The glib implication of evil based on invidious characteristics in this thread is ironic. I guess I've heard several Afrikaners I know -- human rights lawyers who played key roles in the struggle -- make similar comments, but I think they had a certain privilege to do so.
Elon deserves every shot he gets, cheap, expensive, fair, and unfair. This is sort of in between, however, as many white South Africans his age today work hard to fulfill the promise of South Africa's multi-racial democracy. I know older ones who risked their lives and freedom working side-by-side with South Africans of all races to create that reality.
But, for Americans on an American-centered website, I guess employing cheap snark to dunk on Elon is sorta okay. Carry on, I suppose.
No thanks. Afrikaners are people descended from Dutch settlers whose first language is Afrikaans. I think that assuming somebody must be reconstructed based on their ethnic identity runs against the spirit of the project begun by the good guys of all races in S.A.
To be clear, not defending Musk or anyone else who sticks to bad old views.
I would contend that both Musk and Thiel are living proof that a) growing up in or adjacent to an apartheid system, b) making oodles of money (or taking daddy's oodles of money made under that system and turning it into whatever is bigger than oodles), c) and thinking that because you have that money, you somehow deserve an amplified voice in our politics are a bad combination.
One dollar one vote?
Real, enforceable ways to keep the ultra rich from essentially buying our government are needed to protect democracy. This is not a new problem, but it is getting demonstrably worse. For purposes of democracy, corporations are not people. And the rich deserve no more voice than the poor.
Maybe if the ultra rich weren't allowed to get so ultra rich? I'll fully grant that power will find a way, but we do seem intent in this country on making it really easy.
Someone will object to this characterization, but when a guy like Musk literally makes billions on government contracts, then argues that he shouldn't be taxed, it's a sign of the problem.
Musk didn't really pull himself up by his bootstraps...he succeeded in an environment that is exceptionally friendly to the accumulation and multiplication of wealth. The amount he has now is so astronomical that gaining or losing billions really doesn't impact his lifestyle--but it might impact his ability to directly influence the public discourse.
I hate to go all socialist on this, but some kind of more fair tax structure is probably the answer. From those to whom much has been given, a great deal should be expected. And I'm tired of the argument that their "philanthropy" is how they contribute...first, I give to charities, AFTER I pay my taxes, and so should they. And second, a lot of their "philanthropy" is targeted to maintain and protect the economic system that allows them to prosper on such an enormous scale. How about a system where other less advantaged folks could prosper, too?
I agree with you, Jeff, and the idea that rich people should pay more taxes than they do is not socialist, it makes sense. People who have benefited greatly from our system here in the U.S. should do all they can, including by paying more in taxes, to make sure the system that supports their financial success continues to thrive.
I still think I should change my screen name to Carl Marks, or something ;-)
No, I use the socialism label very tongue-in-cheek...my insufferably right friends really do think anything short of robber baron capitalism is the Bolshies coming to get us, and the Know-Nothings in Congress all think the worst thing you can call a person is a socialist (a short course in political science for everyone in Congress wouldn't go far wrong, and I suppose for me too--I think that today the worst thing you could call a person is a Republican, in spite of voting that way for years).
Some of it is that contrary to Churchill's rule, I've slid almost inexorably to the left for some time. Some of it, I'm convinced, is that the populist taint in "Conservative" politics has made any meaningful governance well-nigh impossible, and discussion a waste of effort.
Whether these folks have somehow let go of the dream of opportunity for everyone, or they never really believed in it, is a fair question.
That is particulary ironic here in a very square deep red state in the west, where the MAGAts talk a lot about "makers" and "takers"...especially considering that 32% of our state funding comes from the Federal government, because our legislature can't bring itself to tax the income of our enormous population (as a percentage...nothing about our population is enormous, unless we're counting pronghorn) of rich ranchers & oilmen.
Rumor has it that Rs want the 50s. My reaction - GO FOR IT. CEOs only made 30 times their employees' incomes, stock options didn't exist, pensions were a thing for employees, regulations were a good thing, Rs actually believed in governing, unions were strong, workers were paid living wages, corporations believed in the public good, taxes were really progressive up to 90+%, TV and movies didn't celebrate the bad/rich/powerful, and news channels didn't tell deliberate lies, etc. Were there problems? Hell, yes. At the same time, there was hope, optimism, a sense that most people believed in education, progress, the Constitution, etc. The Rs don't want the 1950s - they want the 1850s of the southern aristocrats who ruled and everyone who wasn't one of them was an indentured servant or a slave.
