any). My answer would be No! A happy society, where justice is valued, so peace in society may become reality, would require an equitable sharing of the economic pie. Then, equal opportunity for affordability of quality life (in jobs, housing, health care, education) would become the order of the day. Again, dreaming is cheap...but worth a try. Always.
6
Mr. Sanders is certainly not a billionaire, but he is a millionaire and on a senator's salary of $174,000 a year.
Yet in 2016 he made $795,000 !! Allegedly from a book advance.
He spent $600,000 on a beach house in Vermont.
Newsweek reported he was wearing a $700 jacket.
He and his wife have a condo in Washington.
In 2014 he gave $8,350 to charity.
That deserves immediate comment. This is a relatively small sum of money and many people who do not earn what the Senator does, together with his wife (formerly president of Burlington College and at present founder of the Sanders Institute - salary??) give much more and on a regular basis.
https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/bernie-sanders-net-worth-14678955
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a26933413/bernie-sanders-wife-jane-facts/
My wife's grandfather in Brooklyn was a communist (ok, not a democratic socialist) and that was the reason he ran away from Czarist Russia, right ahead of the secret police.
He worked in the US as a house painter. His wife, until they married, worked in a pocketbook factory. Eventually they had an apartment in Brighton Beach near the Ocean, winter, spring, summer and fall. Their type of communism did not allow for summer homes. The book deal never came.
3
Being a billionaire means having all the money one will ever need and all that that money can buy when one wants it. But money is a means of exchange and nothing else. It has no value nor significance in any other way. If people refuse to interact with anyone, that individual has no power. Billionaires’ wealth is not what gives them a greater say in society, it’s all of us who let them have it. We can simply require that they accept the rule of law and accept having no more political authority than all others, if we all insist.
3
Another 3 great questions might be: Would you prefer Billionaires to pay more taxes into the general tax base or for them to decide where they prefer to spend their “ tax deductible contributions” ?
Does any voter think their vote has the same influence as someone who can afford to “donate” the maximum to the same candidate? Would eliminating lobbyists help our democracy?
6
In 1775 the richest person in the colonies was probably John Hancock. He used his wealth to foment a revolution. However, he was considered arrogant and was not chosen as our first president. The fellow with the largest land holdings got the nod, instead.
2
Spot on.
2
The only ones I hear raising the issue of gross income inequality are those on the left, and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Does anyone on the right have any concern about the decimation of the middle class and the worsening of the plight of the poor? They can't possibly deny that it is happening.
I heard a story that Warren Buffett sent 500 letters to people who have exceptional wealth, asking them to join him in lobbying for higher taxes on the wealthy. I believe he only had 4 or 5 who agreed to support his efforts.
Why aren't the other 495 concerned? Even a modest increase in taxes on the upper percentiles would make a huge difference.
I don't think I care if there are billionaires. I care about how they achieved that status, how well they pay the workers who helped them get there, and that they recognize a responsibility to, yes, pay their fair share to help support our society. I think it was Ronald Reagan who wept crocodile tears for the wealthy who had to pay such high taxes, and suggested that there was no incentive for them to work after they reached a certain tax bracket. Somehow I don't think a higher tax bracket would have stopped Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg, Jeff Bazos, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. from pursuing their particular endeavors.
This is what makes Sanders and Warren so appealing. They are addressing the plight of the majority of Americans.
Why isn't everyone talking about it?
17
@Greeley
From where I sit and more than in any other country, Americans are infatuated with the wealthy and somewhat brainwashed into thinking that those whom have become wealthy are to be adored and are superior to the rest of us in every way, hence, they are the ONLY ones that are qualified to become leaders.
The problem is and as the writer has pointed out, a considerable amount of that wealth has been generated by the power and influence of that money over governments who set agendas(tax policy, subsidies, de-regulation, moving money and companies offshore etc.) to strictly serve their interests enabling them to become even wealthier at everyone else's expense. Then, in order to misdirect away from those massive benefits they have received, they become philanthropists whose "tax deductible" contributions falsely present themselves as helping others, many of whom are in that state because of the billionaires.
