5 ms·

His fund's political donations don't align with what he's proposing[0]. His firm's largest 2018 donations were to Tom Cotton(R-AR) of AR and Tim Kane(R-OH), nei

His fund's political donations don't align with what he's proposing[0]. His firm's largest 2018 donations were to Tom Cotton(R-AR) of AR and Tim Kane(R-OH), neither of whom would dare support these ideas. He can stand up and talk like a leader, but until he's willing to financially back candidates who are genuinely interested in solving these problems (which likely means backing a candidate against his own financial interests), this is all hot air. [0]: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000032123&cycle=A https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000032123...

maxkwallace 8y ago
Thanks for the link. I think things are more complicated than what you've said. There may be good reasons to donate to a candidate who wouldn't support these ideas if that donation could nevertheless help sway their views on the issue. Opposition isn't the only strategy in politics. Sometimes you need to donate a nominal amount just to keep your foot in the door and the conversation open.
- save_ferris 8y ago
  This makes no sense to me. Tom Cotton is one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Republican Caucus, a $5k donation by a billionaire hedge fund manager isn't going to sway his opinion on progressive tax reform. He voted to cut taxes in 2017 and has voted consistently against bills that either closely or somewhat align with what Dalio is proposing. Dalio clearly benefits financially from conservative fiscal policy, which senators like Cotton support. It's a big stretch to argue that Dalio might be trying to sway Cotton on his fiscal policy while also benefiting financially from it.
  - sremani 8y ago
    Quickly glancing Dalio's article, he used the word tax once and never in tandem with progressive tax. Here is the link (original on linked in) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-reformed-ray-dalio/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-refo...
- notTyler 8y ago
  That's... not how politics work in America. That course of action leads to you giving money to someone who's not going to change their policies instead of giving it to someone who is actually campaigning for change.
  - alehul 8y ago
    It may not be how donations work for the average individual, where you want to donate and support those in power who you agree with. It's very different, however, for those who can donate enough to meet with politicians, and leverage their money into changing the politician's views.
    - save_ferris 8y ago
      So you're essentially arguing that Dalio's logic is this: "I'm donating money to you, fiscally conservative senator Cotton, because I disagree with your policy and think you should adopt a more progressive policy, even though it's against the fundamental tenants of your party. Despite the fact that your fiscally conservative policy greatly benefits me financially, I hope you change your position and adopt a more progressive policy, even if it hurts me financially." If this were truly his state of mind, why not back a progressive instead, that he knows is going support these reforms? This makes no sense to me.
      - greeneggs 8y ago
        I replied in a sibling comment. But I'll say it again: Dalio did not donate any money to Cotton. Two of his employees did. The OP was misinterpreting the data.
      - alehul 8y ago
        > "I'm donating money to you, fiscally conservative senator Cotton, because I disagree with your policy and think you should adopt a more progressive policy, even though it's against the fundamental tenants of your party. Despite the fact that your fiscally conservative policy greatly benefits me financially, I hope you change your position and adopt a more progressive policy, even if it hurts me financially." Precisely! It's similar to how Hillary Clinton's biggest donor was Goldman Sachs. They don't agree ideologically, but that's why it's important to donate and build favor in order to sway their views. > If this were truly his state of mind, why not back a progressive instead, that he knows is going support these reforms? This makes no sense to me. It's a good question! Imagine you align with the Democrats, and you have a lot of money to put behind your vote. When you look at the voting districts of America, you can see three types of races: Democrat-ensured, Close, Republican-ensured Democrat-ensured: Now if you want to maximize the impact of your money, there's no point in donating to Democrat-ensured races. Geoff Diehl had no way of beating Elizabeth Warren, for example, and we could argue that giving Warren a large war chest won't be that impactful for her Senate race. Close: In these districts, you should clearly back the Democrat, and offer financial support. It will have an impact, and possibly contribute to a win. Republican-ensured: In these districts, where people overwhelmingly vote Republican, you're not going to get anywhere by backing a Democrat who shares all of your views. It would be a waste. Politicians are always looking to fundraise, however, and are willing to budge on one or two issues for enough funding. In a world where Republican-ensured is a large percentage of districts, and Democrats need votes from across the aisle to get something passed, you _need_ cooperation, and a Democrat donating to a Republican is often where it can come from.
andrewla 8y ago
To be clear, what you are saying is incredibly disingenuous. The link you give shows that individuals and PACs associated with Bridgewater Associates gave $5,400 to Tom Cotton. That's not in millions or thousands. That's literally $5,400. Tom Cotton raised $17,454,785 in that election cycle. And keep in mind that isn't even his firm giving the money. Also, giving more than $2,700 to a candidate is illegal anyway, so "financially backing a candidate" is kind of a nonsense standard to hold a person to. Money in politics is a problem, to be sure, but one that is commonly overstated in this sort of light, and what you are saying here is that he should be giving more money, which is kind of the opposite of what we should be thinking of things.
- dmix 8y ago
  Plus people rarely back a candidate for single issues. It's entirely possible that Ray Dalio has some views on the tax code reform that may not align with mainstream republicans, but that doesn't mean the other 90% of policies the other politician supports align with his views. Or even that the other camp has the same tax reform policies in mind as he does. I've seen many people who want to reform the tax code, which would involve a greater relative share of taxes for the top end, who wouldn't identify as democrats.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Plus people rarely back a candidate for single issues. Tell that to all the black gun owners who vote R because they don't want wake up one day and find out they're felons or all the fiscal conservatives who vote D because they believe healthcare and the climate are bigger short term issues. I generally agree with you that people back whoever pushes policy they like most but people also have deal-breakers that will cause them to back the other guy even if they don't like his platform.
    - heromal 8y ago
      You do realize that black people don't have to be democrats yet?
greeneggs 8y ago
The data you cite are rather misleading. Those are not contributions from his firm, Bridgewater. They are contributions from employees of Bridgewater. For Tom Cotton, from 2007 to present, the only donations were from two Bridgewater employees: Mccormick, David Mr $13780 Halvey, John K Mr $7458 https://search.maplight.org/contributions/?candidate_name=Thomas+Cotton https://search.maplight.org/contributions/?candidate_name=Th... Over the same time period, Dalio himself has given to: John McCain $10200 Mitt Romney $2300 Rudolph Giuliani $2300 https://search.maplight.org/contributions/?donor_organization=&donor_text=ray+dalio https://search.maplight.org/contributions/?donor_organizatio...
JohnWilcox 8y ago
Did you not read the very first line? "...capitalism has become so broken that it's going to either be abandoned or left to continue as it is." It is not, as you imply that he says capitalism is failing America, it is that the broken state of capitalism, essentially that capitalism does not exist is failing America. It must just be a misunderstanding on your part that you think his donation history does not very well aligns with what he is saying. The Republican party, in spite of also being heavily influenced by the elite who will naturally try to consolidate power, have always been about actual free, fair capitalism and free markets within the jurisdiction and for its citizens. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with him saying that the corruption of capitalism is what is failing the USA, because it is, just as it is failing everyone else on the whole planet. Even China, the totalitarian evil communist regime is highly dependent on the USA even with its corrupt and rotten form of capitalism that has dominated the US economy since starting in the 60s ... as most corruption and depravity and degeneracy started around that time.
digitaltrees 8y ago
I actually think it would be great if people started donating to people on the other side of the political spectrum. Can you imagine if a large percentage of climate change interested donors flooded republican climate deniers with donations, became a large share of their campaign funds and sought to influence them rather than people that already agree?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  What stops that is the likelihood that the climate deniers "take the money and run"? Believe it or not, it has happened to donors in the past. That's why the system is so intricate today. People want to be sure they "get what they pay for" so to speak. Which is just a terrible thing to say, but it's unfortunately our political reality right now.

