One Down, One To Go

[Derec]

I doubt his apartment is stacked with cash. But if it is I agree that would be crazy.

 

[Derec]

There are plenty of reasons to hate the Kochs. But, denial of climate change is one.

None of the sections you quoted said anything about David Koch denying climate change, so I read the whole article. Nothing about David Koch denying climate change. David Koch is not Cato and he is not John Cornyn either.

And Derec, the article mentions the investigation of the Koch's stealing oil from Indian reservations. If you are truly interested, you can do your own DD, as there are numerous other articles that discuss the claim and what the Koch's did to hide what they did.

Yes, it does say the company was investigated, but not that they were found guilty. So I followed the link to the Politico piece linked there. Same author. Does he have a hate-boner for the Kochs or what?

Obviously, stealing by misrepresenting volumes extracted would be wrong, regardless of whether the mineral rights holders in question are Indian or not.
But the author obviously has an ax to grind against the Koch's so I will withhold judgment.

And, NO. We're not going to stop talking about carbon. Are you deniers not even a little bit concerned about the fires that are eating up the Amazon, a source of about 20% of the world's 02?

I am not a climate change denier. And Amazon fires are concerning for many reasons, but what do they have to do with the Kochs?

Again, we need oil, and will need it for decades.

 

[laughing dog]

None of the sections you quoted said anything about David Koch denying climate change, so I read the whole article. Nothing about David Koch denying climate change. David Koch is not Cato and he is not John Cornyn either.

The Kochs help fund  The_Heartland_Institute which has been a major source of climate change denial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 23343

Hoarding cash doesn't work that way.

1) If they were truly hoarding cash the Fed would simply print more. (Note that they already do this as US currency is in many places considered a safer way to save money than the local economic system provides.)

2) In reality what they are doing is investing that money, not hoarding it. That's good for the nation.

 

[ZiprHead]

2) In reality what they are doing is investing that money, not hoarding it. That's good for the nation.

It's better in the hands of people that spend it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wealth can certainly help, but it is no panacea.


True. I hope he found ways to enjoy his wealth. What I really don't get is those "millionaires next door" that live like the poors but when they die it turns out they secretly had a lot of money. Money is nothing but a handy exchange medium for goods and services. If you don't want to acquire goods or obtain services, what good is money?

Did you read the book? The millionaire next door is more about people with modest incomes, but who live below their means and invest the excess into long term investments rather than throw it away on new cars and vacations. They live modestly and it doesn't bother them when neighbors/friends have more material things. They are focused on the future.

And it means they don't give up quality of life in retirement and it means they are much more resilient against the misfortunes of life.

 

[barbos]

View attachment 23343

Hoarding cash doesn't work that way.

1) If they were truly hoarding cash the Fed would simply print more. (Note that they already do this as US currency is in many places considered a safer way to save money than the local economic system provides.)

2) In reality what they are doing is investing that money, not hoarding it. That's good for the nation.

To be fair US debt is rich man currency and they are hoarding it, and feds are happy to print it.

 

[fast]

Why is “not giving” always conflated with “taking?”

I can ‘hoarde’ all the money I want. That it can be put to good use and help people does not in any way mean that I am harming others by not giving.

 

[ZiprHead]

David Koch’s Estate Sale to Include Several Republican Politicians

 

[southernhybrid]

I am not a climate change denier. And Amazon fires are concerning for many reasons, but what do they have to do with the Kochs?

Again, we need oil, and will need it for decades.

I never said that you were a climate change denier, but there are a few people. here who are. That part of my post wasn't meant to be directed at you. Sorry if you thought it was. I agree that it will take a long time to get off of the oil, but at the same time, I think we need to explore and begin using many other options that aren't carbon based. The Koch's didn't see it that way. And, David Koch was a climate change denier. Imo, he was also a greedy bastard who would do whatever it took to hoard his own wealth. Not all extremely wealthy are greedy, but anyone who has 42 billion, and only gives away 1 billion, qualifies as greedy and immoral imo.

