>“I don’t think anyone has hired more people or given more money or supported San Francisco more than I have,” Mr. Benioff said.
So that entitles you to call for an invasion of the city?
> Since the pandemic, he has mostly lived on the Big Island of Hawaii, where he has bought up numerous parcels of land.
An antisocial, entitled oligarch. Just what we need. I think at this point it's fair to say we don't really live in a democracy. The people with money can do whatever they please, while whatever value they return to society is debatable at best (Salesforce??? wtf). This system is well and truly broken.
There is no relationship between a rich guy being able to buy numerous parcels of land on Hawaii and live there, and whether the constitutional order of the country constitutes a democracy or not. These facts just have nothing at all to do with each other. Democracies don't in general ban rich people from buying land and living places, and rich people can buy land and live places under non-democratic political systems too.
I have only used Salesforce briefly, and over a decade ago, and I honestly wasn't impressed. But there are all sorts of products made by companies that I personally don't like or have no use for, and this also has extremely little relationship with whether other people find them useful enough to pay for. If you have an argument that Salesforce the company is doing something untoward to make money, then make that argument. But I have no reason to think that Salesforce isn't doing the same thing that many other successful companies have done, which is selling a product that many people want, and earning a lot of money for their shareholders by doing so. None of this seems like a broken system to me.
Each billionaire signals policy failure. Our survival depends upon redistributing their legitimized theft and removing them from the seats of power before they kill us all with unnecessary world wars, genocide, famine, climate catastrophes, or substandard medical care. It's not hyperbolic or bold at this point, from the mountain of evidence against them, that they're a clear and present danger. Half of them are pedos and more are rapists. Countering aristocracy is a perpetual struggle that must be won and vigilantly guarded. The status quo and apathy results in the train going off a cliff, perhaps sooner than many think. Speeding it up as accelerationists desire is terroristically omnicidal.
The existence of billionaires does not signal policy failure. Billionaires were not responsible for any world wars, genocides, famine, climate catastrophes, or substandard medical care; these are all ancient human ills, and indeed the same policies that lead to the existence of billionaires have also lead to the average human being on the face of the earth being less likely to die painfully from any of these things, compared to the vast majority of human history.
Benioff needs those sweet army contracts so much he's got to vouch for calling in the guard to SF to glaze Trump. Of course he won't be there. He'll be in his billionaire bunker in Hawaii playing with his 'ohana'.
Hardly surprising to see another billionaire acting in ways that appear opportunistic and self-serving.
Who knows what Benioff actually thinks - he supported Democratic presidential candidates as recently as Hillary Clinton's last run. Now we see effusive praise for Trump and his policies. Rather than a rightward shift in his political and moral convictions, I imagine this is a naked appeal to the president's legendary susceptibility to flattery ("I fully support the president. He's doing a great job.") I'm not even sure if Benioff and his peers have such convictions.
Big tech all moving hard right is interesting, and it smells desperate, and I suspect it is.
Everyone is running out of new ideas, there’s an AI bubble that is about to pop. And everyone hates big tech, I don’t know that there’s a world where the next Democrat president moves back to them, and I suspect they’re right not to. That the kind of support big tech needs right now doesn’t align with Democrat values.
So, in an attempt to “conserve” their wealth and position they move to the right. The question becomes. Is that sustainable either. Trump is perceived as the head honcho in that big tech is groveling too, but I doubt anyone else will be seen that way. “JD Vance, the big tech president” doesn’t sound like a great sales pitch, nor a way to keep MAGA happy. And I doubt other elements of the right have truly lost their skepticism of big tech.
If the AI bubble pops and it takes the rest of the economy down with it, big tech probably doesn’t come out of that looking great. Criminal investigations not great? We shall see.
Is there data to show how much the Trump administration benefits upper middle class to upper class coastal elites vs. small town/rural white working class that make up his base?
During the first Trump administration, I think it was said that inequality decreased. What was the mechanism, and is that still true in Trump 2.0?
Readit News
So that entitles you to call for an invasion of the city?
> Since the pandemic, he has mostly lived on the Big Island of Hawaii, where he has bought up numerous parcels of land.
An antisocial, entitled oligarch. Just what we need. I think at this point it's fair to say we don't really live in a democracy. The people with money can do whatever they please, while whatever value they return to society is debatable at best (Salesforce??? wtf). This system is well and truly broken.
I have only used Salesforce briefly, and over a decade ago, and I honestly wasn't impressed. But there are all sorts of products made by companies that I personally don't like or have no use for, and this also has extremely little relationship with whether other people find them useful enough to pay for. If you have an argument that Salesforce the company is doing something untoward to make money, then make that argument. But I have no reason to think that Salesforce isn't doing the same thing that many other successful companies have done, which is selling a product that many people want, and earning a lot of money for their shareholders by doing so. None of this seems like a broken system to me.
Benioff needs those sweet army contracts so much he's got to vouch for calling in the guard to SF to glaze Trump. Of course he won't be there. He'll be in his billionaire bunker in Hawaii playing with his 'ohana'.
Who knows what Benioff actually thinks - he supported Democratic presidential candidates as recently as Hillary Clinton's last run. Now we see effusive praise for Trump and his policies. Rather than a rightward shift in his political and moral convictions, I imagine this is a naked appeal to the president's legendary susceptibility to flattery ("I fully support the president. He's doing a great job.") I'm not even sure if Benioff and his peers have such convictions.
Do they have any?
Everyone is running out of new ideas, there’s an AI bubble that is about to pop. And everyone hates big tech, I don’t know that there’s a world where the next Democrat president moves back to them, and I suspect they’re right not to. That the kind of support big tech needs right now doesn’t align with Democrat values.
So, in an attempt to “conserve” their wealth and position they move to the right. The question becomes. Is that sustainable either. Trump is perceived as the head honcho in that big tech is groveling too, but I doubt anyone else will be seen that way. “JD Vance, the big tech president” doesn’t sound like a great sales pitch, nor a way to keep MAGA happy. And I doubt other elements of the right have truly lost their skepticism of big tech.
If the AI bubble pops and it takes the rest of the economy down with it, big tech probably doesn’t come out of that looking great. Criminal investigations not great? We shall see.
During the first Trump administration, I think it was said that inequality decreased. What was the mechanism, and is that still true in Trump 2.0?