Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Class Warfare Page 1 of 38

The Psychology Of Elite Depravity

By

On September 26, 2026

16 Comments

So, why are so many members of the elite pedophiles?

It starts with the fact that money or power gets you pretty much anything you want that’s legal. If you’ve wanted to do something, you can and you do. Hedonic adjustment sets in: if you can have all the boy toys and booze and fine homes and massages and trips and fine cuisine you want, after a while you get bored of it.

It comes second from “elite impunity”, the fact that in most countries a lot of laws aren’t enforced against rich or powerful people. Do crack, go to prison? Have a pricey cocaine habit, like half of American elites in the 80s, and you’re not touched. (Leaving aside immunities like being able to steal employees wages without usually being called on it, and when you are, not going to jail.)

The general observation is true: elites go to prison only when they prey on other elites.

The third bit is how sensual pleasures work. If something is forbidden, if it has powerful taboos around it, like pedophilia, or cannibalism or incest or rape or sacrilege, then when you perform those actions you get much more of a rush from it — powerful emotions are released when violate strong emotional prohibitions.

So you get wealth or power, you use it to enjoy all the things you wanted which are legal, and hedonic adjustment sets in.

All that is left are forbidden pleasures, and as a bonus, those forbidden pleasures come with an extra hedonic boost as long as you’re impaired in your guilt function. But if you’re rich and powerful, over time, your compassion and empathy die (this is well attested to in the literature). You’re used to having your way and to using other people as means to ends which benefit you, not them.

So–extra enjoyment from breaking taboos and unlike ordinary people, no guilt because you can’t feel compassion or empathy for your victims.

And you’re still basically immune. Oh Epstein eventually went to prison and was suicided, but we’ve all seen how those who partook of his services have been protected: how the Epstein files were redacted and no one was indicted.

All the taboo breaking hedonic highs with almost zero likelihood of going to prison.

Then there’s the simple fact that if you’ve got power, other people with power like to have blackmail on you. (Mossad says “hi”, but they are hardly the only panderering blackmailers.) After all, if you’ve got power, you might decide to do something that isn’t good for other elites: blackmail (and remember, Epstein’s properties had hidden cameras everywhere) takes that option off the table.

Elites thus are always at far more risk of engaging in egregious behaviour than ordinary people. It doesn’t show up in stats because elites are in charge and don’t arrest each other. Even those who don’t partake, either because they have some vestige of ethics left, or because they’re smart and don’t want to open themselves to blackmail rarely go after other elites because once there are enough corrupt evil blackmailed elites, there’s no way to get through that vanguard and if you threaten them they’ll band together and destroy you. (See Thomas Massie, the Representative who has pushed releasing the Epstein files the hardest and who lost his primary to a massive influx of outside money.)

Wealth and power are deeply corrupting. They don’t corrupt everyone, but they can corrupt a plurality, and once the threshold where a plurality have been corrupted by evil acts, the system becomes self-sustaining: impossible to stop.

This is the sort of thing that Xi headed off. The Communist party and wealthy oligarchs were becoming corrupt, though as far as I know not yet to the level of pedophile rings. He headed it off with a savage crackdown.

Eventually some future leader will fail to do so, and China’s elites too will become corrupted: it’s a virtually universal experience.

And once you hit that point it generally requires revolution of one sort or another to clean up the mess.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Conditions for Revolutionary Change In The West: Fiscal

By

On September 24, 2026

18 Comments

The traditional revolutionary change requirements are:

  1. An inability to pay military, police and functionaries.
  2. A split in the elite.
  3. Popular revolt.

As a rule, all three are necessary.

In the Russian revolution, the military was noticeably absent, or in the case of the Navy, actually revolted. Near the end, with the old government in the Winter Palace and protestors outside, the cadets being used as guards refused to fight, the Cossacks which the government expected to come rescue them never showed up, and navy sailors helped organize the crowds outside and storm the Palace.

There’s a lot of confusion around this issue, and a fair bit of comes from the idea that money doesn’t matter, because you can always print more.

Sure.

How’d that work for the Weimar Republic?

The bottom line is that money is only good for buying what exists or what is close to existing.

What we’ve been seeing for about 60 years now is:

  1. price increases higher than wage increases.
  2. Deindustrialization.

