6 ms·
It may be an unpopular opinion, but I am ok with Bloomberg spending some of his money. Granted, 300MM to him like approximately $20 to me, but still.. Do not m
by A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
It may be an unpopular opinion, but I am ok with Bloomberg spending some of his money. Granted, 300MM to him like approximately $20 to me, but still..
Do not misunderstand me. His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly. That said, I am perfectly fine with him finally spending at least some of his vast fortune instead of hoarding it like a dragon.
Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate.
- BitwiseFool 7y agoAt the very least, a billionaire is cashing out a decent chunk of his assets and the money is going to other people. I personally think he's wasting his money, but I guess it's helping the economy?
- pb7 7y agoSurprised to see such naive takes on HN. Wealthy people don’t “hoard wealth like a dragon”. It’s invested in companies that translate to products, services, and jobs.
- chrisco255 7y agoThis is generally true. Most billionaires are there because of their stock ownership in large corporations. And if they were to cash out their stock they'd lose control of their enterprises.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y agoCompanies are assets and as such they are still part of his wealth. It is not like I said he sleeps on gold coins in a vault. No need to get literal.
- ericd 7y agoSure, and those companies spend his money to make things happen. Hoarding implies the wealth never gets used for anything.
- pb7 7y agoMoney sitting in a vault and money invested in companies that employ people and produce value for society could not be more different.
- Loughla 7y agoNot to be too negative, but >money invested in companies does not equal >produce value for society Necessarily. Those two things CAN be the same, but aren't necessarily the same.
- pb7 7y agoNeedlessly pedantic. If companies are profitable, they provide some sort of value even if you don't think so. Much more than people sucking up welfare benefits and not giving back, at least.
- malandrew 7y agoIt's actually shocking and sad how widely held this belief is.
- anthm1988 7y agobecause it's true. The naive people are the ones who swallow the line from billionaires.
- rabuse 7y agoWhat financially-savvy individual would keep their wealth in an inflationary store of value?
- dobleboble 7y agohttps://www.fool.com/investing/2019/12/19/3-reasons-buffett-isnt-spending-his-128-billion-in.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/12/19/3-reasons-buffett-...
- throwlaplace 7y agobut those companies themselves hoard money so what's the difference? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/28/apple-q1-2019-cash-hoard-heres-how-much-cash-apple-has-on-hand.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/28/apple-q1-2019-cash-hoard-her... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/microsoft-apple-and-alphabet-are-sitting-on-more-than-100-billion-in-cash.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/microsoft-apple-and-alphabet... edit: why did i get downvoted?
- pb7 7y agoEven “cash” held by individual companies is not actually cash in a bank. It, too, is invested in marketable securities. Holding cash is an incredibly foolish move due to inflation.
- Jeema101 7y agoI hate to tell you this, but all money that exists in the money supply is invested in products, services, and jobs - unless it's stuffed in a mattress somewhere. Wealthy people do 'hoard wealth like a dragon', by definition - otherwise they would not be wealthy.
- pb7 7y agoEveryone that saves for retirement is hoarding wealth like a dragon by this definition which makes the definition useless.
- mrguyorama 7y agoMy minuscule 401k isn't even in the same universe as someone who could move several billion dollars at anything he wants over night.
- pb7 7y agoIt really does not matter how much you have. You are hoarding wealth that you could be giving back to improve conditions for those that aren’t as fortune to be able to save. It doesn’t feel great to listen to people tell you what to do with your money, does it?
- Loughla 7y agoMy $28,000 retirement account does not equal the billions upon billions owned by Bloomberg. That is the difference. It's not a dragon hoard if it's two pieces of gold.
- pb7 7y agoSo you're just upset you don't have more money? $28K is a lot to the vast majority of the world but I bet you don't think so.
- rc_kas 7y agouhm. no. you are litterally saying naive things while calling others naive. crazy.
- pb7 7y agoPlease elaborate.
- chrisco255 7y agoI don't think it's going to work. Money may be a guaranteed way to get yourself in "the top tier" in polling but when it comes to voting, I don't think that pans out. Money is a factor but it's not the only factor. Ross Perot spent I don't know how many millions and never got more than 10% of the vote. Clinton outspent Trump in 2016. If people don't get excited for a candidate and connect with them its just not going to translate to votes.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 7y agoClinton got more votes than trump as well, not the best example
- jaywalk 7y agoShe outspent Trump by something like 2:1 and got 3 million more votes that literally didn't matter. Still a good example.
- jascii 7y ago> Clinton outspent Trump in 2016. Do we have any any hard numbers how much was spend by various nation-states to benefit the Trump campaign? To be fair, there are so many loopholes in campaign finance laws that it is hard to get accurate numbers of spending, beyond what is self-reported, for any candidate.
- refurb 7y agoAgreed. People put way to much faith on dollars = votes. Sure they benefit from spreading their message much wider, but it doesn’t mean people will vote for him.
- danans 7y ago> Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate. What about the votes of the people you influenced in his direction? If just 2 other people turn to him as a result, your vote against him has been effectively negated. Perhaps the $2500 means more to you than the vote against Bloomberg? If so, that's fair. A lot of people could use that kind of money, and I don't blame them for taking it. Ironically, that speaks directly to the imbalance of political power caused by the existence of massively wealthy individuals like him. But assuming you are OK with promoting a candidate in exchange for $, why not take money from a candidate you believe in, rather than one you plan to vote against? Is it because (just guessing) he's paying more? In which case, it seems a lot like he's just buying the primary.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y agoI believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest. I do not subscribe to the 'they are basically children, we have to protect them'. To the candidate I believe in I give my donation. For someone I believe, I will spread their message for free. Him? He has to pay.