I only mentioned the Amazon fires because Koch was a climate change denier, not because he was personally responsible for what is happening in Brazil. It's one thing to realize that it won't be easy to change from carbon based fuels to more environmentally sound ones. It's another thing to deny the impact of carbon based fuels. and then exploit these fuels for your own mega wealth.

To be perfectly honest, I doubt the world will change in time to prevent vast suffering.

 

[laughing dog]

View attachment 23343

Hoarding cash doesn't work that way.

1) If they were truly hoarding cash the Fed would simply print more. (Note that they already do this as US currency is in many places considered a safer way to save money than the local economic system provides.)

You are mistaken. The US Treasury is in control of printing cash and minting coins.

2) In reality what they are doing is investing that money, not hoarding it. That's good for the nation.

You are making assumptions. It is possible their wealth is held in assets such as equity or tangible performing assets. But it is possible they are either directly sitting on cash or indirectly sitting on cash if their money is being held by institutions sitting on excess reserves or cash or if they are holding non-performing assets such as estates.

While it is generally valid under the assumption that people wish to hold their wealth in assets that generate returns, people do not necessarily hold their assets with that goal in mind. Or their wealth is diversified among performing and non-performing assets.

 

[ronburgundy]

David Koch was one of the world's top philanthropists, donating more to cancer research than anyone in the world, funding leading scientific research aimed at improving lives through places like John Hopkins and MIT, leading a coalition of groups including the ACLU on criminal justice reform, was an early supporter of gay rights and gay marriage before it was popular, spoke against the military industrial complex and the drug war...

And yes, he contributed to a political party some of you didn't agree with, even if he specifically opposed their current President.

Politics is literally part of everything. Every political action has direct ethical implications and reflects one's moral character. Every vote, comment and dollar spent promoting or opposing various candidates or policies has real material impact on the well being of others, including their very existence. And when it's $ at the level Koch spent, those others number in the billions.

So, the canard that "it's just politics, but he was a good person" is utter bullshit. His politics directly determine what kind of person he was, it wasn't good.

As for him "opposing Trump", the decades of lies, anti-science, and bigotry that Koch spent billions promoting are what put Trump in office. Koch laid the ideological groundwork upon which Trump built his campaign. Without their Koch brothers efforts, it is unlikely that Trump wins the election. Also, their donor network spent over 400 million to help the GOP in 2018, and the since the GOP has fully supported everything Trump has said and done, every dime of that $ has increased Trumps power to do the massive long term harm he's done. The fact that he has criticized a few of Trump's protectionists moves b/c they hurt his own wealth doesn't mean shit. Koch wasn't spending any money that would threaten Trump's re-election and was still going to spend millions to ensure a GOP victory in 2020, which would help Trump.

He funded political causes he thought would benefit humanity,

So did nearly all of the most destructive, immoral people who ever lived. Like all of those people whom we should wish dead, he chose to hold an ideology of "what would benefit humanity" that was objectively wrong and destructive to most of humanity, and convinced himself otherwise for purely selfish gain.

and you disagreed with some of his proposed solutions

No. We disagreed on what the problems were and with his massive role in causing those problems and spreading lies to prevent people from recognizing those problems. We disagree with his Randian lack of moral compass and the objective harm he caused countless millions by everything from nearly 30 years of promoting scientific illiteracy and climate change denial ensuring that the GOP would oppose any meaningful actions, to his funding of white nationalism in a number of ways including funding "neo-confederate" pseudo-historian professors to lie to college students about the realities of slavery and the civil war. Much as he funded economics profs who would lie to students about economic realities.
.
He was a piece of immoral shit, and him giving away what for him was pocket change that he'd never notice to a few good causes doesn't come close to the far greater sums he used to cause objective harm. In fact, even much of that charity was destructive and self serving. While some of his charity did good even when it was done for mostly selfish reasons (like his large donation to cancer research immediately after being diagnosed), a good % of his "charity" was actually designed to cause harm to others and society in ways that benefited himself, such as the funding of right wing propaganda under the guise of funding education. That includes not just the funding of white nationalist "historians", but also of selected economics profs who would push a specific dogma and political agenda that benefited Koch's personal wealth. Investigations of where and to whom he "education" donations went clearly show this. And Koch admitted it way back in 1974 when he said to a gathering of like-minded economic conservatives that "educational programs are superior to political action, and support of talented free-market scholars is preferable to mass advertising."