As someone recently stated: "Don't look for the better nature in the extremely wealthy, they don't have one".
5
@Greeley
I would suspect of those 495 who didn't respond, was the billionaire when in a television interview was asked about paying more taxes, started to cry.
2
We have reached plutocracy, again. And maybe more than once. The Gilded Age was only gilded for a few, for most it was a dog eat dog existence. Now days we wouldn't even let dogs exist that way but we don't seem to have a problem letting people live that way. The rise of the Financial Aristocracy can be the end of democracy. When you can buy an election, even with good intentions, you don't need people that can think for themselves, you just need people willing to sell their vote. And when times get tough the Aristocracy see everything and everyone for sale. Vulture Capitalism at it's finest. No need to look around, democracy has been bought and shipped out of town.
6
If you begin with the concept that have yet to elect at Billionaire (because the only one who thinks Trump is a Billionaire is Trump, and he's steadfastly refusing to show his math) the whole argument proffered by this article falls apart.
The inconvenient answer to the question of the article is that they ARE us. They just have much deeper pockets and can afford to cocoon themselves should they choose. And since Michael Bloomberg - unlike the current occupant of the White House - actually earned his billions, what is the issue?
Let's debate the issues. Politics is already disgusting enough that we as a country are willing to let a failed casino magnate and reality television star run it, and we're having a hard enough time finding anyone halfway decent to challenge him.
3
You make some interesting points here, but in the end I found myself wondering whether you were being dishonest or just stupid.
"Buying votes" means paying people to vote for you. Nobody is doing that, not Bloomberg or anybody else.
What Bloomberg is doing is spending money to persuade people to vote for him. ALL the candidates, every single one of them, are doing the same thing. The only distinctive thing about Bloomberg is that he is using his own money, while all the others are using other people's money. For them to condemn Bloomberg for trying to "buy the election" while they are doing exactly the same thing is hypocritical to say the least.
Someone should ask Sanders the following question: if you had a couple of Billion dollars of your own, would you use it to fund your own campaign, or would you continue to take money from people not nearly as well off? If he would use his own money, then he's a hypocrite for criticizing Bloomberg for doing exactly the same thing. If he says he would continue to take money from others, then he's just as immoral as he claims other wealthy people to be. I'll take an honest Billionaire over a hypocritical socialist anytime.
6
ok but your question at the end is completely hypothetical because Sanders has a couple million compared to the many many billions of bloomberg. with citizens united the influence of money is far greater than it ever has and I will take the candidate who's raising that money the honest and hard way, by promoting policies that help working families and campaigning vigorously for peoples trust.
3
@Emeritus Bean Bernie is not taking other peoples money, he is asking for it, and these donations are freely given. What Bloomberg is doing, using his fortune, is in effect saying he is more equal than we are. The supposed "will of the people" ceases to exist.
4
@KT
Yes, he asks for it, and then he takes it. And people give it in return for the (dubious in my view) promises he makes. Not exactly free.
Bloomberg is saying nothing more than "I don't need your money". What you read into that is a kind of ideological Rorschach test.
And, the will of the people is expressed by their votes, as it always has been and always will be, at least, that's what we hope.
1
I am not afraid of billionaires. I am afraid of irresponsible demagogues inflaming class hatred, blaming a group of people for everything that’s wrong with the country, using dehumanizing and degrading rhetoric, promising prosperity and delivering only more hatred. Anybody familiar with the rhetoric used by Sanders knows it is taken straight from the Soviet textbook of propaganda. It worked - until it did not. And it exposes the lie that Bernie and his bros want a Scandinavian-style social democracy. You think there are no billionaires and millionaires in Scandinavia? I did not vote for Bloomberg in the primaries - not because he is a billionaire but because he is not a very good candidate. But if I hear one more Soviet-style screed again “the rich”, I will post on my lawn a sign with names of victims of the Gulag and the Cambodian killing fields. Some of them were rich.
2
I hear and acknowledge your concerns about divisiveness.