Perhaps we could sit down sometime and share a couple bottles of Great Lakes Brewery's Burning River Pale Ale to discuss the good stewardship companies showed in the 50's.
True. I mean, a slogan of "1950's, but this time, for everyone!" wouldn't be too bad.
Still, even if that was your goal, we couldn't really do it again. The world is too different and we're too different. The 50's had a generation shaped and hardened by privation followed by war making their way in a world where only one power really escaped the ravages of that war.
People do not understand that you cannot have the 50s back unless you pretty much torch the rest of the world while taking essentially no damage to the US... AND you get rid of nuclear weapons except for the US.
I have no problem with ultra rich if they develop something unique. Amazon was started as an online book delivery in his garage. Bezos' ex wife has systematically been divesting herself of the fortune she got in the divorce. I don't know what he does. But one of his biggest fans was my old boss who couldn't believe he could order a book on line and have it delivered. And he was a VP of a huge book publisher and lived in Boston. So no trouble getting books. I like Amazon a lot. It was a great idea. It doesn't matter that they made a fortune doing it. However inheriting a fortune and believing your smart and special while riding on your families wealth is disgusting.
Agreed completely on the inheriting thing. It is creating de facto aristocracy in a country that isn't supposed to have it.
As for Bezos, I'm of a similar mind, but I do wonder if we wouldn't still have Amazon (warts and all) if he'd only been able to wring $50B from that idea.
There seems to be a tipping point where it becomes almost impossible to correct through normal political means. Ostensibly, soaking the rich is very politically popular. However, there are tens of millions of people who vote for the Plutocratic friendly Republicans despite allegedly wanting to soak the rich. Also unfortunately, the countermajoritarian nature of the Senate often means that there are a few Democrats willing to also run interference on the idea. The Democrats need Joe Manchin, Joe Manchin is the only Democrat left who can win a state wide race in West Virginia, he high fived with Sinema at Davos regarding keeping the filibuster alive. Sinema is a dead woman walking but we need Manchin in 2024.
We'll see if Manchin even runs. If he does I expect him to loose, if not get blown out. They'll hang Joe Biden's radical agenda on him (despite the fact it wasn't radical and he scuttled much of it anyway) and WV voters will dump him in a heart beat. My family there are already talking about how they are wavering on him.
When that happens I predict the result will be blamed on progressives....all those pesky WV progressives.
I was just going to comment about that. In other words he spent the first 18 years of his life in a South Africa BEFORE the end of apartheid. Explains a lot.
What if he runs? Who is going to stop him? Is there an Electoral College Police Force I am unaware of? A Constitution Law Enforcement Federal & Legislative (CLEFT?).
The problem here is that we expect people to 'obey' the law. But we are currently unprepared when they don't obey the law. Unless they are low level drug dealers and DUIs.
As a naturalized citizen he is not eligible to be on any ballots for President. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Unlike the тАШdebateтАЩ about Cruz, McCain, George Romney, or Harris, this is absolutely clear. If a state were to include him (unlikely), a lawsuit to remove him would be successful.
A lawsuit? Really? How long will that take? I like your 'it's unconstitutional' stance, but that seems a bit optimistic, again you are counting on people to do the right thing, there isn't any Constitution Police Force.
Elon Musk seems to be going out of his way to remind us that he spent the first 18 years of his life as a white South African.
Agree.
Not just a white South African: an Afrikaner.
The glib implication of evil based on invidious characteristics in this thread is ironic. I guess I've heard several Afrikaners I know -- human rights lawyers who played key roles in the struggle -- make similar comments, but I think they had a certain privilege to do so.
Elon deserves every shot he gets, cheap, expensive, fair, and unfair. This is sort of in between, however, as many white South Africans his age today work hard to fulfill the promise of South Africa's multi-racial democracy. I know older ones who risked their lives and freedom working side-by-side with South Africans of all races to create that reality.
