5 ms·

This is just 100% speculation, as I have no idea what Jobs or Bezos or Gates or anyone else really think. But it seems to be in their long term interest to have

by pm90 9y ago

This is just 100% speculation, as I have no idea what Jobs or Bezos or Gates or anyone else really think. But it seems to be in their long term interest to have a fair, balanced political system and liberal society as we have now in the US. If you look at wealth creation and accumulation throughout history, its been accumulated by less than honorable means. And I'm not talking about Gates screwing over Jobs with Windows: I'm talking actual killing and grabbing of wealth, invasion or outright seizure of assets. I have a feeling that the smart rich people understand this and want to preserve a somewhat fair and balanced society. This is why it completely baffles me as to why the Koch brothers are so hell bent on destroying our democracy. And the only plausible reason seems to be: they're not really well educated, or smart enough, to understand the impact that their short term thinking will have on the American system. Since they inherited most of their wealth, they've never really lived without wealth, I'm guessing they can't relate to people without it.

aswanson 9y ago
They're smart enough. They have the same idea of how force has been used to extract wealth over the ages, but see that force personified as an unchecked government with a monopoly on violence. They see their libertarian philosophy, at it's root, at protecting society and freedom of business from the power of statism. You may or may not agree, but that is how I'd expect them to roughly frame what they believe.
arcseco 9y ago
Both the Koch brothers and Bezos are liberals in the broadest sense of the word, in fact Charles Koch considers himself and probably is a classical liberal [1]. They both are both injecting personal bias into politically active ventures, and that is an affront to what democracy should be about. Because of their vast wealth they are able to shape and suppress political discourse in their own favour (I would guess that your and most peoples interests don't align directly with those of a multi-billionaire). Bezos is probably more left leaning than others but that doesn't mean that his politics don't impact people negatively. Do you really believe that Carlos Slim's primary motivator for becoming the largest stake holder in the NYT Co. is to promote coexistence via liberalism? [1]http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-1/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
- volkl48 9y ago
  NYT has a split stock structure. Carlos Slim's stake affords him basically zero sway in NYT's affairs. Even owning ALL of the public stock still wouldn't accomplish that. The founding family has a majority (70%) control of the board through the rights of the class B shares they hold, and as such are beholden to no one.
- nl 9y ago
  "classical liberalism" is close to the opposite of what most people think of liberalism. It arose in the 19th century and then was liberal in that it advocated the rule-of-law for all, low tarrifs and low taxes. It has been termed "classical liberalism" since the late 19th century to distinguish it from social liberalism, which is what most people think of now whn they refer to "liberal".
Denzel 9y ago
It does no good to mischaraterize and disparage other humans when you're not aware of their motivations. Understand that I dislike what the Kochs stand for as well, but I can understand how their viewpoint evolved. Firstly, they're two MIT-educated engineers, and secondly they did not inherit all their wealth. In fact the business was worth in the tens of millions when their father turned control over to them and died a year later. After many decades, the company is now worth multi-billions. That's no small feat. And finally you must understand that their father (who founded the company) was a simple chemical engineer that came up with a brilliant new refining process. However he was blocked, by litigative competitors, from implementing that process in the U.S. So, their father turned to Soviet Russia at the time to build these new improved refineries for a government that was all to happy to accept them. However, in the process, many of their fathers collaborators were killed off by Stalin in a brutal purge. Ever since his experience in Soviet Russia, Koch believed that communism was one of the greatest political enemies and socialism was one slippery step from falling into communism. He didn't want to see anymore colleagues die, and so his political views became polarized. He passed those polarized views onto his children -- not all of them accepted them -- specifically the two Koch brothers leading the firm now. In their minds they believe they're fighting the good fight. No matter how much you and I may disagree: we can understand how they may have arrived there.
- pm90 9y ago
  Thanks for the insightful comment. I agree my views are somewhat colored by anti-Koch rhetoric. My paradigm was that their father unscrupulously collaborated with the Soviets and Germans just for money, while ignoring the sanctions imposed by the US Government. Most of my info on Koch brothers came from reading the book Dark Money. I will certainly remedy that deficiency with more research into this. (BTW comments like this is why I love the HN community so much).
  - Denzel 9y ago
    That's a fair point -- about Germany. I'm curious whether their father began building refineries there before or after the sanctions? I never really looked into the geopolitical context around the time of his expansion. I'm relatively sure he didn't do anything to the extent of what IBM and Bayer did for the Third Reich: my understanding is that their father was mostly just a geek trying to build his refineries and the big U.S. companies at the time weren't playing fair. Now you've got me even more curious though. Going to dig in more. EDIT: So it looks like only one refinery was designed and built by Koch for Germany in 1934. This is many years before U.S. involvement. And the closest thing to sanctions I can find is the economic war/blockade the UK and France placed on Germany in 1939. Let me know if you find any other sources of information though.

