Democrats Can't Quit Fantasizing About What They'd Do to Billionaires
Related: Michael Bloomberg can't keep fantasizing about being president
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) tells Amy Goodman that "Markets without rules are theft." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) tweets that "billionaires should not exist." The conversation gets people so excited that soon former cabinet secretaries are tweeting that there are no honest ways to accumulate a billion dollars, commentators are warning that "these fortunes will destroy our democracy," and The New York Times is publishing entire news articles taking at face value the numerical fantasies of Warren's economic advisers.
It was just another week in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, in other words, albeit with one main exception—the race saw the entrance of a brand new (though also old) billionaire! All of which gets a thorough round of yakking from Nick Gillespie, Peter Suderman, Matt Welch, and Katherine Mangu-Ward on today's Reason Roundtable podcast. The gang also talks about the latest impeachment dramedy, the best arguments in favor of capitalism, and the life well lived of the late libertarian philanthropist and financial-markets investor Don Smith.
Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.
'Amazing Plan—Distressed' by Kevin Macleod is licensed under CC BY 3.0
Relevant links from the show:
"The Reason Podcast Is Now 3 Great New Podcasts. Subscribe!" by Katherine Mangu-Ward
"Democratic Wealth Tax Proposals Demonstrate Economic Ignorance," by Veronique de Rugy
"Elizabeth Warren Wants To Raise Taxes by $26 Trillion," by Peter Suderman
"Elizabeth Warren's 'Wealth Tax' Is Punishment, Not Taxation," by Ira Stoll
"Leftist Tax Schemes Bash the Rich, but Depend on Their Success," by Steven Greenhut
"Warren's Presidential Bid Aims to Blame 'the Rich' for America's Problems," by Ira Stoll
"Are Billionaires a Policy Failure?" by Matt Welch
"Are Billionaires Immoral? Democrats Are Staking Out Aggressive Anti-Wealth Platforms Ahead of 2020," by Ira Stoll
"Michael Bloomberg's Centrism Combines the Worst Instincts of the Right and Left," by Jacob Sullum
"Michael Bloomberg's Chances of Becoming President: Slim, None, and Fat," by Matt Welch
"Reason.tv: Investor Don Smith on the Economy," by Nick Gillespie
What are we consuming this week?
Matt Welch
- Atlas Society Annual Gala
Katherine Mangu-Ward
Peter Suderman
Nick Gillespie
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If there are no honest ways to make a billion bucks, than indict them for whatever crimes they committed.
While you’re at it, indict Obama for amassing enough money at $400K for 8 years to afford a $14M seaside (so much for global warming!) mansion.
I do know there is no such thing as an honest politician. Trump is probably the closest since G. Washington, and that really rankles all the other politicians, but he ain’t no saint. Indict him if you have the goods on him. (Impeachment is political, not criminal, so don’t bring that up.)
This is a uniquely libertarian variation of the gell-mann amnesia hypothesis. The politicians are all corrupt and made their fortunes by illegitimate means. The billionaires who purchased their services are all saintly slaves to the holy catholic market.
Damn. I realize now that Gell-Mann died only recently. Hell, I thought he’d been dead a while.
It’s not that I see the billionaires as being morally right, so much as I seem them being forced to play the politician’s game or else lose out to folks who do (or lose out to politicians who are pissed that they aren’t getting their bribes).
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/carney-how-hatch-forced-microsoft-to-play-k-streets-game
Right. Libertarians never complain about rent seeking, special favors and political cronyism. If you think libertarians believe that billionaires are all pure and moral and came by their wealth only through free market transactions, you really need to pay more attention.
So you’re saying he’s suffering from a “variation of the gell-mann amnesia hypothesis”?
I don’t care how anyone came by their wealth. I don’t know why anyone does.
They covet.
“The politicians are all corrupt and made their fortunes by illegitimate means. The billionaires who purchased their services are all saintly slaves to the holy catholic market.”
Need help beating on that strawman?
Or would you just like to admit you are full of shit?
Well, it’s entirely possible that billionaires could not exist in a true free market, that they only exist via government action. Bill Gates, for example, is only a billionaire because of a government grant of copyright. Soros due to currency investments. Koch versus industry privilege. Others via banking. Various forms of rent seeking or regulatory capture or privilege.
But that’s NOT what the Democrat millionaires are pissy about. Or they would just stop promoting the policies that created the billionaires in the first place. They’re just millionaires posing as the little man to get votes. That Democrat voters buy into their bullshit is sad.