But, for Americans on an American-centered website, I guess employing cheap snark to dunk on Elon is sorta okay. Carry on, I suppose.
No thanks. Afrikaners are people descended from Dutch settlers whose first language is Afrikaans. I think that assuming somebody must be reconstructed based on their ethnic identity runs against the spirit of the project begun by the good guys of all races in S.A.
To be clear, not defending Musk or anyone else who sticks to bad old views.
IsnтАЩt any southerner who considered himself a Confederate тАЬunreconstructedтАЭ by definition?
I agree to disagree without continuing the discussion. https://xkcd.com/386/
I would contend that both Musk and Thiel are living proof that a) growing up in or adjacent to an apartheid system, b) making oodles of money (or taking daddy's oodles of money made under that system and turning it into whatever is bigger than oodles), c) and thinking that because you have that money, you somehow deserve an amplified voice in our politics are a bad combination.
One dollar one vote?
Real, enforceable ways to keep the ultra rich from essentially buying our government are needed to protect democracy. This is not a new problem, but it is getting demonstrably worse. For purposes of democracy, corporations are not people. And the rich deserve no more voice than the poor.
Maybe if the ultra rich weren't allowed to get so ultra rich? I'll fully grant that power will find a way, but we do seem intent in this country on making it really easy.
Someone will object to this characterization, but when a guy like Musk literally makes billions on government contracts, then argues that he shouldn't be taxed, it's a sign of the problem.
Musk didn't really pull himself up by his bootstraps...he succeeded in an environment that is exceptionally friendly to the accumulation and multiplication of wealth. The amount he has now is so astronomical that gaining or losing billions really doesn't impact his lifestyle--but it might impact his ability to directly influence the public discourse.
I hate to go all socialist on this, but some kind of more fair tax structure is probably the answer. From those to whom much has been given, a great deal should be expected. And I'm tired of the argument that their "philanthropy" is how they contribute...first, I give to charities, AFTER I pay my taxes, and so should they. And second, a lot of their "philanthropy" is targeted to maintain and protect the economic system that allows them to prosper on such an enormous scale. How about a system where other less advantaged folks could prosper, too?
I agree with you, Jeff, and the idea that rich people should pay more taxes than they do is not socialist, it makes sense. People who have benefited greatly from our system here in the U.S. should do all they can, including by paying more in taxes, to make sure the system that supports their financial success continues to thrive.
I still think I should change my screen name to Carl Marks, or something ;-)
No, I use the socialism label very tongue-in-cheek...my insufferably right friends really do think anything short of robber baron capitalism is the Bolshies coming to get us, and the Know-Nothings in Congress all think the worst thing you can call a person is a socialist (a short course in political science for everyone in Congress wouldn't go far wrong, and I suppose for me too--I think that today the worst thing you could call a person is a Republican, in spite of voting that way for years).
Some of it is that contrary to Churchill's rule, I've slid almost inexorably to the left for some time. Some of it, I'm convinced, is that the populist taint in "Conservative" politics has made any meaningful governance well-nigh impossible, and discussion a waste of effort.
Whether these folks have somehow let go of the dream of opportunity for everyone, or they never really believed in it, is a fair question.
Not sure why a fair tax structure would be considered socialism.
Because it takes from the makers and redistributes to the takers. Argle bargle Marx blah, blah, blah.
That is particulary ironic here in a very square deep red state in the west, where the MAGAts talk a lot about "makers" and "takers"...especially considering that 32% of our state funding comes from the Federal government, because our legislature can't bring itself to tax the income of our enormous population (as a percentage...nothing about our population is enormous, unless we're counting pronghorn) of rich ranchers & oilmen.
Rumor has it that Rs want the 50s. My reaction - GO FOR IT. CEOs only made 30 times their employees' incomes, stock options didn't exist, pensions were a thing for employees, regulations were a good thing, Rs actually believed in governing, unions were strong, workers were paid living wages, corporations believed in the public good, taxes were really progressive up to 90+%, TV and movies didn't celebrate the bad/rich/powerful, and news channels didn't tell deliberate lies, etc. Were there problems? Hell, yes. At the same time, there was hope, optimism, a sense that most people believed in education, progress, the Constitution, etc. The Rs don't want the 1950s - they want the 1850s of the southern aristocrats who ruled and everyone who wasn't one of them was an indentured servant or a slave.