This means the West is making less of what its own populations need, and the populations can afford less of what does exist. Internal capacity is collapsing. (Ignore CPI, it’s not just a lie, it’s a damned lie. Expenses have risen far faster than it suggests.)

The solution to this, such as it was, was to trade: buy what is needed from other countries. The West was almost the sole supplier of goods that other countries wanted: planes, cars, advanced electronics, weapons and so on. For a while the USSR was an alternative, but as time went by that alternative became less and less viable, until the collapse of the USSR, at which point the West was pretty much the only game in town.

But Western elites were drinking their own kool-aid. They wanted reduced wages and environmental protection costs, so they decided to move production overseas, especially to China. Now China can make almost everything that any country might want: they don’t have to buy from America, and as the technical ability to avoid the dollar payment system increases, that means they don’t need the West.

Recently, what we’ve seen is a reduction in Western coercive ability. Not a complete loss of it (yet), as Venezuela and Cuba and Greenland show, but a serious loss in power. In fact the pivot to coercing weak nearby states and vassals is due to the weakness: the US can’t win far from its territory, but it’s still scary to Latin America and Europe.

This isn’t just about the US though, France had its own sphere of African interests, with military bases throughout multiple ex-colonies. It essentially ran multiple countries. Almost all of them have now run the French out. The French nuclear system, for example, used heavily discounted uranium from African vassals.

Trump seized Venezuela’s oil and has locked down Greenland’s resources, but he’s lost the Middle East. (Yes the war continue. Yes the US has lost and the American Middle Eastern Raj is dying and will not be saved.) Africa would far rather do business with China.

So would Latin America, but American military might, “NGOs”, diplomats and intelligence services have so far mostly been able to keep Latin America in the American sphere. So far. As the ability to use naval forces to project forces declines (and it is and will) this will end, though the process may take a couple decades and a lot of pain.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that the US is becoming much more poor and will continue to do so. Its coercive abilities are low, it has lost Africa and is losing the Middle East. Even Asian countries which have disputes with China (Vietnam, for example) are integrating with China’s economy.

Can’t make it. Can’t force as many countries to sell to the US for cheap. Has much less to sell to the world that it wants at a reasonable price, since China sells all the same things for less.

At this point the system’s only remaining pillar is dollar privilege. Everything is bought and sold in dollars, the US can print dollars, and the US can thus keep buying what it needs.

Except when it can’t, as with rare earths, industrial magnets, and other resources and goods China has decided to stop selling to America, which it can’t make itself and for which there is no adequate alternative supply. These goods, by the way, are necessary for American weapons, and without them the US military will keep becoming weaker and unable to rebuild its arsenal. (On the other hand, Russia and Iran and North Korea all get as much of these goods from China as they need.)

And dollar privilege is ending. Oh it goes back and forth, the US is fighting tooth and nail to keep it going, but the trend is clear. Abuse of sanctions, in particular, has made it clear to everyone outside the West, and even to some inside the West, that being in the dollar system: settling trades in dollars, is a huge vulnerability.

I assume the picture is clear: America can’t make as much, can’t force other countries to sell for cheap, has less to trade that can’t be bought for less somewhere else, and soon won’t just be able to print dollars and buy it anyway.

This brings us back to the enforcer class. Police in America are paid VERY well.

With overtime it’s not unusual for police salaries to hit the mid hundred thousands.

Cops are, generally, pretty well paid.

The military is less so, with salaries in the mid 30K range being common for non-NCO enlisted members.

Cops are well paid because they enforce the laws.

“Duh,” you say, but the point I’m making is that they break strikes, intimidate protesters, enforce property laws and steal more money from people than burglars do–but not from elites. Laws are set up to favor elites and cops are how laws that are unfair are enforced.

They’re frontline against the possibility of change. During the American revolution, those unhappy with officials would gather in large groups and go “have a talk” with their representatives. That sort of thing is basically impossible now.

It should be obvious why it’s necessary for the enforcer class: military and cops, to break from the elites for a revolution to succeed. They don’t all have to, but either you need some on the side of the new order, or you need them to refuse to do their jobs: as was the case with the Cossacks in the Russian Revolution.

A lot of people think that the first requirement of revolution: being unable to pay cops, military and functionaries (someone does need to keep things running) is impossible now in the US.