Yes, very much this. Billionaires only exist because of government coercion. And this is why it is silly to turn to government to deal with them.
I have heard it said, “In a democracy, you get to choose which RICH people will rule you!”
WHEN is the last time that a vaguely poor-in-background person ruled us? Abe Lincoln? Harry Truman?
Bill Clinton?
Juice
November.11.2019 at 6:33 pm
“Bill Clinton?”
And, boy, did he and the hag make out after getting elected!
Reagan?
Not uncommon that they grew up ‘vaguely poor’. Obviously they don’t stay that way and get noticed and promoted and such to be Prez.
What’s surprising is how many lost one or both parents and/or were raised outside the traditional two-parent nuclear family. Long before that became more common in the US
Truman was the last prez who did not go to college!!!
Truman said that every day of his life spent in politics he felt like he need to spend an hour every night in the bathtub or shower!
Obama?
A truly free market is not the same as the absence of the rule of law or regulations. Having said that, rent seeking and regulator capture are real things that some people exploit quite well.
Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe made all their their citizens billionaires. Sanders or Warren-Herring-Mann can do the same for you. In addition Maduro made all his other citizens 19 pounds lighter. I think OBL will agree, you can’t be too rich or too thin.
“How we’re going to clean the carbon out of the air?”
Is she suggesting a mass, global genocide or is she just stupid?
I’ll take my answer off the air.
Matt, I did like the “Snidely Whiplash” piano music over her voice. Fits well.
Imma gonna go with A.
Global genocide just causes more global warming – those cremation furnaces aren’t going to be run off solar power.
But maybe all the ash released into the atmosphere will counter the CO2?
I did see an article recently about a new brand of vodka made entirely from CO2 and water. A project I can support.
Is moose and squirrel.
I am SQRLSY One… WHO will be my moose? First to the “Moose Party” wins!!! I’ll be POTUS and you be Vice, or Vice Versa; is OK with me, comrade! Together, we will kick ’em in the SCROTUS!
While Robert (the 4th) Reich might be correct in general that income and wealth distribution might be different under a perfectly free market, I am pretty sure that none of his coercive planning schemes would result in anything that would find all of us linking arms and singing “Kumbaya” any time soon.
“Reich isn’t right about much but he’s right about that. It’s rather pathetic how cheaply a multibillionaire like Chuckie Koch can buy off a peon like Welch.”
First, you are full of shit; I’m guessing this is a new Hihn sock.
Scondly, why do lefty ‘tards spend time coming up with nick-names which would embarrass adults?
Stuff it up your ass, you pathetic piece of shit/
Let me guess…”it sucks to be a billionaire who didn’t contribute to my campaign, capiche?”
That’s some nice wealth accumulation you have there. Too bad if something happened to it.
Of course, if you give my son a do-nothing job that pays $500k a year, I might reconsider your value to society.
Let’s get ’em!
Eat the Rich!
They’ll do the same thing to the rest of us once they run out of billionaires.
That’s what really gives ’em woodies.
When Democrats posture as the anti-billionaire party, it’s important to keep in mind that they don’t really mean it. Because if they were indeed serious about opposing Charles Koch’s agenda, they would not be moving toward his position on immigration. Which they are! Here’s the latest example:
Warren at a Latinx forum: “I’m willing to consider suspending deportations” as a way to force Congress to move on immigration reform.
I’m 100% confident the next Democratic administration will be more billionaire-friendly than the high-tariff / low-immigration Orange Hitler regime has been.
#VoteDemocratToHelpBillionaires
Socialism: the insatiable desire to acquire other people’s money all the while convincing everyone that wanting money is bad.
There’s a scene in Goethe’s Faust where a priest rebukes the girl for taking the ill-gotten devilish gold (literally from Mephistopheles) and says that only by giving the gold to the Church can that wealth be purified. Maybe the socialists think along these lines, with the govt taking the place of the Church.
Well said.
Godvernment
Money moved by private consumer and seller choices = EVIL!!!
Money moved by Government Almighty coercion = GOOD!!!
(I learned that in school as funded by Government Almighty).
Yeah, pretty spot on. Seems like that’s exactly how they think.
You observation about the government as church and faith identifies the most fundamental idiocy of socialists.
Two billionaires running for the Team D nomination. Interesting.
What, there weren’t enough old white septuagenarians running for the Team D nomination? 🙂
>>”Markets without rules are theft.”
don’t the marketeers make the rules?
Well, as far as fraud is concerned that is true. Beyond that, how can a voluntary transaction be theft? Are BOTH parties stealing?