"corporations believed in the public good"
Perhaps we could sit down sometime and share a couple bottles of Great Lakes Brewery's Burning River Pale Ale to discuss the good stewardship companies showed in the 50's.
;-)
I love Burning River!
Yes, I was oversimplifying. :-) I'm afraid I'd be asleep by the time I finished the bottle. Have little tolerance for alcohol. :-)
True. I mean, a slogan of "1950's, but this time, for everyone!" wouldn't be too bad.
Still, even if that was your goal, we couldn't really do it again. The world is too different and we're too different. The 50's had a generation shaped and hardened by privation followed by war making their way in a world where only one power really escaped the ravages of that war.
That's what I said! ;)
People do not understand that you cannot have the 50s back unless you pretty much torch the rest of the world while taking essentially no damage to the US... AND you get rid of nuclear weapons except for the US.
I have no problem with ultra rich if they develop something unique. Amazon was started as an online book delivery in his garage. Bezos' ex wife has systematically been divesting herself of the fortune she got in the divorce. I don't know what he does. But one of his biggest fans was my old boss who couldn't believe he could order a book on line and have it delivered. And he was a VP of a huge book publisher and lived in Boston. So no trouble getting books. I like Amazon a lot. It was a great idea. It doesn't matter that they made a fortune doing it. However inheriting a fortune and believing your smart and special while riding on your families wealth is disgusting.
Agreed completely on the inheriting thing. It is creating de facto aristocracy in a country that isn't supposed to have it.
As for Bezos, I'm of a similar mind, but I do wonder if we wouldn't still have Amazon (warts and all) if he'd only been able to wring $50B from that idea.
Yeah probably. I db't think knew he'd make this kind of money. For the first few years they only sold books.
There seems to be a tipping point where it becomes almost impossible to correct through normal political means. Ostensibly, soaking the rich is very politically popular. However, there are tens of millions of people who vote for the Plutocratic friendly Republicans despite allegedly wanting to soak the rich. Also unfortunately, the countermajoritarian nature of the Senate often means that there are a few Democrats willing to also run interference on the idea. The Democrats need Joe Manchin, Joe Manchin is the only Democrat left who can win a state wide race in West Virginia, he high fived with Sinema at Davos regarding keeping the filibuster alive. Sinema is a dead woman walking but we need Manchin in 2024.
We'll see if Manchin even runs. If he does I expect him to loose, if not get blown out. They'll hang Joe Biden's radical agenda on him (despite the fact it wasn't radical and he scuttled much of it anyway) and WV voters will dump him in a heart beat. My family there are already talking about how they are wavering on him.
When that happens I predict the result will be blamed on progressives....all those pesky WV progressives.
You can't get away from your upbringing.
I agree, but it is possible to change, not just behavior, but how your mind works. It's difficult, but The View can be changed.
I was just going to comment about that. In other words he spent the first 18 years of his life in a South Africa BEFORE the end of apartheid. Explains a lot.
Native laws rankle in the soul long after you leave their jurisdiction
I'm so thankful he's not eligible to be president.
What if he runs? Who is going to stop him? Is there an Electoral College Police Force I am unaware of? A Constitution Law Enforcement Federal & Legislative (CLEFT?).
The problem here is that we expect people to 'obey' the law. But we are currently unprepared when they don't obey the law. Unless they are low level drug dealers and DUIs.
As a naturalized citizen he is not eligible to be on any ballots for President. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Unlike the тАШdebateтАЩ about Cruz, McCain, George Romney, or Harris, this is absolutely clear. If a state were to include him (unlikely), a lawsuit to remove him would be successful.
A lawsuit? Really? How long will that take? I like your 'it's unconstitutional' stance, but that seems a bit optimistic, again you are counting on people to do the right thing, there isn't any Constitution Police Force.
It wouldnтАЩt take that long. A election lawsuit gets priority, especially when it involves names on a ballot.
Well. That's hopeful. But a lot of 'that could never happen' has happened recently, so I'm unsure how solid the 'that could never happen' ground is.