They’re right.

Now

But as the US becomes poorer and as prices continue to rise faster than wages, even police wages, and especially as actual shortages occur (sorry, we just don’t have any) that will change. You could pay them 10 billion dollars, but if it won’t buy the food, medicine, housing, internet and so on that they need or want, it amounts to “not being able to pay”.

And that’s where the US is in danger of heading. Can’t make a lot of stuff. Can force fewer and fewer countries to sell or “give” resources to them, can’t earn an honest buck in trade because China’s good are cheaper, and soon can’t just print dollars.

(I also expect that a lot of US copyright laws may be overthrown in other countries in about a decade to two decades. No reason to pay that ransom if you aren’t buying from the US, and it’s better to have domestic industry or your own internet companies.)

Every great nation thinks “it can’t happen here” till it does. For the US the endgame grows closer.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

If You Want Companies To Behave Well You Have To Punish Decision Makers

By

On August 25, 2026

22 Comments

Regular readers will know that China has been going after billionaires hard. So much so, in fact, that the number of billionaires is dropping in China.

Back after the financial collapse executives did very very well. They had been lying repeatedly, had engaged in wide-scale fraud and to the extent that there was any punishment it was fines on the companies involved.

Not only were the fines less than the companies had made, but even in the rare case that the company went bankrupt, the executives involved still got to keep all the money they had made. Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers wound up with a net worth of over 500 million — after his company was bankrupt.

The saying at the time when bad deals were made was IBGYBG. “I”ll be gone, you’ll be gone.”

So if you want to dis-incentivize bad executive behaviour, you have to really go after the execs. Here’s an example of China doing it the right way:

Notice that all his personal assets were seized. I’d also track down any family member he made rich and take that money away.

The only way to restrain capitalists is real prison sentences or execution (Vietnam is fond of executing corrupt execs) and taking their money, and thus power, away. The idea of corporations being used to shield decision makers and beneficiaries of illegal or evil behaviour from liability has to go away. Corporate personhood has to end, as well, or they have to be given the disadvantages of personhood. “Committed a serious crime? OK, the corporation is dissolved.”

Psychologically the most important thing here is for government officials to not identify with business leaders. Chinese CCP bureaucrats do not think of themselves as part of the same class as executives at companies. Organizationally there can be no revolving door between business and government. You can move from biz to government, but not vice versa. There can be no route for payoffs, including the old “I”ll hire or give your wife or kid a sweetheart deal.”

For most of Western history bureaucrats – aka. civil servants, were considered morally superior to businessmen, because they were working for the common good and by doing so earning less than they could if they were in the private sector. Business was what you did if you were morally inferior: a person who was concerned about yourself and not others.

That ethos produced some very competent and high powered government bureaucracies which were well respected, especially when combined with civil service examinations.

Government and business are two different things. There has to be some understanding between them, since government must regulate business, but government’s job is to make the people better off, not to make businesses richer.

When government operates this way it can control private enterprise so that markets work to the benefit of society. When it doesn’t, usually because it’s been corrupted by capitalists, it enables monopolies and oligopolies and exploitative practices and when there are crises, it bails out the rich, not the people.

All of this is well understood, really, it’s just that there’s a lot of money to pay for scummy intellectuals and journalists and experts to obscure the fact and pretend that there’s a trickle down effect or that what’s good for rich is good for society. (Hello Milton Friedman, you corrupt hack.)

Markets are a lot like nuclear energy. Great if you do it right, but if you don’t, it’ll blow up in your face, and the first rule is that the more money a capitalist has the more harshly they should be treated if they break the law or hurt the public. In China, that’s how it is. In the West, the rich skate and the poor go to prison for life or have their homes and savings and livelihood stolen.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

The Continued Abandonment Of America’s Poor

By

On August 6, 2026

42 Comments

Financialization and neoliberalism require everything to be looted so the rich can keep getting richer.

First:

The number of people enrolled in Medicaid and Affordable Care Act plans fell by more than 5 million in the last 12 months, according to a new report from the advocacy group Protect Our Care.

The decline stems in part from President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill — which was signed into law last July — and the expiration of the enhanced ACA subsidies, the group says. The law includes nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over 10 years; the subsidies expired in December after Republicans declined to extend them, leading to double- to triple-digit premium increases for millions of people.

