A Little Too Early 2028 Presidential Election Thread

[Northwestcoug]

No, it isn't finite. Inventing a new gadget, building a new company, developing new software, all create new wealth. That is how the economy grows.

I understand that, and believe me, I'm a proponent of a growing economy! My concern is more centered around income mobility. In most countries anyone can generate new wealth. And this is where I freely admit my ignorance, but I think it becomes harder for the non-rich to generate wealth as billionaires control more of it.

And if I didn't explicitly state it, I'm also concerned about effects billionaires have on the economy, other than strict numbers. USUC replied to my post about the increasing political money being spent by billionaires. Campaign donations in and of themselves aren't bad. But as the share spent by them increases, it should at least concern the bottom 99% why they are donating so much.

[Moliere]

Think of this way. If we took all of elons wealth and split it equally among all adults in the United States, would people in the US be better off? The answer is maybe, but just by a very little bit. Their purchasing power hasn’t really increased because everyone received the same amount of money. You likely won’t be buying more Big Macs than before because the price would go up since everyone’s buying power has increased. Disneyland prices would also increase to balance out any increase in buying power and/or demand. All it would do is make things a little more equal between the doctors and hourly workers, maybe.

But that scenario is dumb anyway because if you took away elons wealth you’d destroy the companies he runs. His wealth is in equity of those companies and by forcing liquidation you’d force a sale and he’d also lose voting power and likely lose his positions as CEO and/or chairman.

[Moliere]

No, it isn't finite. Inventing a new gadget, building a new company, developing new software, all create new wealth. That is how the economy grows.

This is true. The fair value of equity held is, in simple terms, the expectation of future cash flows discounted at some discount rate. The value in Tesla stock is not what they’ve earned, it’s what investors think it’ll earn in the future. It’s why oil stocks move with the shifting futures price of oil and why tech stocks are so volatile after every little bit of news around AI.

[frank ryan]

I'm doing the copy and paste AI thing. But I still lament what Citizens United unleashed.

The access and influence the insanely rich weird can often be harmful.



Key Data on 2024 Billionaire Spending

• Total Influence: Approximately 300 billionaires and their families accounted for nearly 19% of all contributions to federal elections in 2024, totaling around $3 billion.
• Massive Increase: The $3 billion figure is more than twice the roughly $1.2 billion spent by billionaires in the 2020 election cycle.
• Pre-2010 vs. Now: Before the 2010 Citizens Uniteddecision, billionaire spending was almost negligible, at roughly 0.3%. Since 2008, billionaire spending has risen by more than 12,000% when adjusted for inflation.
• Average Contribution: These billionaire families gave an average of $10 million each, equivalent to the combined donations of 100,000 typical political donors.
• "Dark Money": These figures do not include undisclosed donations through "dark money" groups, meaning the total influence is likely higher.
  Brennan Center for Justice +6

Key Findings on Spending Trends

• Super PAC Dependence: The vast majority of this money ($2.14 billion) was funneled through super PACs, which can accept unlimited donations.
• Partisan Lean: Billionaire spending in 2024 heavily favored Republicans, with roughly 70% to 72% of contributions backing GOP candidates and conservative causes.
• Top Donors: Elon Musk was a dominant force, contributing over $278 million to Republican candidates. Other major donors included Miriam Adelson and Richard/Elizabeth Uihlein.
• Return on Investment: Critics argue this spending is a high-yield investment designed to secure tax cuts and deregulation, potentially saving these donors trillions.
  Americans For Tax Fairness +3

Comparison to Previous Elections

• 2008: ~$16.6 million
• 2012: ~$231 million
• 2016: ~$682 million
• 2020: ~$1.2 billion
• 2024: >$2.6 - $3 billion
  Americans For Tax Fairness +4

[Pelado]

I understand that, and believe me, I'm a proponent of a growing economy! My concern is more centered around income mobility. In most countries anyone can generate new wealth. And this is where I freely admit my ignorance, but I think it becomes harder for the non-rich to generate wealth as billionaires control more of it.

And if I didn't explicitly state it, I'm also concerned about effects billionaires have on the economy, other than strict numbers. USUC replied to my post about the increasing political money being spent by billionaires. Campaign donations in and of themselves aren't bad. But as the share spent by them increases, it should at least concern the bottom 99% why they are donating so much.

It makes sense that billionaires would control more and more of the total wealth as time goes on. Take, for example, fictional company "NWC" that invents a new product that solves a big problem for a lot of people. NWC prices the product fairly and the market gobbles up the product, creating lots of high-paying jobs for the employees of NWC and generating incredible wealth for NWC.

