I hope you have some influence over the Democratic Party. The news that the billionaires in California have already spent millions of dollars to fight against the proposed 5% tax on them and Gavin Newsom isn't supporting this but instead proposes regressive taxes is deeply disturbing. Here in New York Kathy Hochul is another governor who can't bring herself to support a tax hike on people who already have too much money. This is happening at a time when so many commentators are saying the American public has already caught up to how the billionaires are scamming them.
You’re just showing how much you don’t know about the Bible, God instituted borders and boundaries and said if you touch them, I’ll kill you. The word of God says if you won’t work, you won’t eat.
I’ve been working since I’ve been 12 years old. I paid Social Security my entire life. I get $1800 a month. These goat herders come in and steal $1 billion in daycare. The Muslims crashing over the border are getting $3500 a month Social Security, a cell phone, and a free place to live.
Send them home!!! In the meantime our vets don’t have the medical care they need. And our elderly are existing on cat food.
What happens if Musk takes too much ketamine one day and can't continue prophesizing? I'm guessing a complete collapse in company value. I'm surprised investors are willing to take such a risk.
Up to a point (he is past that), I am ok with legitimately-earned wealth. What I have a problem with is people like him who have more power over the direction of our country than the average voter. Citizens United is not the only problem.
This is very off topic and perhaps a minor point: I was happy to see Michelle Goldberg link to your Substack, from '25, in her recent New York Times column. When I Googled for the column to use the link, I hit on a Seattle Times version, which was prominently displayed. I was surprised that her column seemed to be edited and your link removed. I wonder how that works?
"Every billionaire is a policy failure. The first trillionaire is also a market failure."
Such a fascinating, sad, and ultimately incorrect take.
Would someone who makes $400-600 per year in some of the poorest countries in the world (i.e. Yemen, Burundi, and the Central African Republic) be justified in saying Americans or Europeans shouldn't make $60,000 to $500,000 per year, or any other salary range? I think that would be a weak argument, at best.
People are entitled to the wealth they earn and create. Taxing income and wealth at any level is far more of a policy and market failure.
Your analogy is a poor one because one typically compares salaries and wealth within a country or region (the EU). Your words entitled, earn, and create are the important ones that we as a society need to better define as a collective. Is a single person “entitled” to a billion dollars? Put a different way, does a single person -need- a billion dollars? Absolutely not. And wealth at that level is never “earned” because it is dictated by compound interest, market volatility, government subsidies, and (in my view) screwing over lower classes from fairer wages. Does a billionaire create jobs? Sure. Ask an Amazon delivery driver or warehouse worker how they feel about that.
100% - if someone earned any amount of money, they are entitled to it.
Did you making your money screw over someone making less? Or any people you employ?
I would expect no since it's not a zero-sum game.
Amazon gets millions of voluntarily job applications for their various positions. I am all for better working conditions but it's not like people don't love working there.
Ironically, I actually would say that yes, people in the poorest countries in the world do in fact have plenty to gripe about, in particular when it comes the policy choices, both in their own countries and in others, that allow such poverty to foment.
Also, the idea that taxing wealth or income somehow stymies growth is divorced from reality - “tickle down” economics was a failure. Nobody debates that anymore.
The average American faired far better under the progressive policies of the New Deal era.
I don't doubt their reason(s) to gripe, but is is it warranted? Is it worth it? And would they be justified in taking the wealth of others since wealth is distributed unfairly?
Taxing wealth or income does stymie growth - or results in people taking on debt. Less money in the bank means less in personal investments generally speaking.
I am not a fan of “tickle-down” economics, as I am ticklish. Simply not a sustainable model with all the laughing.
100% the average American is better off he/she was than 1930s America. We live better than any period in history and it's not close.
The graphic video you produced is tremendous. Humans suffer from an extreme inability to grasp very large numbers, or to accurately assess the relative scale of things once they become really big. I hope more people have the opportunity to watch it. Kudos!
He earned it, one of the smartest people on earth. But he’s not the first trillionaire… Lord Rothschild Was the first trillionaire when he invented Fiat currency.
I hope you have some influence over the Democratic Party. The news that the billionaires in California have already spent millions of dollars to fight against the proposed 5% tax on them and Gavin Newsom isn't supporting this but instead proposes regressive taxes is deeply disturbing. Here in New York Kathy Hochul is another governor who can't bring herself to support a tax hike on people who already have too much money. This is happening at a time when so many commentators are saying the American public has already caught up to how the billionaires are scamming them.
Go Earn your own money, You’re not getting any of mine. Stop All the handouts, No free lunch, Send the immigrants home, And close the government.