This general trend is exactly what I predicted during the debate about the ACA: it would initially help, it would become more expensive over time and it would slowly die from a thousand cuts.

Second:

Using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, CBPP, a left-leaning policy organization, found the number of people on SNAP dropped by 6% — or 2.5 million people — from July, when the bill was signed, to December. In Wisconsin, participation fell by 2.3%, which equates to more than 15,500 people.

The post war consensus was to take care of the poor and people who the economy didn’t work for. Every since the 70s, and especially Clinton (with his welfare “reform”) every part of that architecture has been chiseled away. At one time, by law, all medical institutions were not for profit, including health care. That was repealed in the 70s and the predictable result happened.

Not for profit or mutual insurers are much cheaper. One of the few formal acreditations I have is “Fellow of the Life Management Institute”. Despite the name, it includes a lot about annuities and health insurance, and plenty of cites for studies. (Or did back when I took it.) And the studies are clear: for profit insurance is more expensive. This shouldn’t be a surprise, after all, they want to optimize profits, not care.

Cuts to SNAP have been going on for decades, and except during the pandemic all I remember is cuts and restrictions.

If you’re poor, the government will keep offering less and less help. If you require government assistance to live, or live half decently, you’d better find another way, I’m afraid.

This is also true Medicare and Social Security, which have been nibbled to death by constant under-statement of inflation.

Meanwhile the military budget keeps going up, the Pentagon can’t pass an audit, the US is running out of weapons, Ukraine is out of Patriots and being hammered into the ground, Iran is winning against the US and heck, the US couldn’t even with vs. Yemen’s Ansar-Allah.

If America doesn’t have health care because it has a big military, Americans sure aren’t getting their money’s worth.

But because of the Red Queen’s Race that rich are in, where if they don’t get richer at least as fast as other rich, they get bought out and drop out of the game, nothing is off the table when it comes to cuts. After all, those missiles and weapons have MASSIVE markups and high profit margins. SNAP? Helps some farmers, but otherwise no one’s making money off it, and the margins are low. Medicaid, same idea: low margins.

Surely there are wealthy people, or governments, who can earn the rich higher profits than poor people, so fuck them.

This is the West. This is the legacy of neo-liberalism. All because American whites didn’t want to be forced to live in the same neighbourhoods as blacks, so they voted Reagan. (That was the margin of victory, check into it yourself.)

If you’re in trouble in America, don’t cross the kill line, because once you do, no one’s going to help you enough to matter.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Just Let the Peons Die, The Rich Must Get Richer, French Edition

By

On July 31, 2026

13 Comments

Sometimes even I can be sickened by the banality of evil:

“Heavy users of healthcare”, aka: the sickest people.

Always it is the weakest who are targeted. Once we taxed the rich to help the poor, now we kill the poor so the rich can afford another vacation property or mega-yacht, or, really, keep up with the Musks.

When the revolution comes, people like Macron need to be charged with mass homicide, and either be executed or sent to prison if (when) they are found guilty.

The West’s rich are in a red-Queen’s race with each other. If you fall behind, you get bought out and even if you still have lots of money, you’re no longer a player in the game. To keep their place in this game they must immiserate everyone else. The other option, to stop playing the game and put in controls over buying out other members of the elite never serious occurs to them.

It’s similar to how carbon taxes are always regressive, rather than massively hitting private jets and private mega-yachts and people with multiple homes. Nope, hit farmers and ordinary people. Certainly don’t really tax oil majors.

The West has only one inviolable rule during this sub-ideological period: the rich must always get richer. Everything else is sacrificed to that goal.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Nothing Can Be Done When People Believe Lies

By

On July 23, 2026

36 Comments

Former CIA Agent John Stockwell on the CIA’s propaganda war on Cuba:

“We pumped dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities…we didn’t know of a single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure false propaganda to create an illusion of communists eating babies for breakfast.”

One of the most fundamental reasons the world is screwed up is that most people believe a bunch of lies. This can be flagrant, like the “drones of death” Iraq supposedly had, ore that Iran killed 50K protestors or that Iraqi troops bayoneted babies in Kuwait.