 

[Shadowy Man]

This irrational obsession with carbon needs to stop.

Don't worry. It will eventually stop.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, I wonder whether he bequeathed all the Republican Senators he owned to Charles or to his kids?

 

[Half-Life]

I wonder why leftists don't mention George Soros who is behind everything the left does. Funny how only the billionaires on the right are evil scum.

 

[laughing dog]

I wonder why leftists don't mention George Soros who is behind everything the left does. Funny how only the billionaires on the right are evil scum.

Your "whataboutism" is both false and irrelevant.

 

[TSwizzle]

As for him "opposing Trump", the decades of lies, anti-science, and bigotry that Koch spent billions promoting are what put Trump in office.

With Trump making zero effort to win the next election, in fact he sounds like he wants to lose, the Russians rumbled, Koch dead and Hillary a spent force, I can’t wait to hear the excuses should Trump get a second term.

Still not getting are you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are mistaken. The US Treasury is in control of printing cash and minting coins.

2) In reality what they are doing is investing that money, not hoarding it. That's good for the nation.

You are making assumptions. It is possible their wealth is held in assets such as equity or tangible performing assets. But it is possible they are either directly sitting on cash or indirectly sitting on cash if their money is being held by institutions sitting on excess reserves or cash or if they are holding non-performing assets such as estates.

While it is generally valid under the assumption that people wish to hold their wealth in assets that generate returns, people do not necessarily hold their assets with that goal in mind. Or their wealth is diversified among performing and non-performing assets.

While some money may be tied up in assets such as estates that's only a small portion of what they have. And it doesn't really matter if their goal is investment--if they park it in the bank the bank invests that money in some fashion. Fundamentally, if you make money by putting it somewhere someone down the line is putting that money to productive use.

 

[laughing dog]

You are mistaken. The US Treasury is in control of printing cash and minting coins.

2) In reality what they are doing is investing that money, not hoarding it. That's good for the nation.

You are making assumptions. It is possible their wealth is held in assets such as equity or tangible performing assets. But it is possible they are either directly sitting on cash or indirectly sitting on cash if their money is being held by institutions sitting on excess reserves or cash or if they are holding non-performing assets such as estates.

While it is generally valid under the assumption that people wish to hold their wealth in assets that generate returns, people do not necessarily hold their assets with that goal in mind. Or their wealth is diversified among performing and non-performing assets.

While some money may be tied up in assets such as estates that's only a small portion of what they have. And it doesn't really matter if their goal is investment--if they park it in the bank the bank invests that money in some fashion. Fundamentally, if you make money by putting it somewhere someone down the line is putting that money to productive use.

Saying it is so, does not make it true. At least that is one of someone's favorite memes here.

The point is that for any particular individual, it is an empirical question - one cannot simply wave one's hand with bromides.

 

[Jarhyn]

While some money may be tied up in assets such as estates that's only a small portion of what they have. And it doesn't really matter if their goal is investment--if they park it in the bank the bank invests that money in some fashion. Fundamentally, if you make money by putting it somewhere someone down the line is putting that money to productive use.

Saying it is so, does not make it true. At least that is one of someone's favorite memes here.

The point is that for any particular individual, it is an empirical question - one cannot simply wave one's hand with bromides.

Not to mention the fact that you aren't the one doing any of the work in that scenario.

It's pure parasitism.

Why not just tax the tick out of the equation and let the active investment engine do it's job without the bleed on resources?