I actually remember Jesus saying this on the mount. Dude was very pro-business, anti-immigrant IIRC. Hated breaking bread with the poors, etc.
You’re just showing how much you don’t know about the Bible, God instituted borders and boundaries and said if you touch them, I’ll kill you. The word of God says if you won’t work, you won’t eat.
I’ve been working since I’ve been 12 years old. I paid Social Security my entire life. I get $1800 a month. These goat herders come in and steal $1 billion in daycare. The Muslims crashing over the border are getting $3500 a month Social Security, a cell phone, and a free place to live.
Send them home!!! In the meantime our vets don’t have the medical care they need. And our elderly are existing on cat food.
What happens if Musk takes too much ketamine one day and can't continue prophesizing? I'm guessing a complete collapse in company value. I'm surprised investors are willing to take such a risk.
The statement that every billionaire is a power failure is so true.
Musk is America's biggest welfare queen. Paul Krugman has labeled Musk a human ponzi scheme. And we will be the losers when the bubble bursts.
Fortunately that means it's not a Ponzi scheme, since Paul Krugman is essentially always wrong.
Up to a point (he is past that), I am ok with legitimately-earned wealth. What I have a problem with is people like him who have more power over the direction of our country than the average voter. Citizens United is not the only problem.
Muskism is pure hype.
https://www.the-waves.org/2026/06/13/the-rise-of-muskism-turning-musk-a-trillionaire-narrative-driven-capital-accumulation-and-the-illusion-of-disruptive-innovation/
This is excellently stated and also depressing
This is very off topic and perhaps a minor point: I was happy to see Michelle Goldberg link to your Substack, from '25, in her recent New York Times column. When I Googled for the column to use the link, I hit on a Seattle Times version, which was prominently displayed. I was surprised that her column seemed to be edited and your link removed. I wonder how that works?
More broadly, a doer is a successful person. There are two types of people, doers and losers.
"Every billionaire is a policy failure. The first trillionaire is also a market failure."
Such a fascinating, sad, and ultimately incorrect take.
Would someone who makes $400-600 per year in some of the poorest countries in the world (i.e. Yemen, Burundi, and the Central African Republic) be justified in saying Americans or Europeans shouldn't make $60,000 to $500,000 per year, or any other salary range? I think that would be a weak argument, at best.
People are entitled to the wealth they earn and create. Taxing income and wealth at any level is far more of a policy and market failure.
Your analogy is a poor one because one typically compares salaries and wealth within a country or region (the EU). Your words entitled, earn, and create are the important ones that we as a society need to better define as a collective. Is a single person “entitled” to a billion dollars? Put a different way, does a single person -need- a billion dollars? Absolutely not. And wealth at that level is never “earned” because it is dictated by compound interest, market volatility, government subsidies, and (in my view) screwing over lower classes from fairer wages. Does a billionaire create jobs? Sure. Ask an Amazon delivery driver or warehouse worker how they feel about that.
The analogy is rock solid.
100% - if someone earned any amount of money, they are entitled to it.
Did you making your money screw over someone making less? Or any people you employ?
I would expect no since it's not a zero-sum game.
Amazon gets millions of voluntarily job applications for their various positions. I am all for better working conditions but it's not like people don't love working there.
Looks like we live in different realities. Thanks for the reply
It's the reality of being factually correct.
Appreciate the back and forth. Keep getting better.
Facts for you perhaps, sure.
Ironically, I actually would say that yes, people in the poorest countries in the world do in fact have plenty to gripe about, in particular when it comes the policy choices, both in their own countries and in others, that allow such poverty to foment.
Also, the idea that taxing wealth or income somehow stymies growth is divorced from reality - “tickle down” economics was a failure. Nobody debates that anymore.
The average American faired far better under the progressive policies of the New Deal era.
I don't doubt their reason(s) to gripe, but is is it warranted? Is it worth it? And would they be justified in taking the wealth of others since wealth is distributed unfairly?
Taxing wealth or income does stymie growth - or results in people taking on debt. Less money in the bank means less in personal investments generally speaking.
I am not a fan of “tickle-down” economics, as I am ticklish. Simply not a sustainable model with all the laughing.
100% the average American is better off he/she was than 1930s America. We live better than any period in history and it's not close.
The graphic video you produced is tremendous. Humans suffer from an extreme inability to grasp very large numbers, or to accurately assess the relative scale of things once they become really big. I hope more people have the opportunity to watch it. Kudos!
He earned it, one of the smartest people on earth. But he’s not the first trillionaire… Lord Rothschild Was the first trillionaire when he invented Fiat currency.