- danans 7y ago> I do not subscribe to the 'they are basically children, we have to protect them'. He is paying you to leverage your reputation and trust networks, and you are extending your reputation and trust networks to him for a fee. It doesn't matter that you think you don't subscribe to belief about people you posited above, because if you don't believe in Bloomberg's message, you are effectively deceiving those in your trust network. Now, perhaps everyone in your trust network is in on your deception, but realistically the vast majority of humans, as social (vs. antisocial) beings rely on trust networks as a strong signal for forming opinions and taking actions.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y agoI have no problem saying 'he paid me to do it you know'. Kinda undermines the message. Frankly, just the mere fact we are talking about it undermines that message. And it, oddly, seems to be mainstream consensus as well. So maybe it is not all doom and gloom?
- aldoushuxley001 7y ago"Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate." You mean, you'll pocket that $2500, then vote for him for another promised $2500, because your vote is for sale - that much is certain.
- pmoriarty 7y ago"His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly." How about subvertive of the democratic process?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y agoIt is only subvertive if people let it be so. But if his spending is subvertive then ALL like spending is subvertive. He is just more upfront about it. I do think you have a valid argument here assuming the process was not already subverted.
- anthm1988 7y agoExcept every other candidate accepts donations and has to be more transparent. Every other serious candidate is appearing on the debate stage and town halls. Bloomberg is buying off people and hasn't been forced to defend his atrocious record, at all. and plenty of people support aggressively campaign financing reform and public funding of elections.
- ketzo 7y agoWell, there’s a lot of regulation around campaign finance: spending limits, disclosure requirements, etc. As far as I know, Bloomberg doesn’t haven’t to adhere to any of that, because it’s not campaign finances, it’s his own personal (massive) wealth.
- xiler 7y agoI think this practice is a bit worse than other forms of electioneering since it is not clear if views being expressed come directly from the candidate or not (unlike a TV ad or a rally). When governments do something similar this, their methods are rightly criticized as being undemocratic [1,2]. I think a similar line of reasoning applies to US election politics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades
- standardUser 7y agoIt's actually perfectly in line with our democratic process. It's not subverting it, it's working exactly as designed. Spending a personal fortune is well within the rules. We should be criticizing the design, not the people taking advantage of the design. In other words, hate the game not the player.
- malandrew 7y agoAt least he's doing the honest thing and giving away the money that he's earned by creating something of great value to society. That's far more honest than what other Democratic candidates like Bernie, Warren and Yang want to do which is trying to buy the election by promising to take money from Americans that earned it and give it to those that have not earned it. Make no mistake, promising wealth transfers using taxpayer money to buy an election is still buying an election.
- AlexandrB 7y agoYou can't "earn" a billion dollars. You can acquire that much by winning big at the stock lottery or by appropriating the surplus value of others. All Bernie/Warren/Yang are promising is that they'll return some of that acquired wealth to the people who actually did the work.
- jacob019 7y agoI agree. There is no way a guy like Trump could have won without being independently wealthy. Will Trump spend one moment reflecting on the moral way to spend his enormous reelection campaign budget?
- goatinaboat 7y agoThere is no way a guy like Trump could have won without being independently wealthy. Are you sure about that? Trump raises massive donations at every rally.
- jacob019 7y agoNow he is popular, but in 2016 the $66 million of his own money that he spent on his campaign was vital to his election bid.
- anthm1988 7y agoWhat he's doing is trying to buy democracy. It's monstrous, not merely annoying. Not even Trump had the gall to try and do something like this.
- refurb 7y ago“Hoarding it like a dragon”? You mean investing it in his company?
- deeblering4 7y agoUnseemly is not a strong enough word. An effort to knowingly pay off human shills to covertly interfere with an election outcome is shameful, completely unethical and arguably illegal. Being passive about issues like this (let alone turning a blind eye and personally profiting from them...) gets into a scenario where there is no less obnoxious candidate to vote for.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y agoI disagree on all counts. It may not be strong enough, but it is literally his money. He can burn it all in flames and you would have zero to say about it ( unless maybe ypu were his neigbor and smoke was too bad ). And how is that covert? We are all talking about it. People seem to freak out, because it appears to be working, which is interesting. Lastly, how am I passive? I said I would take his money if offerred. I placed myself right on the fence.. As for lack of candidates, I do not think we are at culling stage yet.
- lolc 7y agoI'm surprised there are people not a little bit ashamed to sell their social trust. To me Bloomberg clearly is corrupting people with this. And somehow they seem to reason that they stand above it as they're shilling him (transparently, they imagine) to their friends. To me it seems that it's people who have been forced to take such a choice too many times to feel the disgrace anymore. I find it morally acceptable to take his money if you need it. But let's not forget what that transaction means. It's the powerful forcing your outward attitude towards them. You're not a reputable citizen if your speech is controlled by your lord.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y agoBelieve it or not, I largely agree with the sentiment expressed. I suffer no illusions in that regards. That said, riddle me this as it may yield some interesting answers. Do you believe there is such a thing as too much power in one set of hands? If so, is one Bloomberg too much?