Who is better off because of NWC? Probably the customers, since they now have a better solution to the problem they were facing. Probably the employees of NWC since they now have gainful employment at higher compensation rates than were otherwise available to them. The owner of NWC is probably also better off, as the company is now valued at being worth billions of dollars.

Who is worse off? Probably only the competitors of NWC whose product(s) may have been made obsolete by NWC's superior solution.

Still, the owner of NWC becomes a billionaire while its employees and customers probably do not. Billions of dollars of "wealth" have been created and are now controlled by "billionaires" but NWC's wealth is only controlled by billionaires because the owner went from non-billionaire to billionaire.

Why is that a problem?

[tooblue]

It makes sense that billionaires would control more and more of the total wealth as time goes on. Take, for example, fictional company "NWC" that invents a new product that solves a big problem for a lot of people. NWC prices the product fairly and the market gobbles up the product, creating lots of high-paying jobs for the employees of NWC and generating incredible wealth for NWC.

Who is better off because of NWC? Probably the customers, since they now have a better solution to the problem they were facing. Probably the employees of NWC since they now have gainful employment at higher compensation rates than were otherwise available to them. The owner of NWC is probably also better off, as the company is now valued at being worth billions of dollars.

Who is worse off? Probably only the competitors of NWC whose product(s) may have been made obsolete by NWC's superior solution.

Still, the owner of NWC becomes a billionaire while its employees and customers probably do not. Billions of dollars of "wealth" have been created and are now controlled by "billionaires" but NWC's wealth is only controlled by billionaires because the owner went from non-billionaire to billionaire.

Why is that a problem?

Economic inequality was a significant factor in the collapse of Rome.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fall-roman-republic-income-inequality-and-xenophobia-threatened-its-foundations-180967249/

"I jokingly said when I started writing, that I wanted people to come out of it with a general feeling of unease about what’s going on in the United States and in the West generally. To emerge from reading the book, go back to flipping on the news, and think, “This is not good.” Whatever your political persuasion, I think we can all agree that politics in the United States is becoming fairly toxic and if we’re not careful we can wind up going the way of the Roman Republic. In history, we often go from shouting at each other to shooting each other—or in the olden days stabbing each other with swords.

I hope they read it as an example of a time in history when people didn’t pay attention to a lot of warning signs. If you ignore it, you risk the whole thing collapsing into civil war and a military dictatorship. I would like to avoid this. If people say, “Maybe this is starting to look like the beginning of the end,” then maybe we can do some things to avoid the fate of the Roman Republic."

[USUC]

Economic inequality was a significant factor in the collapse of Rome.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ons-180967249/

"I jokingly said when I started writing, that I wanted people to come out of it with a general feeling of unease about what’s going on in the United States and in the West generally. To emerge from reading the book, go back to flipping on the news, and think, “This is not good.” Whatever your political persuasion, I think we can all agree that politics in the United States is becoming fairly toxic and if we’re not careful we can wind up going the way of the Roman Republic. In history, we often go from shouting at each other to shooting each other—or in the olden days stabbing each other with swords.

I hope they read it as an example of a time in history when people didn’t pay attention to a lot of warning signs. If you ignore it, you risk the whole thing collapsing into civil war and a military dictatorship. I would like to avoid this. If people say, “Maybe this is starting to look like the beginning of the end,” then maybe we can do some things to avoid the fate of the Roman Republic."

Inequality existed in the ancient world? You don't say.

[tooblue]

Inequality existed in the ancient world? You don't say.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted; it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in whom instinct has learned nothing from experience."

[Northwestcoug]

Think of this way. If we took all of elons wealth and split it equally among all adults in the United States, would people in the US be better off? The answer is maybe, but just by a very little bit. Their purchasing power hasn’t really increased because everyone received the same amount of money. You likely won’t be buying more Big Macs than before because the price would go up since everyone’s buying power has increased. Disneyland prices would also increase to balance out any increase in buying power and/or demand. All it would do is make things a little more equal between the doctors and hourly workers, maybe.

But that scenario is dumb anyway because if you took away elons wealth you’d destroy the companies he runs. His wealth is in equity of those companies and by forcing liquidation you’d force a sale and he’d also lose voting power and likely lose his positions as CEO and/or chairman.

There's probably a post here where I say something like the existence of billionaires is a failure of society or something proletariat like that. While I still believe that income inequality is the root of a lot of societal ills, I'm nowhere near advocating taking all their wealth and redistributing it. They drive a lot of our economy. But their presence isn't an unalloyed good. Your reply didn't touch on my original intent, that their political donations and activism shouldn't just be accepted without scrutiny. The world they live in certainly doesn't resemble ours, and what's important to them politically may or may not align with the majority of the population. They aren't going away, but their influence in society should be constantly scrutinized.