But it can also be subtle. The generations long understatement of inflation in the consumer price index, for example, means that people lost a third of their actual purchasing power (or more) while the government gaslit them.

Everyone’s walking around talking about stats which have no relation the real world and which predict nothing. It’s like GDP: “Spain’s GDP is about the same as Russia’s.”

So? GDP measures the market value (price) of what your country is spending money on. That’s all. It doesn’t tell you how much industrial capacity they have: how many drones, artillery shells and weapons they can create. Whether or not they can generate their own energy without imports. Whether they can feed themselves. Whether their energy grid could survive mass adoption of air conditioning (hello Britain.) Britain’s water companies added a lot to GDP while flushing sewage into rivers.

American intelligence recently noted that Iran had repaired most of the damage from the first part of the war. But Iran’s GDP is tiny.

Turns out, however, that since they couldn’t buy industrial and construction goods for so long, they became good at making them themselves. Sanctions mean they mostly can’t sell to foreign markets, so they don’t show up much in GDP, but they have the capacity. Meanwhile the US has a massive GDP and takes years to build or repair a bridge that China can fix in weeks or building in months.

We’re swimming in a sea of toxic bullshit. The “facts” our decision-making apparatus uses are often just straight wrong. The population is lied to even more systematically.

If I were writing laws it’d be a mandatory prison sentence for a politician or government official to knowingly lie to the public. No one can make good decisions with bad facts.

Now this isn’t to say that often we do have good facts and do the wrong thing anyway. I’m old enough to remember the doctor shortage in Canada being predicted back in the late 80s, especially the shortage of family physicians. Same with the nurse shortage.

The solution was obvious: train more doctors and nurses. This takes time: more medical school slots, more residencies, etc… But we knew well in advance. We did nothing except think “we can steal doctors and nurses from the third world”, then make it hard for them to work in Canada.

So good facts alone won’t save you. But bad facts make it hard to do the right thing even if you wanted to. Just before the Iraq War over 70% of Americans thought that Iraq was behind 9/11. There is zero evidence of that. There was zero evidence of that back then. But if you believe a lie, you may act on the lie and so Americans supported the war.

For going on 40 years we’ve been making our statistics not reflect reality. This was deliberate, because low inflation stats meant low adjustments to pensions, wages and so on. GDP goes up as the only statistic that mattered concealed that the industrial base was being offshored, which made some people very very rich.

Some people knew the lies were lies, but many didn’t, and the longer the lies continued the more people forgot they were lies.

Till reality (that grocery bill) became impossible to ignore, but compromised stats made it nearly impossible to make the argument to do something.

Lying is a primal sin exactly because it makes even understanding a problem either impossible or much worse. I lie is how we change the world into something fake but better for us. It’s one thing to say “my dog ate my homework”, it’s another for public officials to lie so that some people benefit and others (always a much larger group) suffer. If it was up to me a politician or government official knowingly lying would carry a mandatory prison sentence.

Our “masters” have completely forgotten that democracy is supposed to be about service to the people. Politicians work for the public, not the other way around.

At least in theory. But the further the theory moves from practice, the more politicians act for any reason other than the common weal, the more they need to lie so they can do what they really want. In this era, mint more billionaires.

The complete normalcy of government lies, politely called propaganda, conceals the sort of rot which destroys civilizations, and it’s helping destroy ours.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Most US Jobs Won’t Support An American Lifestyle

By

On July 6, 2026

30 Comments

Over at Interfluidity there’s a good post titled “Why Are Americans So Unhappy?”

Part of the answer boils down to this graph:

What this measures is what percentage of expenses of employees wages pay.

You’ll notice it keeps going down. It peaked near 100% around 1968 and has been trending down since. It’s now under 80%. Note the spike in 2020 when the government let lose the taps and actually helped people. I know a lot of people who, contra the “lockdowns sucks” remember 2020 as the only time they got to take a paid vacation. (And suicides in the under 18 group dropped massively, because school sucks.)

What makes up the rest of the money people use to support themselves? Well, for the better off its assets based wealth: dividends,  capital gains and all that good stuff. But for all intents and purposes if you aren’t in top 10% the amount of money you get from these sources is infintesimal. So, in fact, what actually makes it up is having two people working where one plus maybe a minor part time job would cover it.