But it’s important remember that every step our society chose to take toward decency and fairness has been viciously fought against by the wealthy.
These things include a few things that you yourself might actually be in favor of, such as the of ending slavery, child labor, and 7 day work weeks as well as creating workplace safety regulations, allowing workers to form unions without being beaten or murdered, the right to release unlimited poisons into the air, ground and water, as well as a few modest programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and unemployment insurance.
In every case, the wealthy of the time insisted that these improvement would destroy our society and economy, and in every case they have been dead wrong.
So, yes, when a group has been and continues to be an impediment to common sense and good governance, they must be fought against. And part of that fight involves tearing down the phony image they have so carefully crafted for themselves as virtuous, benevolent leaders.
2
anger at injustice fueled by greedy business exploitation and unfair wealth creation is completely fair if you ask me... CEOs in this country make thousands times more than what their workers at the bottom do, and we at the bottom pay most of the taxes to keep society in good shape, and are expected to believe that we all have the same access to wealth creation as the mega rich... I agree that Sanders can be a bit heavy handed but also think workers of this country have started to numb to the injustices, so it takes a real rabble rouser to wake us up...
2
'Mr. Bloomberg replied, “I worked very hard for it, and I’m giving it away.”'
That quote about says it all. He might have worked hard for his dollars but it is over the backs of people who work even harder, with tho or three jobs, and who still cannot afford way too expensive health insurance. And about giving it away: no mr Bloomberg, if you have 62.8 billion dollars in wealth, you have not given it away. You might have given a few peanuts away, but you have not given 'it' away. And the money you have 'given' away the past months in paying for ads, influencers, politicians, etc., only benefits yourself. You are buying this election in an unprecedented way.
It's incomprehensible to me how people can vote for such an out of touch, aloof, racist, misogynist, arrogant guy. It shows how the masses are attracted to wealth and power. In the short term he is probably better than Trump; in the long term he will help to set an oligarchic plutocracy that will drive the American people into poverty for ages (for so far it already isn't).
8
@Renske I believe you are incorrect. Mike Bloomberg has been and continues to be a philanthropist first and a candidate second. Long before running as a Presidential candidate, he has funded Climate Change Abatement, common sense gun legislation, women’s rights, other Progressive candidates, the list goes on and on.
Just because someone has been smart enough and lucky enough and had good people with them to create wealth, which a Capitalist society encourages, does not mean he should be penalized.
He is doing exactly the right thing with his wealth. I commend him and support him and hope he becomes the next President to get this criminal out of the Whitehouse!
@Renske
Nonsense. Bloomberg is using his money to try to create a better America by throwing Trump out. Yes, he does believe in his own accomplishments which are far more than the con in the White House.
But no good deed goes unpunished. The Dems hate him and seem to fear him more than Trump. The papers are full of scandalous attacks on him and even
Liz made a fool of herself by her unwarranted attacks.
He is seen as a lecher, a tax cheat, a bigot,and, can you believe it, a Billionaire.
If it were me, I would find me a beach somewhere, even if I had to buy one and tell the Democrats where there is a very warm place where they can go.
This country is filled with many wannabe billionaires. And the recurring myth is that if you pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you, too, can be a billionaire. It is often what prevents any kind of reform or regulation in the system. We don't want government to get in the way of me making my first billion or adding to what I already have.
And if you're already a billionaire, you don't want people (the government) taking away what you have.
I guess there might not be anything wrong with being a billionaire, as Seinfeld might say.
But it raises many questions if you want to be president.
How did you make it? How did you treat your employees? Were you a union buster? Did you cannibalize other businesses for their assets and throw a lot of people out of work? What do your lobbyists lobby for...tax reform; higher defense spending? What benefits do you provide your employees (e.g health care)? How much taxes does your company or companies pay every year?
How would you govern?
We have had over three years experience with a so-called billionaire. Once might be enough.
6
@Jack Carbone Bloomberg and Trump are NOT equivalent. They are as different as an honest man versus a blowhard criminal.
