Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Guardian author Kate Aronoff acknowledges the help to the climate cause Michael Bloomberg has provided, but she still wants to strip him of his wealth.
The problem with billionaires fighting climate change? The billionaires
Kate Aronoff
Tue 11 Jun 2019 16.00 AESTIt’s great that philanthropists are pouring money into environmental causes. But it would be better for the planet if billionaires didn’t exist at all
…
The climate crisis isn’t going to be solved with the benevolence of a couple of billionaires, and their outsized control over our politics and economy stands in contradiction to our hopes for a liveable future. With rightwing populism on the rise around the world, having elites like Bloomberg as the public face of the climate fight is also risky politics. We don’t need their money to fund the Green New Deal – the US has more than enough for that – but we should take it anyway, with a far more progressive tax system than the one we’ve got.
If that sounds radical, it’s worth remembering that the top marginal tax rate during the time hailed as capitalism’s Golden Age floated somewhere north of 90% in the US. After it’d already fallen, Ronald Reagan’s administration collapsed it to 50% when he took office, and it would dip to just 28% by the time he left. The many billions that have been lost as a result are resources that have been captured out of democratic control, emboldening a handful of oligarchs to run roughshod over people and planet alike.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/billionaires-climate-change-michael-bloomberg
No amount of philanthropic money will satisfy the green movement. Feeding them just encourages them to demand more, and to resent the money they have not already received.
Note that is all about the messaging – billionaires supporting the fight to save the world from climate change.
And I am so pleased that she has decided that the US has enough money to support the GND. I’d sure love to see her data and calculations that support such a conclusion.
Calculations?? Ha ha ha. From the ‘don’t give them any ideas” department – Pointing a $5 calculator at a warmist will soon be a hate crime punishable by 5 years in jail. Tack on another 3 if you switch it on first.
So let me ponder this for a moment……If she doesn’t need the billionaires money, as there is sufficient money in the US anyway – then all of THAT money will and can only come from the ‘average’ tax payer – who it may be argued, is already footing the majority of the cost of the government(s) already.
Hmmm…so, take MORE money off of those already paying more than their fair share….yep, sounds about right to me….if I were communist or socialist minded.
NO sarc intended – dead serious!!!
Most of us agree that too much power concentrated in hands of government officials is a bad thing. Dictators…tyrants…kings…Deep State bureaucrats…etc.
Too much concentrated power is risky even in the hands of individuals. Guys like Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros, Koch Brothers, Besos, Big Data and the like have the power to influence public policy and they use it. That power is illegitimate. This illegitimate power is a threat to individual freedom.
I’m libertarian, and don’t like the government getting involved in too many things. I’m also not too keen on super wealthy individuals affecting my life in ways I don’t like by their power and influence.
There are political insiders that believe that Big Data’s current and ongoing online targeted censorship of conservative voices could swing the 2020 elections. That may not happen, but it won’t be for lack of trying. (I hope this censorship backfires like it should)
Getting this concentrated money and power out of politics is something those on the right and left could agree on. It’ll never happen because it is the life’s blood of all politicians.
Similarly (speaking of illegitimate power), the MSM provides the Democrats with $Billions worth each year in free advertising by their 90% Leftist biased reporting and outright non-stop propaganda. They get around Campaign Contribution Limit regulations on the basis that they are journalists. They are propagandists…without this huge “advertising” advantage, the Democratic Party would not have very much power.
The problem is not with wealthy people, it is with government having too much power.
A weak government isn’t worth buying, no matter how much money you have.
“without this huge “advertising” advantage, the Democratic Party would not have very much power.”
I agree. Without the MSM the Democrats would be an also-ran, since they have nothing to offer but hate and fear and divisiveness and lunatic spending schemes. Of course, the MSM has a lot of help from the Entertainment Media and their leftwing propaganda efforts, and from the nations teachers and their leftwing propaganda efforts.
