Sleeping on a pile of rubies

Howard Schultz, billionaire CEO of Starbucks, has said he is exploring the idea of running for president as an independent. There have been lots of people saying this country doesn’t need another billionaire with no experience in government, such as this comment from Melissa McEwan, which sums up my opinion of the rich in general.

"Billionaire" isn't a qualification. It's the description of a person who is hoarding more resources than they could use in 100 lifetimes while other people are starving. It's the name for a human dragon sleeping on its pile of rubies and gold.

Art Schnurple added in a Twitter response:

Seriously. Can there be any trait that more perfectly demonstrates this person does not have the well being of his society at heart?

The thread’s attention turned to Bill Gates and his philanthropic Foundation. More on this in a moment.

San Diego Resistance talked to the rich:

Some 'one' doesn't bring you any of those things. That's the pervading and horrific myth of the 'self-made' billionaire. There are no billionaires without exploited labor, destroyed environment, and co-opted government services & laws. Like Obama said: YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT.

objkshn added (with some graphics):

If a man has a house stacked to the ceiling with newspapers we call him crazy.

If a woman has a trailer house full of cats we call her nuts.

When people pathologically hoard so much cash that they impoverish others we put them on the cover of Fortune Magazine and pretend they are role models.

McEwan, in her Shakesville blog, adds:

Anyone who is a billionaire is de facto completely out of touch with the lives of the majority of the population. They have no comprehension about what life is really like. One cannot effectively and decently lead people whose lives they fundamentally don't understand.

And, truly, no president of a wildly and wonderfully diverse nation can know and understand the lives, needs, interests, struggles, and successes of everyone in the country. But living in a separate, elite economic stratosphere is insulating, even for the empathic and curious.

Schultz’s comments have been critical of only Democrats, meaning he isn’t running against the nasty guy, he’s running to draw votes from independents who would otherwise vote for the Democrat as commenter SKM notes:

Please note also that Schultz has naught but the vaguest objections to GOP (general "division is bad" hand-waving) yet he's johnny-on-the-spot in attacking right-wing anti-Dem straw men (e.g. AOC's mention of a 70% marginal tax, as though that's a universal Dem position, and as though it's not a very old idea).

He is running against the Democratic party but NOT against the GOP, simple as.

Back to Bill Gates. His foundation prompts the question: Is having a rich guy come to the rescue better than having the government come to the rescue?

Many respondents didn’t think so because they believe government can’t come to the rescue. Part of that sentiment is the line of reasoning from the rich as I mentioned a few days ago. They don’t want government to be the referee, so they try to convince is the government shouldn’t be and then work to make sure it can’t. And one way to do that is through inadequate funding and convoluted rules.

But when the rich guy comes to the rescue… First, there is the damage (exploited labor, damaged environment) done to earn those riches. We would be better off if they hadn’t been so damaging. Second, the rich don’t ever give enough to alleviate the problem and rarely help those who need it most. Third, while their giving might lessen the effects of the oppression it leaves the oppression in place.

Here’s a couple thoughts on that from other people:

First: In a Twitter thread Mikel Jollett comments on a report from Reuters. The report says the $1.5 trillion tax cut (tax scam) had no major impact on improving the lives of American workers. Jollett wrote:

$1.5 TRILLION.

ZERO impact.

In other words, Trump gave away enough money to make college FREE in this country for 20 YEARS and it all just went into the pockets of the rich.

Whenever we need to have a national discussion about investment in education, health care, etc, there is a collective scream: "HOW WILL WE PAY FOR IT?"

But when it comes to money for the rich, it's treated as axiomatic that it's good, "for the economy."

What utter [BS].

Second: The World Economic Forum held Davos, Switzerland has recently concluded. This is where the rich gather to talk about the global economic system they control and defend. A persistent idea at Davos is that they can save the world through charity. If they can one wonders why they haven’t. There was a panel during the forum on The Cost of Inequality (how sweet of them to even entertain the idea!). Rutger Bregman, a Dutch historian and the author of the book Utopia for Realists, said during the panel:

The answer, is very simple: Just stop talking about philanthropy, and start talking about taxes.
I mean we can talk for a very long time about all these stupid philanthropy schemes. We can invite [U2 frontman] Bono once more. But, come on, we've got to be talking about taxes. That's it. Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is [BS] in my opinion.

Bregman said about his experience at Davos:

It feels like I’m at a firefighters conference and no one’s allowed to speak about water.

All this reinforces my understanding that the rich get rich not because they want more money, but because they want to keep money out of the hands of the poor. They want to reinforce the social hierarchy.