by pm90 9y ago

aswanson 9y ago

They're smart enough. They have the same idea of how force has been used to extract wealth over the ages, but see that force personified as an unchecked government with a monopoly on violence. They see their libertarian philosophy, at it's root, at protecting society and freedom of business from the power of statism. You may or may not agree, but that is how I'd expect them to roughly frame what they believe.

arcseco 9y ago

Both the Koch brothers and Bezos are liberals in the broadest sense of the word, in fact Charles Koch considers himself and probably is a classical liberal [1]. They both are both injecting personal bias into politically active ventures, and that is an affront to what democracy should be about. Because of their vast wealth they are able to shape and suppress political discourse in their own favour (I would guess that your and most peoples interests don't align directly with those of a multi-billionaire). Bezos is probably more left leaning than others but that doesn't mean that his politics don't impact people negatively. Do you really believe that Carlos Slim's primary motivator for becoming the largest stake holder in the NYT Co. is to promote coexistence via liberalism? [1]http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-1/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...

volkl48 9y ago
NYT has a split stock structure. Carlos Slim's stake affords him basically zero sway in NYT's affairs. Even owning ALL of the public stock still wouldn't accomplish that. The founding family has a majority (70%) control of the board through the rights of the class B shares they hold, and as such are beholden to no one.
nl 9y ago
"classical liberalism" is close to the opposite of what most people think of liberalism. It arose in the 19th century and then was liberal in that it advocated the rule-of-law for all, low tarrifs and low taxes. It has been termed "classical liberalism" since the late 19th century to distinguish it from social liberalism, which is what most people think of now whn they refer to "liberal".

Denzel 9y ago

It does no good to mischaraterize and disparage other humans when you're not aware of their motivations. Understand that I dislike what the Kochs stand for as well, but I can understand how their viewpoint evolved. Firstly, they're two MIT-educated engineers, and secondly they did not inherit all their wealth. In fact the business was worth in the tens of millions when their father turned control over to them and died a year later. After many decades, the company is now worth multi-billions. That's no small feat. And finally you must understand that their father (who founded the company) was a simple chemical engineer that came up with a brilliant new refining process. However he was blocked, by litigative competitors, from implementing that process in the U.S. So, their father turned to Soviet Russia at the time to build these new improved refineries for a government that was all to happy to accept them. However, in the process, many of their fathers collaborators were killed off by Stalin in a brutal purge. Ever since his experience in Soviet Russia, Koch believed that communism was one of the greatest political enemies and socialism was one slippery step from falling into communism. He didn't want to see anymore colleagues die, and so his political views became polarized. He passed those polarized views onto his children -- not all of them accepted them -- specifically the two Koch brothers leading the firm now. In their minds they believe they're fighting the good fight. No matter how much you and I may disagree: we can understand how they may have arrived there.

pm90 9y ago
Thanks for the insightful comment. I agree my views are somewhat colored by anti-Koch rhetoric. My paradigm was that their father unscrupulously collaborated with the Soviets and Germans just for money, while ignoring the sanctions imposed by the US Government. Most of my info on Koch brothers came from reading the book Dark Money. I will certainly remedy that deficiency with more research into this. (BTW comments like this is why I love the HN community so much).
- Denzel 9y ago
  That's a fair point -- about Germany. I'm curious whether their father began building refineries there before or after the sanctions? I never really looked into the geopolitical context around the time of his expansion. I'm relatively sure he didn't do anything to the extent of what IBM and Bayer did for the Third Reich: my understanding is that their father was mostly just a geek trying to build his refineries and the big U.S. companies at the time weren't playing fair. Now you've got me even more curious though. Going to dig in more. EDIT: So it looks like only one refinery was designed and built by Koch for Germany in 1934. This is many years before U.S. involvement. And the closest thing to sanctions I can find is the economic war/blockade the UK and France placed on Germany in 1939. Let me know if you find any other sources of information though.