A feel-good piece with a bit of virtue signalling tells us that the elitists and super-wealthy are starting to understand the common people, and sympathize with them.
Of course, this is all bullshit, and even the article admits they might have a self-serving motive. But the author nonetheless remains mostly fooled.
According to Chrystia Freeland, author of the 2012 book Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else, the phenomenon of the socially conscious billionaire is significant and good. “It is absolutely happening,” Freeland said. “After my book came out, a few billionaires quietly got in touch with me to say that they agreed that the current system isn’t working. It makes sense that the people who have benefited most from the economy have the greatest interest in making it sustainable.”
But it is clear the author of this piece has made a fundamental category error so profound, it shakes the very foundations of what it means to be wealthy in the first place.
So billionaires and ultra-rich 0.1% folks, or whomever, are encouraged to give up piles of cash, or pay higher minimum wages, or whatever the social justice warrior crowd is agitating for today. Then they come out and graciously say they are giving away billions of dollars in the name of income equality, or ending racism, or some other such thing.
But it’s all funny money. It’s all paper (or electronic, more accurately) based on a debt-currency system. Put simply, does anybody think that, if Warren Buffet’s ENTIRE liquid net worth disappeared tomorrow, that he would not be right back where he was in a few years? He would say to a banker somewhere “I am Warren Buffet, loan me $500 million for my pet project.” Done deal. Then he’d go to his lobbyist, or pet Congress critter, or some other government crony, and get favorable treatment for his pet project, ensuring its success against any would-be small time competitors.
His connections are worth more than any amount of funny money.
The liquid assets aren’t the real source of wealth for these people. Political arbitrage and connections — these are what make them wealthy and powerful. And as a government gets larger, the potential arbitrage, the rent-seeking position, is correspondingly greater. Meaning that even if their liquid net worth goes down, their immediate access to wealth and power — whenever they desire more of either — is greater.
Consider the example of College education. Government grants, cheap loans, and other instruments are made available to “help the poor people afford an education.” Except the cost correspondingly increases, and those associated with the University system and the government get richer.
So, paradoxically, this makes the billionaires richer, not poorer. Marxism means their power and position grows. They become the Inner Party, and you are still a Prole, and your $15/hour of funny money soon becomes just as worthless as whatever you were making before. Only, soon enough, college loans will be needed for even the most routine of work. So you’ll be tens of thousands of dollars in debt, working for minimum wage, and wondering just what in the Hell happened.
After all, the billionaires donated a lot of money, right?