The Democrats have almost absolute control of society’s means of mass communications so should be doing a lot better but instead Trump got elected, so propaganda may not be enough to get the Democrats to the top. I suppose we must include the influence of the internet in all this in moderating the leftwing propaganda. A free internet is a bulwark against the brainwashing.
And since Trump was elected the MSM has taken a huge credibility hit from all the lies they have been spreading for the last two years about Trump, with many people now saying they consider the lies of the MSM to be a greater danger than climate change or terrorism.
And they are absolutely right! A People cannot govern themselves properly based on lies and leftwing lies are all we get out of the MSM. They have created a false leftwing reality in which they live, and want everyone else to live, that is detrimental to the future of the nation and the world. They are delusional and they are trying to spread their delusions to all of us, and they have the means to do so, yet they are failing, at least with a majority of people up to this point.
The election of 2020 will show us where everything stands.
Which is why citizen’s united Supreme Court ruling was critical. Previously, Bloomberg as an individual could buy as much adverts as he wanted. But, if 2 of us pool our resources we are corporation under the law and were limited by campaign finance laws. Meanwhile, Unions were exempted from the limits. Why do you think the liberals screamed so loud about it. It wasn’t because they were afraid of large companies money, they know how to control them.
“…We don’t need their money to fund the Green New Deal – the US has more than enough for that…”
LOL
Why do so many of these pseudo lefties always want to be corrupted by the fruits of capitalism and the free market? No more impure thoughts and out of the movement with these fifth columnists I say! Only then can the true workers paradise be fashioned by those left.
No pseudo here, Observa, these are still true Lefties.
Remember that while they are trying to build a ‘Worker’s Paradise’ very very few of them are actually workers. Maybe back sometime in the 19th century, but these days understand the concept that if they work better then they deserve to get paid better is understood by most ‘workers’. This is why the average tradie makes more than you.
Lefties rarely work. Lefties instead believe they belong to the educated elite who ‘Knows Best’ and want to reform the unfair world into a better one… one where they of course are in charge as sorts of community organisers making everything better.
Of course being a community organiser is hard work, so they only expect a few nice things as a reward. The workers of course can also have some nice things… once they have reached their quotas.
The problem is that Lefties don’t really understand where wealth comes from. They believe it exists and it is the evil selfish Rights that have stolen it from everyone else. A Right understands that wealth is created. If you want it, you have to make it. If you stop making it, then it starts to go away. (for those playing at home, name a South American country starting with V….).
“Manual Labor? Didn’t he march with Cesar Chavez?” is a true lefty attitude.
Leftists believe that their labor is worth more than they are being paid. Which is proof that capitalism doesn’t work, therefore they need to be in charge to make things right. (Especially for themselves.)
“buying off politicians and lobbying for their pet causes – namely, to let them keep doing more of the same.”
I guess even a clueless journalist in a lefty straight-jacket gets some things right. Bloomberg and fellow Champagne Socialists who benefited from the enabling political economy of the most productive nation on earth are the most treasoness vermin on earth. Nothing wrong with inventive, hardworking risk takers becoming billionaires. They have created manifold wealth that has been spread among 100s of millions of people. But to then grow their wealth once they have it by investment in politicians to create programs that double and redouble their wealth at the expense of ordinary folk is traitorous and evil.
All these billionaire “charities” are so dishonest and indecently profitable, the government should review their status and send them giant tax bills and even consider charging them under RICO or sedition. When Hillary released her income tax statements, what flabbergasted me was a lady bureaucrat with no productive employment whose taxable income was over 100 million a year! WUWT??
Probably. Same noises from same empty vessels though.
“…We don’t need their money to fund the Green New Deal – the US has more than enough for that…”
True, the US has more than enough for that but the assertion presumes that all the US money is ‘owned’ by the government and can be spent however the ‘government’ wants. Invalid assumption!
Wealth is created by me and thousands of others who sell things/services people want. I depend absolutely on the ability to ‘own’ a thing and the freedom to sell it (or not) as I see fit.