The only way I would vote for a super-rich person would be if, like Franklin D. Rossevelt, other super-rich people hated him or her They called Roosevelt "a traitor to his class" and he threw it back in their face and said "They hate me and I welcome their hatred." I definitely do not see that attitude in Bloomberg, so I'll write another two-figure check for Elizabeth Warren and vote for her in the primary. If Bloomberg gets the nomination I will hold my nose and choose him over Trump and then quit the Democrats and join the Working Families Party. But the way things are going they will probably nominate Tom Steyer next time.
7
@Dave
The Presidency is now free to be bought and sold. More than likely Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates.
Bernie failed his own purity test. Look at his evasive reply when challenged for owning 3 houses and beiing a millionaire - "like a lot of people in vermont i have a summer cabin." Really! And plenty of congresspeople don't have a third home in DC either, they rent and have roommates or commute from Delaware like Biden did.
The middle class should fear a wealth tax. Warren says hers won't start with you. But what if a Republican congress decides that it should? You'll be taxed once on your income and then again on what that income allowed you to do with your life, like own a home or have a car or keep a savings account or a retirement fund. I wouldn't open that floodgate.
Better to start with honest tax reform. Close the corporate loopholes. Tighten some easy tax minimization strategies that only the truly wealthy can utilize. Get rid of the obscenely fraudulent Trump "opportunity zones."
3
So, in this way, the U.S. will go down; somehow, Americans want socialism because they have been too happy. Warren wants to break up companies as if she can create jobs and do something about workers in the rustbelt. What can she or Sanders do? How can they create jobs? By creating tons of public officials? Didn't the USSR already try it? By breaking up companies? By barring free trade and implementing protectionism as Trump does? Well, that's Sanders' choice, protectionism. American leftists like Sanders and Warren do not know how Americans have enjoyed the kind of living that they have. Look a radical leftist like Dr. Chomsky; how could he enjoy the best academic environment at MIT, one of the most expensive private universities in the world? If the U.S. is so corrupt, why didn't he move Venezuela? Does the word belong to the billionaire or us? What a childish and foolish question! This is one of the reasons why the U.S. is going down; Americans are dumb.
Being loud and ugly to another contender seems to get high marks from the press and others? Well if this type of behavior is what makes a candidate electable we have Trump - Why look elsewhere - he is belligerent on a daily basis - fits the bill - four more years of Trump?
7
You make some interesting points here, but ultimately, I found your argument more than a little disingenuous. "Buying votes" means paying people to vote for you. Nobody is doing that, not Bloomberg or anybody else. What Bloomberg is doing is spending money to persuade people to vote for him. ALL the candidates, every single one of them, are doing the same thing. The only distinctive thing about Bloomberg is that he is using his own money, while all the others are using other people's money. For them to condemn Bloomberg for trying to "buy the election" while they are doing exactly the same thing is hypocritical to say the least.
Someone should ask Sanders the following question: if you had a couple of Billion dollars of your own, would you use it to fund your own campaign, or would you continue to take money from people who might be unemployed, unable to afford good health care or decent housing for themselves and their families? If he would use his own money, then he's a hypocrite for criticizing Bloomberg for doing what any decent person, wealthy or not, should do. If he says he would continue to take money from others, many of whom could be disadvantaged, then he's just as immoral as he claims other wealthy people to be. How is it that he can claim such behavior to be a virtue, while condemning Bloomberg for being decent? I'll take an honest Billionaire over a hypocritical socialist anytime.
1
I just love me a socialist wearing $3000 suits while promoting the Green New Deal (yes that was AOC).
Or Socialist millionaires who own 3 homes (yeap, Sanders).
Let's stop this 'am more woke than thou' thing. It's hypocritical to call out people for having full pockets, while yours are way above the average people you are supposedly representing.
Hillary blew near a billion, Sanders is blowing millions, so why criticize others for doing the same as you?
At least Bloomberg made his own money, his way. Maybe he can do it for the country and boom our economy.
I rather have that, than socialists telling me we need to balance the wealth, while their pockets are full.
