Forbes Article On Billionaire Donors (& One Article As To Why)

[Yooper]

I am NOT posting this article to generate outrage, snide comments, trolling, etc. (in either direction. Or any direction, for that matter). I AM posting because I find the dynamic/phenomenon interesting and thought other members of the forum might, as well.

Here Are The Billionaires Funding The Democratic Presidential Candidates, As Of September 2019

Marc Benioff, Reid Hoffman, George Lucas, Laurene Powell Jobs, Jack Dorsey and nearly 100 other members of the three-comma-club.

www.forbes.com

The opening paragraph:

Billionaires are everywhere in the 2020 election. Donald Trump, of course, is the incumbent. Howard Schultz, of Starbucks fame, considered launching a campaign to challenge him. Then Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire, actually did. Now Michael Bloomberg, who is richer than all of them, is reportedly positioning to do the same. And while those four made the headlines, around 100 other billionaires have been quietly donating to Democratic hopefuls.

A fairly quick read.

I will offer two comments (neither of which is focused on the candidates or their receiving of these donations). First, given the overall position of the candidates (toward billionaires) how should one understand the contributions? As, at first glance, the contributions seem counter-intuitive. But they're not, because there's certainly a logic to them. What is it? A singular reason? Or many?

One possible reason comes from this post (this is a longer, denser read):

Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class—A Status Update

The chief purpose of luxury beliefs is to indicate evidence of the believer’s social class and education.

quillette.com

Here's a snip:

In the past, people displayed their membership of the upper class with their material accoutrements. But today, luxury goods are more affordable than before. And people are less likely to receive validation for the material items they display. This is a problem for the affluent, who still want to broadcast their high social position. But they have come up with a clever solution. The affluent have decoupled social status from goods, and re-attached it to beliefs.

Second, there does seem to be a correlation (or two) between a particular candidate and number of donors to that candidate. Or are these possible correlations "deceptive"?

Anyway, enjoy the read(s). I did. I would also enjoy thoughtful comments/replies. Hoping that that's the type of replies that will populate this thread....

P.S. Though it really doesn't have anything to do with what interested me in these posts, for strictly info's sake if anyone can find a similar article on Republican donors, may I ask you to post a link? A current one, please. And one from an equally reputable and non-partisan source as Forbes. TIA

Cheers, all.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't have time to read a lengthy piece right now but that second one sounds very interesting so I bookmarked it.

My theory about why billionaires shower money on politicians who say they are going to destroy billionaires is because they know said politician doesn't really mean it. They're all tied together in these wealth schemes and when one goes down the rest are in jeopardy because they're intertwined. Only dumbasses believe what politicians say in their campaigns, especially when they get elected and proceed to do precisely nothing besides hobnob and get rich.

The rich and connected know this because they're part of the gang. People like you and me aren't part of that gang and never will be.

 

[Yooper]

I have similar thoughts (and a few others), but I'll reserve any further comment until later (hopefully, the post will generate a few more responses).

I think you'll enjoy the longer Quillette piece. You were among those I thought of when I linked to it. It's fascinating (at least it was to me).

I saw in another thread that it was your birthday. So, "Happy Birthday!" I hope you have a wonderful one/day. As for me, I'm to the point where I no longer have any interest in being reminded!

Cheers.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[vraiblonde]

I saw in another thread that it was your birthday. So, "Happy Birthday!" I hope you have a wonderful one/day. As for me, I'm to the point where I no longer have any interest in being reminded!

Thanks!

I'm about a third of the way through and am reminded of a chapter in Freakonomics that talks about girls' names and how they get adopted by the elites - Tiffany, Crystal, Brittany, etc - then we rabble start naming our daughters those names (to copy our betters and pretend we are one of them) and they lose status, gaining a trashy low class connotation.

That is not a major point in the piece, but interesting to see how we follow our leaders and our leaders quickly move on to something else to re-establish their status. I will expand more on this (maybe) after I finish the piece.

 

[Yooper]

Here's a tweet that caused me to wonder as I read the Forbes article:


It can't possibly be that these donor billionaires self-loath. No doubt here's more to it, but I suspect Vrai correctly points out at least part of it:

My theory about why billionaires shower money on politicians who say they are going to destroy billionaires is because they know said politician doesn't really mean it. They're all tied together in these wealth schemes and when one goes down the rest are in jeopardy because they're intertwined. Only dumbasses believe what politicians say in their campaigns, especially when they get elected and proceed to do precisely nothing besides hobnob and get rich.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[vraiblonde]

Another thought:

I am reminded of our visit to Salt Lake City, a city teeming with uberwhite SJWs and people sleeping on the streets just blocks away from the wealthy areas.

A number of the chi-chi eateries dotted around the upscale shopping mecca had signs in the window: "Refugees welcome here". First of all, no refugees would be wandering that part of the city to see that welcome. If, however, they were and entered one of these bistros, I have no doubt they would be promptly removed by the hipster owner who doesn't want smelly dirty Central Americans and their broods spoiling their elite customers' $50 brunch.

Luxury beliefs. We rabble are bad because we don't want hordes of illegals in our neighborhoods, but they are good because they put out a welcome sign no immigrant will ever see.

 

[Yooper]

...am reminded of a chapter in Freakonomics that talks about girls' names...

I remember that chapter well!

One of the many points that caught my eye in the Quillette article was the idea that it isn't absolute wealth that's attractive, it's relative wealth. There is definitely something to this....

I remember during my Soviet/Russian work days about a theory why communism was so attractive to the workers and peasants. Yes, it had to do with redistribution of wealth, but it also had to do with the "relative wealth" angle (though, in this case, the paradigm was reversed). It wasn't that these people wanted necessarily to stand above others it was that they wanted the rich to be brought down to their level and suffer equally. A case of "we don't want to try to keep up with the Jones-skiis, we want to drag the Jones-skiis down to our level."

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[vraiblonde]

It can't possibly be that these donor billionaires self-loath. No doubt here's more to it, but I suspect Vrai correctly points out at least part of it:

The billionaires blather these talking points but they don't mean it either. Any one of them could stroke a check to the Treasury if they don't think they're paying their fair share. But none of them do it.

 

[MiddleGround]

The billionaires blather these talking points but they don't mean it either. Any one of them could stroke a check to the Treasury if they don't think they're paying their fair share. But none of them do it.

I do not doubt that there are a few uber-wealthy billionaires that have a sense of humanitarianism in them. The funny and sadly ironic part is that they probably do not "stroke a check" as you say because they already know that a large portion of that donation will be consumed by the other uber-rich that can and will scam the system.

 

[vraiblonde]

PS, the comments on the piece are interesting as well.

 

[Yooper]

PS, the comments on the piece are interesting as well.

Yup. Absolutely agree. Didn't want to "skew the read" by pointing them out. Thought it would be better for folks to find them and enjoy a pleasant surprise (as you did).

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Hijinx]

I am tired of the people who got rich in politics and talk a lot of schit about how they are going to take away from the rich.
You are the rich you A holes, and we are not stupid enough to believe for one minute that you are going to vote against yourselves.