It makes sense that billionaires would control more and more of the total wealth as time goes on. Take, for example, fictional company "NWC" that invents a new product that solves a big problem for a lot of people. NWC prices the product fairly and the market gobbles up the product, creating lots of high-paying jobs for the employees of NWC and generating incredible wealth for NWC.

Who is better off because of NWC? Probably the customers, since they now have a better solution to the problem they were facing. Probably the employees of NWC since they now have gainful employment at higher compensation rates than were otherwise available to them. The owner of NWC is probably also better off, as the company is now valued at being worth billions of dollars.

Who is worse off? Probably only the competitors of NWC whose product(s) may have been made obsolete by NWC's superior solution.

Still, the owner of NWC becomes a billionaire while its employees and customers probably do not. Billions of dollars of "wealth" have been created and are now controlled by "billionaires" but NWC's wealth is only controlled by billionaires because the owner went from non-billionaire to billionaire.

Why is that a problem?

NWC's billions isn't a problem for NWC nor the majority of workers he employs and the cascading economy from them. Again, I'm not ignorant of the growth billionaires generate for the economy. But the trajectory of new billionaires and their share of wealth is only going one direction, and the amount of wealth generated by the rest of the world is going the opposite direction. That trend is not changing any time soon. It seems like a recipe for unrest.

The presence of billionaires becomes a problem when their share of the wealth or their political influence adversely affects society. Surely commies and capitalists can agree that society has a responsibility to advocate for policies that improve income mobility. And if the only reason why cockamamie ideas get the attention of political leaders because of the billions behind it, well yeah that is a problem.

I know, I know. All I got is vibes. I don't think I'm way out in left field though. Oh wait, maybe I am.

[USUC]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted; it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in whom instinct has learned nothing from experience."

This is pop history stretching to fit the past into modern politics. By this definition, every empire that fell was because of inequality. There were so many structural factors much more important than inequality (demographic changes, over expansion, etc).

[Pelado]

There's probably a post here where I say something like the existence of billionaires is a failure of society or something proletariat like that. While I still believe that income inequality is the root of a lot of societal ills, I'm nowhere near advocating taking all their wealth and redistributing it. They drive a lot of our economy. But their presence isn't an unalloyed good. Your reply didn't touch on my original intent, that their political donations and activism shouldn't just be accepted without scrutiny. The world they live in certainly doesn't resemble ours, and what's important to them politically may or may not align with the majority of the population. They aren't going away, but their influence in society should be constantly scrutinized.



NWC's billions isn't a problem for NWC nor the majority of workers he employs and the cascading economy from them. Again, I'm not ignorant of the growth billionaires generate for the economy. But the trajectory of new billionaires and their share of wealth is only going one direction, and the amount of wealth generated by the rest of the world is going the opposite direction. That trend is not changing any time soon. It seems like a recipe for unrest.

The presence of billionaires becomes a problem when their share of the wealth or their political influence adversely affects society. Surely commies and capitalists can agree that society has a responsibility to advocate for policies that improve income mobility. And if the only reason why cockamamie ideas get the attention of political leaders because of the billions behind it, well yeah that is a problem.

I know, I know. All I got is vibes. I don't think I'm way out in left field though. Oh wait, maybe I am.

I was mostly addressing the "concern" of billionaires increasingly controlling more and more of the economy. I think it's a really stupid measurement because the status of billionaire - as illustrated in the NWC example above - is not a static group. People rise to and fall from triple-comma status.

Whether or not those that are in the billionaire group - or even mere millionaires - should be allowed to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns and/or causes is a separate issue.

[Jeff Lebowski]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted; it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in whom instinct has learned nothing from experience."

That's deep, man.

[tooblue]

This is pop history stretching to fit the past into modern politics. By this definition, every empire that fell was because of inequality. There were so many structural factors much more important than inequality (demographic changes, over expansion, etc).

lol ... the Smithsonian is promoting "pop history," which you follow up with a fallacious argument.



Your post in response to mine was poorly considered. Own it and move on

[tooblue]

That's deep, man.

The actual quote, distinct from the often misquoted version which is kind of ironic in the context of the current discussion in this thread.

[USUC]

lol ... the Smithsonian is promoting "pop history," which you follow up with a fallacious argument.



Your post in response to mine was poorly considered. Own it and move on

Mike Duncan (podcaster/pop historian, nothing close to as intensive as Dan Carlin) being promoted by government bureaucrats at the Smithsonian? Must mean it's academically sound! Speaking of fallacious arguments, kind of sounds like an argument from authority.