5
my pockets are not full.. elect me! say what you want but working wages have not risen nearly fast enough for me to care much about the fact that Sanders has 2 homes and a cabin; his wealth is not obscene or exploitatively accrued like the billionaires running this country. HE is putting the entire working class on his back and sacrificing a huge political cost in doing so... he's got my vote and another $20 when I get my next paycheck... plainly, there are not enough advocates for the working class, he's taking it on so I will support him.
3
One thing becomes clearer that number of millionaires and billionaires is slowly growing in American and almost all over the world, even in developing countries like India, traditionally poor but with a very robust & functional democracy. India had no billionaire till 1980s. But now it has 4th highest number of billionaires- after US, China, & Russia. At the same time India now has the highest number of poor and hungry people than all sub saharan African countries combined.
It's also becoming clearer that wealth inequality and sociopolitical polarization, frustration against established political process in almost all democracies are also growing at a faster rate.
Previously, rich businessmen in America, India, and around the world would bribe politicians to do its bidding. But they themselves stayed behind the scene to evade public scrutiny. It's the same for professional criminals and other local goons.
Now, for last couple of decades (mainly after globalization and hope to benefit from this globalized economy), increasing number of businessmen and criminals are openly participating in political arena to benefit themselves more- financially and politically- by getting rid of the middlemen, politicians, they once used. It's the same for professional criminals too.
Religion and race are always in service for such noble efforts by such noble people since primitive time.
5
I don't know if billionaires are that much smarter than a lot of other non-billionaires.
Bloomberg spent 40 million on his campaign in a couple of months (or one month?), and just pilfered it all away on a lousy debate performance because he wasn't prepared.
Brilliant!
6
I see Sanders-Warren machinery of hate of “billionaires” as a class, regardless of all other aspects, is increasing their chances to win the Democratic nomination. Trump would love it! Like Thomas Friedman said, you want a revolution, it is Trump for another 4 years.
@Citizen
AND the press in America will love it!
There’s a Twitter account handle that pretty much sums up my attitude: “Every billionaire represents a policy failure.”
4
There was a time the Catholic Church sold indulgence papers to the billionaires of that time. The “philanthropy” of our times of Bezos, Bloomberg and the like is hardly any different. One one hand you ruin people’s lives with what you do, with the other hand you give them some free balsam to ease the pain you caused.
The author here wrote a brilliant book which I truly enjoyed and gifted many friends with. So I won’t add anything to his great work.
I will add though a simple idea that the philosopher of the 20th century, Professor John Rawls published one his magnum opus A Theory of Justice in 1971 while he was teaching at Harvard.
You create a society where everyone goes to sleep without knowing who they will wake up as, and are indifferent to the fact.
That is a just society. It maximizes the welfare of its least well off before it optimized the utility of the rest.
In such a society (Scandinavia comes very close), can there be billionaires? After maximizing the welfare of its least fortunate, if the numbers allow it yes (highly unlikely but not impossible since the Wallenberg family in Sweden may be billionaires albeit minor ones). That is possible where the society as a whole is extremely well off. Hypothetically it can happen I guess.
Let’s focus on what us likely. Bernie is focusing exactly in that. Steinbeck would be proud to rewrite his dictum if he was alive.
4
Hope Mr. Anand Giridharadas next article is about what he thinks about the last three years of this government to use it as a base to judge this article.
I suspect that there are good billionaires that would be a good president (Bloomberg) and bad billionaires that would be a corrupt president (trump).
2
Very simple solution: No one should be allowed to finance their own election.
2
There's only one billionaire candidate; the other merely plays a billionaire on television.
2
This writer would be a lot more credible if he were not on a first name basis with the top 20 billionaires in this country.
There are billionaires and there is the developing industry built around talking about them.
From a BI article Feb. 4. Pretty sure he is still enmeshed--at least symbiotically.