Fauxcahontas says everyone’s stealing from her.
That’s HRC
how can a voluntary transaction be theft?
Left wingers believe anyone who says excessive (involuntary) taxation is theft is an extremist. Isn’t it revealing they also believe voluntary transactions are theft?
Trying to understand their mindset I think they believe nothing is legitimate unless government has blessed it. It seems the entire economic history of human civilization has passed by without teaching them a thing.
All you need is property rights, enforcement of contracts, and damages for fraud and (real) coercion.
Or, to quote Adam Smith, “peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice.”
“and haggis, plenty of haggis,” but that was left out of editions published outside Scotland.
This. Right to property, right to contract. Full stop.
So what we have here is a stage full of multi-millionaires pissed off at the existence of people who are billionaires. Sad. Truly sad.
I too am pissed at the existence of people with more money than me. Something should be done. Maybe some hard work and wise investment?
How very 19th century of you.
people with more money than me
How much of you would you like them to have?
Kinda reminds me of the millionaire .vs billionaire baseball & football strikes
In other news Wall Street Journal:
‘Google’s Project Nightingale’ Gathers Personal Health Data on Millions of Americans.
Complete health history, names and dates of birth. At least 150 Google employees already have access to much of the data on tens of millions of patients, according to a WSJ source.
TBH, I think the data-privacy horse is already out of the stable.
Google runs cloud and computing services much like Amazon. They are also researching health related devices like Apple’s watch. They are (supposedly) keeping the data isolated from other personal consumer data as required by HIPAA. If they were another company this would not even be news…
Yawn.
None of these bullionaires (Berniespeak) would be bullionaires if the government hadn’t spent all these years devaluing the currency. Now J.D Rockefeller was truly was a billionaire back when a dollar was a dollar. He wouldn’t wipe his shoe an any of the current crop. Wan’t to get rid of billionaires? Just reset the currency divided by 10.
I think a few of them would still be billionaires if you only divided by 10.
In case nobody knew, there is a young, intelligent, educated, articulate libertarian commentator who wears a black leather jacket. The guy’s name is Tarl, Tarl Warwick. He even has his own website. This guy might consider joining the Reason staff as replacement talent if given a proper incentive. End of suggestion.
Any relation to Teve Torbes?
Or Pierre Delecto?
Is Senator Delecto writing a column now?
Does anyone get the impression that Gillespie and Suderman don’t like each other?
Only one man can be the resident Reason sex symbol.
I thought that was Robby.
The Jacket won’t be happy to read that.
So what would a poker game look like under Liz or Bernie’s rules?
House takes 100% cut of all pots?
“Democrats Can’t Quit Fantasizing About What They’d Do to Billionaires”
…but enough about their 50 Shades of Grey fantasies.
I’d take the Democrats at face value.
Billionaires are the new Kulaks.
Even if you’re a moderate Democrat I don’t see how you can think this is appropriate rhetoric. It’s communism by other means.
When the Liberals up here started their left-ideological identity politics shift, it meant the end of me being a swing voter.
Can’t support this nonsense as it all ends up in a very bad place.
I read something (perhaps from NYT – I don’t remember) recently trying to do the math on Bill Gates’ net worth if Warren’s wealth tax would have been in effect for many years (don’t remember the time frame). The writer wants us to believe that it would be okay if Gates was worth many, many billions less today – he’d still be a billionaire. What is so silly about such exercises is that we have no idea how Microsoft’s (or Amazon’s, or….) businesses would have fared if Warren’s wealth tax had been effect for the last 20 or 30 years. I could easily make a case that the gigantic tech companies of today would not have grown as much, or enriched so many of their employees (not just Gates or Bezos), which has all sorts of obvious negative ripple effects on job creation, innovation, inflation, etc. Advocating for high income taxes is one thing, but Warren’s “wealth tax” is such an obviously a bad idea (and likely unconstitutional according to some supposedly smart people) that I can’t believe so many voters are taking her seriously.
Dear Bernie and Lizzie,
You say it’s about billionaires, but you want to fuck with property rights. When you fuck with property rights, you’re going to piss off a lot more people than you think. In fact, you already have.
Love,
The Voters
Jeff Bezos became a billionaire by making shopping easier, cheaper and more convenient than at anytime in history. 100 years ago it was Sears and their catalog that did the same thing. The day Amazon doesn’t serve me well I am not forced to do any business with them just like Sears allowed it to happen to themselves. We need more that get rich making life better.
Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.bocsci.com/gr-64349-cas-137593-52-3-item-165328.html word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.