maxkwallace 8y ago

Thanks for the link. I think things are more complicated than what you've said. There may be good reasons to donate to a candidate who wouldn't support these ideas if that donation could nevertheless help sway their views on the issue. Opposition isn't the only strategy in politics. Sometimes you need to donate a nominal amount just to keep your foot in the door and the conversation open.

save_ferris 8y ago
This makes no sense to me. Tom Cotton is one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Republican Caucus, a $5k donation by a billionaire hedge fund manager isn't going to sway his opinion on progressive tax reform. He voted to cut taxes in 2017 and has voted consistently against bills that either closely or somewhat align with what Dalio is proposing. Dalio clearly benefits financially from conservative fiscal policy, which senators like Cotton support. It's a big stretch to argue that Dalio might be trying to sway Cotton on his fiscal policy while also benefiting financially from it.
- sremani 8y ago
  Quickly glancing Dalio's article, he used the word tax once and never in tandem with progressive tax. Here is the link (original on linked in) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-reformed-ray-dalio/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-refo...
notTyler 8y ago
That's... not how politics work in America. That course of action leads to you giving money to someone who's not going to change their policies instead of giving it to someone who is actually campaigning for change.
- alehul 8y ago
  It may not be how donations work for the average individual, where you want to donate and support those in power who you agree with. It's very different, however, for those who can donate enough to meet with politicians, and leverage their money into changing the politician's views.
  - save_ferris 8y ago
    So you're essentially arguing that Dalio's logic is this: "I'm donating money to you, fiscally conservative senator Cotton, because I disagree with your policy and think you should adopt a more progressive policy, even though it's against the fundamental tenants of your party. Despite the fact that your fiscally conservative policy greatly benefits me financially, I hope you change your position and adopt a more progressive policy, even if it hurts me financially." If this were truly his state of mind, why not back a progressive instead, that he knows is going support these reforms? This makes no sense to me.
    - greeneggs 8y ago
      I replied in a sibling comment. But I'll say it again: Dalio did not donate any money to Cotton. Two of his employees did. The OP was misinterpreting the data.
    - alehul 8y ago
      > "I'm donating money to you, fiscally conservative senator Cotton, because I disagree with your policy and think you should adopt a more progressive policy, even though it's against the fundamental tenants of your party. Despite the fact that your fiscally conservative policy greatly benefits me financially, I hope you change your position and adopt a more progressive policy, even if it hurts me financially." Precisely! It's similar to how Hillary Clinton's biggest donor was Goldman Sachs. They don't agree ideologically, but that's why it's important to donate and build favor in order to sway their views. > If this were truly his state of mind, why not back a progressive instead, that he knows is going support these reforms? This makes no sense to me. It's a good question! Imagine you align with the Democrats, and you have a lot of money to put behind your vote. When you look at the voting districts of America, you can see three types of races: Democrat-ensured, Close, Republican-ensured Democrat-ensured: Now if you want to maximize the impact of your money, there's no point in donating to Democrat-ensured races. Geoff Diehl had no way of beating Elizabeth Warren, for example, and we could argue that giving Warren a large war chest won't be that impactful for her Senate race. Close: In these districts, you should clearly back the Democrat, and offer financial support. It will have an impact, and possibly contribute to a win. Republican-ensured: In these districts, where people overwhelmingly vote Republican, you're not going to get anywhere by backing a Democrat who shares all of your views. It would be a waste. Politicians are always looking to fundraise, however, and are willing to budge on one or two issues for enough funding. In a world where Republican-ensured is a large percentage of districts, and Democrats need votes from across the aisle to get something passed, you _need_ cooperation, and a Democrat donating to a Republican is often where it can come from.