The wealth does NOT belong to the government, it is yours – mine – ours!
Yeah they don’t get that, they think they are entitled to a portion of the worlds wealth because their sad sorry butt was born. The rest of us normal folk would say you are entitled to have the ability to prosper beyond that you get what you earn.
“Feeding them just encourages them to demand more, and to resent the money they have not already received.”
And resent the money they already have been given.
The Guardian has become the equivalent of the Beano for the Left Wing. It is a publication for children that should be avoided by adults.
Reporting its latest lunacy article only gives it publicity. It lost its prime function a few years back when wrapping fish and chips in actual news paper, was banned. The other use the Guardian had was for lighting coal fires in the grate, that need also went away. Other that providing a place for barmy journalists to hang out, it is difficult to see what it is useful for or why is even exists?
The thing about those eye watering IT rates were that nobody actually paid them…
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
We had rates up to 98% in the UK which resulted in widespread avoidance…
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/history-of-tax-havens
which continues to the current century..
https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=1731
Onre of the results was the so called “Brain Drain….
About half of what that bimbo said is true: mega-billionaires really don’t need all that money, but – they have to feed their silly, useless egos somehow. (Just as a note, Fed Ex has dumped Amazon. Bezos now has to find a new transporter.)
But there’s this: Kate Aronoff is a writing fellow at In These Times. She covers elections and the politics of climate change. – Grauniad
So she has away to make a living but compared to Mikey “the meddler” Bloomberg, it’s a pittance. Maybe she could get him to send her a check for her birthday or something. It must be just awful watching some directionless dork like Mikey B. give away his cash as a bribe to let him meddle in the affairs of the peasantry, when she could be spending that 1/2 billion on clothes from Lord & Taylor and Versace.
Miss Kate clearly has to schedule a priority-adjustment session with Mr. Mike, Sara. 🙂
I wouldn’t have a problem with billionaires using their money to try to convince the public on some issue by using advertising and explaining the issues, but I have a big problem with billionaires going behind the back of citizens and using their money to influence public policy without the public’s consent.
We need full disclosure on all billionaires public policy expenditures. We need to know if and/or who they are bribing and for what purpose. Buying your own prosecuting attorney in a state Attorney General’s office for a personal political agenda, using them to sue your political/policy opponents, should be at the top of the list.
I am in complete agreement with this author…We should take most of the money away from rich progressives who support AGW and use it for better purposes… (I get to define rich, so any progressive AGW supporter making more than say $100,000 a year!) (Better purposes = expanding parks, repairing infrastructure, and brewing more wine and beer).
“If that sounds radical, it’s worth remembering that ” no one has any bloody right to tell anyone else how much money they can make, own, or inherit for that matter.
Kate Aronoff is the standard progressive idiot who can’t think past her ideology.
“If that sounds radical, it’s worth remembering that the top marginal tax rate during the time hailed as capitalism’s Golden Age floated somewhere north of 90% in the US”
Nobody paid those high rates.
Until Reagan got it right, investing was predicated on avoiding taxes, nothing else.
Why do such idiots have a platform?
It’s simple: billionaires “fighting” climate change are using climate change to get richer, just as Al Gore has.
There is still opportunity in America. Dammit.
Still waiting for the evidence that any of this is necessary.
What makes Kate Aronoff think that billionaires have a lot of money? Most billionaires are not billionaires based on the amount of money they have but on the amount of voting stock they own. In order to recover money from them, they would have to sell stock to someone with money. They are billionaires on paper, and the disparity in their carbon footprints are not anywhere near as large as the paper wealth disparity. The last thing we want is the government taking and voting the shares instead. You would get true ownership of the means of production then. The government is not good at managing the money it already has. Leave the “money” in the hands of those who have proven they can manage it.
He’s the new Cecil B. DeMille….of climate theatrics.
The Guardian is so in the tank on the global warming fraud . Just feed them any ol BS and they will happily print it . People are already fed up with decades of failed climate doom . Might as well just finish it off .