Giridharadas has been a journalist, a professor of journalism at New York University, and a McKinsey consultant. And as an Aspen Institute Fellow, he was enmeshed in the world of elite "thought leaders" for five years before he questioned its fundamental purpose. His book, released last fall, is an in-depth critique of what he deems "MarketWorld," a vision of reality where everything can be solved through the private sector with elites controlling the levers.
If the author believes that Bloomberg is running not for the future of everyone’s grandchildren : guns, healthcare, environment, deficit, fairer tax policy but for himself and his own class — the bundle Bloomberg with Trump — we might as well just hand over the election now!
Well to do who wants to do public service for the good of the entire country — has to run and be treated civilly.
This country was built on commerce and thrift not by Robin Hood.
1
Perhaps as a quibbling perspective: Haven't we as a capitalist country created billionaires? We created millionaires -- and since capitalism is based on competition and over time that leads to more and more consumption and wealth, well, eventually in this country of unfettered profit-seeking, that means we'll have billionaires. Over-simplified -- but we're all part of that market system.
Most of us use Amazon. Millions of us go to Walmart and McDonalds. We're on Facebook, Google, and Apple or Windows.
I don't like the billionaire dilemma in the least, and Trump exemplifies the pinnacle of how the worst slimes to the top. Ideally Bernie or Warren can correct the madness. But it's myopic to think we can continue our habits of heavy consumption, environmental plundering, and love of cheap gasoline and SUVs -- and still blame billionaires for our corruption.
Those of us who can afford to pay for the NYTimes and other crucial resources forget -- I know I do -- that there are millions for whom rent, bread, gasoline, and their children's shoes are still breaking their monthly budget (that $400 emergency crisis).
The false questions the author raises are simplistic and black-and-white here. Let's dig deeper and demand our Democratic candidates ask us all to be accountable, please.
1
Spending your own money to get elected is corruption? I'd take that form of corruption in politics anytime.
1
Elizabeth Warren 2020! The best of all worlds!
1
There is a remarkable list of President's by net worth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth
There is NO CORRELATION WHATSOEVER between the wealth and quality of the president. Trump leads the list, but Washington is second! FDR is 9th! Teddy is 4th!
I agree with commentators who say that it is the character, ideas and convictions of the candidate that matters. It is quite possible that very wealthy figures, out of personal conviction, will take steps to limit equality. It is quite possible that relatively poor leaders will adopt policies that will increase inequality.
Bloomberg's billions aren't an argument against him; stop and frisk and his treatment of women is, but one should look closer at his policies and what causes he believes in.
1
Trump might be a slight billionaire on paper.
If he invested his daddy’s money in an index fund it might have been worth forty times more.
But give crooked politicians credit.
I trust Obama and Bush II — but can you imagine how many millions of cash they could have received on the golf course if they were pure crooked?
With Presidents having non disclosure on guest lists ....
If three terms, they could pull off the added four years — their greed - IN THEORY they might shoot for a billion from these golf course payoffs?
But how much policy change is out there to sell....?
The right wing has been largely bankrolled by billionaires with the most notable being the Koch brothers. They have even formed many group pretending to be grassroots groups. They have also funded the think tanks that feed into conservative talk radio and Fox News. On the other hand the left wing consists consists largely of true grassroots groups for various causes that are not dependent on funding from billionaires. But this has put the left at a distinct disadvantage. The left does not have the funding to prevent the right from grabbing the levers of power. It is not an even playing field and the result is the United States is heading toward fascism and the left does not appear to have the resources to stop this.
4
This is a terrible argument to say the election belongs to a specific person or "us."
On the Collins's op-ed column, someone responded to my point that being a billionaire shouldn't automatically disqualify the person by saying there are only 600 some billionaires in the world. My response was this: if you replace the word 'billionaire' with 'POTUS', there are even fewer POTUS in American history!
There are real billionaires, fake billionaires, billionaires who worked hard for their goals and billionaires by birth. While I support affirmative actions, the same applies to race, religion and sex etc.. You don't want White Privilege but nonWhite Privilege can be equally jarring when certain people just use the loopholes to game the system.
It is time for people to stop using a label to disqualify someone, especially when they are the label busters like the Democrats