andrewla 8y ago

To be clear, what you are saying is incredibly disingenuous. The link you give shows that individuals and PACs associated with Bridgewater Associates gave $5,400 to Tom Cotton. That's not in millions or thousands. That's literally $5,400. Tom Cotton raised $17,454,785 in that election cycle. And keep in mind that isn't even his firm giving the money. Also, giving more than $2,700 to a candidate is illegal anyway, so "financially backing a candidate" is kind of a nonsense standard to hold a person to. Money in politics is a problem, to be sure, but one that is commonly overstated in this sort of light, and what you are saying here is that he should be giving more money, which is kind of the opposite of what we should be thinking of things.

dmix 8y ago
Plus people rarely back a candidate for single issues. It's entirely possible that Ray Dalio has some views on the tax code reform that may not align with mainstream republicans, but that doesn't mean the other 90% of policies the other politician supports align with his views. Or even that the other camp has the same tax reform policies in mind as he does. I've seen many people who want to reform the tax code, which would involve a greater relative share of taxes for the top end, who wouldn't identify as democrats.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Plus people rarely back a candidate for single issues. Tell that to all the black gun owners who vote R because they don't want wake up one day and find out they're felons or all the fiscal conservatives who vote D because they believe healthcare and the climate are bigger short term issues. I generally agree with you that people back whoever pushes policy they like most but people also have deal-breakers that will cause them to back the other guy even if they don't like his platform.
  - heromal 8y ago
    You do realize that black people don't have to be democrats yet?

greeneggs 8y ago

The data you cite are rather misleading. Those are not contributions from his firm, Bridgewater. They are contributions from employees of Bridgewater. For Tom Cotton, from 2007 to present, the only donations were from two Bridgewater employees: Mccormick, David Mr $13780 Halvey, John K Mr $7458 https://search.maplight.org/contributions/?candidate_name=Thomas+Cotton https://search.maplight.org/contributions/?candidate_name=Th... Over the same time period, Dalio himself has given to: John McCain $10200 Mitt Romney $2300 Rudolph Giuliani $2300 https://search.maplight.org/contributions/?donor_organization=&donor_text=ray+dalio https://search.maplight.org/contributions/?donor_organizatio...

JohnWilcox 8y ago

Did you not read the very first line? "...capitalism has become so broken that it's going to either be abandoned or left to continue as it is." It is not, as you imply that he says capitalism is failing America, it is that the broken state of capitalism, essentially that capitalism does not exist is failing America. It must just be a misunderstanding on your part that you think his donation history does not very well aligns with what he is saying. The Republican party, in spite of also being heavily influenced by the elite who will naturally try to consolidate power, have always been about actual free, fair capitalism and free markets within the jurisdiction and for its citizens. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with him saying that the corruption of capitalism is what is failing the USA, because it is, just as it is failing everyone else on the whole planet. Even China, the totalitarian evil communist regime is highly dependent on the USA even with its corrupt and rotten form of capitalism that has dominated the US economy since starting in the 60s ... as most corruption and depravity and degeneracy started around that time.

digitaltrees 8y ago

I actually think it would be great if people started donating to people on the other side of the political spectrum. Can you imagine if a large percentage of climate change interested donors flooded republican climate deniers with donations, became a large share of their campaign funds and sought to influence them rather than people that already agree?

bilbo0s 8y ago
What stops that is the likelihood that the climate deniers "take the money and run"? Believe it or not, it has happened to donors in the past. That's why the system is so intricate today. People want to be sure they "get what they pay for" so to speak. Which is just a terrible thing to say, but it's unfortunately our political reality right now.