One Trillion Dollars

Just a quick word about Elon Musk and the tussle over whether to pay him a trillion dollars as Tesla's CEO. In the November 6 issue, the New York Times asks the important question: "Would Elon Musk Work Harder for $1 Trillion Than $1 Billion?" (no link, because fuck the New York Times) I didn't read it because I don't give a shit what their answer is because, again, fuck the New York Times.

The question reminded me of something I've thought about for ever. Why do we think that billionaires making less money makes billionaires want less money? Do we do that with poor people? Working people? Do we believe that paying people less per hour makes them want and need more hours or fewer hours? Do we believe that taxing the money above a billion makes billionaires quit at a billion? Or go find a different job?

I'm convinced that the biggest lie in capitalism--among thousands--is that if Big Brain Masters of the Universe don't get their money (including their tax breaks and their public investments and etc.), they'll close up shop and tell everyone else to suck it. 

I think that's extortion, and I don't think it's true.

When it comes to how we think about money, I think there are two kinds of people. One kind of person thinks about the life they want to have and thinks of money as the way to get that kind of life.

The other kind of person thinks of money as a way to keep score in the big game of World's Greatest Human (aka Biggest Asshole).

For the first kind of person, money as a means to a material end might mean feeding your family, a decent car, a home of your own. For lots of people it's being able to pay your medical bills. Send your kids to college. Travel once in a while. You know, normal shit. For this kind of person, if you have enough money you can get the life of your dreams, so you work and save to have that life.

For the other kind of person, there's no such thing as enough money. It's not a means to an end, it's a competition. That means if you make a million and someone else makes two, you're losing. If you make a billion or ten, that doesn't put you ahead in the race against eight billion other people; it puts you behind a couple thousand other assholes. 

In other words, this kind of person can never get enough money because somebody's always got more or they're trying to get more. They're not working for enough; They're working for more, more than anybody else. 

Which is why, if Elon Musk lost 459 of the 460 billion dollars he now owns, he would never ever not in one billion years stop trying to make that 459 billion dollars back again -- and then a trillion more. That goes for the rest of the goddamn billionaires, too.

In the 1980s, people said, "Whoever dies with the most toys wins." That was greedy and selfish, but at least it was tangible. Toys could be played with. Today's billionaires have an empty hole right through the middle of them, and they can never earn enough or steal enough or inherit enough to ever fill it. (h/t Kevin Jarre, 
Tombstone)

We have too many goddamn billionaires, and billionaires ought to be illegal. 

It's hilarious to hear a bunch of middle-aged, middle class folks cry for the billionaires and vote to protect them from the communist socialist leftist antifas. 

I imagine it's especially hilarious to billionaires who shout "look over there!" as they scoop all the money into numbered bank accounts or crypto accounts or whatever else I wouldn't know about because I'm not a goddamn billionaire. 

I don't know a single billionaire, nor do 99.99% of the people screaming to keep our commie hands off the money owned by billionaires. "Be nice! Don't make them mad! They'll quit and take all the jobs with them! They'll stop making new iPhones and bad newspapers and weird trucks and delivering our toothpaste in three hours!" 

What is it we're really afraid of? What would we lose if we lost all the billionaires? 

What would we lose if one morning they all became just millionaires? 

It's stupid that the rest of us do all that screaming for them.

Now there's goddamn trillionaires.

If you want to know why things have gotten so fucked up, follow the money.

Further reading: Why is everything so fucked up?

Politics, à la carte

Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, and Zohran Mamdani in New York City. Three vastly different candidates speaking to widely different constituencies, but with one thing in common: They won. How?

At the Mamdani victory celebration on Tuesday night, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke with MSNBC's Antonia Hylton, who defaulted to the Narrative and asked:

A lot of conversation right now about, well, who is the face of the Democratic Party at this point? Is it Zohran Mamdani? Is it Abigail Spanberger?  Who is the face, the soul, of the [Democratic] Party?

It's a crucial question delivered via the perfect metaphor. AOC answered this way:

I don't think that our Party needs to have one face--Our country does not have one face. It's about all of us as a team together. And we all understand the assignment Our assignment everywhere is to send the strongest fighters for the working class wherever possible. In some places, like Virginia for the gubernatorial seat, that's going to look like Abigail Spanberger. In New York City, unequivocally, it's Zohran Mamdani.

I think that's exactly right. I think the obsession with a whole-party "Democratic Message" is misguided. It comes from panic over the "Dems in disarray" narrative, the narrative that spawns "who is the face" questions. When asked if they approve of or agree or disagree with some other Dem's actions or remarks, a rep's response can simply be: "I listen to my constituents. My concern is with them."

Democrats don't need to handcuff themselves to each other. The fiction that we do amplifies the power of leadership, suppresses dissenting voices, and gives cover to cowards. Democrats don't need one uniform, focus grouped, processed, packaged "message."  It reeks of contempt to think that all you have to do is come up with the perfect combination of syllables and people will fall in love with you. Instead, Dems have to de-center themselves and listen. Your voters will tell you what they need from you.

Democrats don't need one message for a thousand different candidates. Rather, they need a set of principles. And they need to talk to their voters. This used to be called "retail politics," but it's more than that. It's listening,  too, more than you talk. It's a conversation, and it has to take place face to face. A candidate running in the Texas panhandle will have constituents with different priorities and concerns from a candidate running in New Jersey. That's not just a good thing. That's America.

It's not rocket surgery. Listen to the people you want to support you. Not the money, the people. Promise to work on the things that are important to them and build a record of doing that. Explain your values. Defend them. Stand on your principles. Be on the side of the people you want to be on your side. 

Some of your constituents are going to disagree with you on some issues. Right now, the "Democratic Party" is being advised to twist itself into a pretzel to appease potential/maybe voters on issues from immigration to transgender people to Palestine to choice/bodily autonomy for women. 

And if they disagree with you over vaccines or taxes or choice or school choice, acknowledge them, then educate them. Educate yourself. Do your job. 

And if they disagree with you over some wedge issue that has been super charged by constant propaganda, over immigrant crime or trans kids in sports, explain, tell them the truth. "Here's the science. Here are the facts." "I believe in protecting your rights, everybody's rights."

And don't pretend. People can smell a phony. You don't always have to "read the room" and choose the easiest way to get through without a bloody lip. Instead of asking a bunch of people what they think and then saying you think that, too, let them know who you are and what you believe in. Explain and persuade them if you can. If not, at least you'll have some dignity and maybe they'll figure they can live with where they think you're wrong.

Not a fifty-state strategy, a 200 million voter strategy. Listen to them. Tell them how you'll do some things, how you can't do some things, and why you won't do some things. 

All this to say that Democrats can be just like people: all different and all the same. Keep in mind that your constituents are not voters; they are potential voters. Try thinking of them not as chips to add to your stack (sometimes by bluffing), but as actual humans who need you to do things big and small so they can live their lives in security and peace.

Dems in disarray? Our diversity is our strength. And we're getting stronger every day.

Democrats looking for the right "message," it's you. It's always been you.