The post is worth reading in total, but I want to point out something simple: this is deliberate. This is a result of policy. This is what American elites worked hard to create.

There are a lot of moving parts, but the most important for a long time was that the idea of NAIRU, that unemployment below a certain level was bad and caused inflation, so every time unemployment got low, the Federal reserve would crush the economy. (This is why good employment news would cause the market to go down, and bad employment news would cause it to rise all through the 80s to 2000s.)

Low unemployment is when employers are forced to raise wages, since there’s more jobs than applicants. It’s when labor has pricing power. So the Federal Reserve spent over 30 years (and still does occasionally) deliberately suppressing wages because they figured that wages were the most important form of inflation.

Or that’s what they said. There’s lots of sources of inflation, but somehow the Fed was never concerned with bubbles, never concerned with moral risk, never concerned with oligopolies and monopolies, never concerned with actually supply as opposed to demand. Nope, it was all those nasty workers who wanted raises.

Now a cynic, or perhaps a realist, might think “if there were a lot of ways to deal with inflation and the only one they did was crush wages” that perhaps inflation wasn’t at least 50% just an excuse to crush wages.

A realist might notice that everything else happening, like tax cuts on the rich, the end of Glass-Steagall, deregulation and much more all seemed to have as its effect making the already rich richer, and notice that wages are an expense to rich people, not their primary source of income, and that crushing wages thus also helped make the already wealth even richer.

Since many people pointed out, as early as the mid 80s, that the result of the policies being pursued would be rampant inequality, and indeed it was showing up in the stats as early as those 80s, one can safely assume that decision makers, whether at the Fed, Congress or anywhere else understood what the results would be.

But, after all, they are the important people. The good people. The job creators. The people who are worthy of having lots of money. Nurses, orderlies, janitors, clerical workers, garbage men:  pretty much everyone who has a job that actually does something the economy actually needs done and when it isn’t done people scream, they’re putzes and don’t deserve to have a good life. Just disposable trash.

At its heart it really is this simple. There were plenty of ways to deal with inflation, and many were suggested at the time. The most regressive path, one everyone knew would cause a lot of poverty and increase the wealth of a minority massively was chosen. It was chosen because it benefited the people in charge and their retainers, and those people didn’t and don’t care about anyone else.

Along the way the morons also managed to piss away America’s industrial and tech lead and lose America’s superpower status. But being fake rich (because it’s China that’s actually rich now, no matter how many billions of US dollars you have) and crushing their lessers was what was important to them.

And yeah, plenty of people, your kind and gentle host included, predicted this, well in advance. It was known. If you didn’t know, it was because you metaphorically had your fingers in your ears as you chanted “it doesn’t matter who makes things, or where. The market is global and fungible. It doesn’t matter who makes things, or where the market is….”

Anyway, it worked out for a few people. A few million. It’s a big club, as a comedian once noted, and you aren’t in it.

Your living standard was crushed, your wife was forced to work (not just permitted, but forced) and your children’s future was pissed down the drain deliberately, along with America’s place in the world, because it made a few million people rich, and a few thousand so rich Gilded Age barons would be jealous.

There was a class war.

The rich won.

You lost.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

 

 

How Many Poor People Could Elon’s Trillion Lift Out Of Poverty?

By

On June 30, 2026

25 Comments

Every once in a while a complete tool graces the comments and inspires a post with their sheer stupidity.

A trillion dollars is a million million dollars. Elon is worth over a trillion dollars. Let us say that all of that minus 20 million was taken from him and it added up to on trillion. He should be fine on just 20 million. (I sure would be. Perhaps your need to snort cocaine off naked models is greater than mine. Hey, I’m not judging.)

Now let’s take that trillion dollars and give it to the homeless. Supposedly there’s about 750K, but we’ll give the next poorest 250K money too.

That’s a million each.

“But Ian”, you cavil, “they must be irresponsible people because only bad, stupid drug addled bad bad bad people wind up homeless. They can’t manage a million dollars and they’ll just spend it all on drugs in a few months and be homeless again!”

That’s not actually what the evidence shows. When you just give homeless people money, they mostly use it on smart stuff, but let’s pretend it is and admit that some of them, like some of us, don’t make the best decisions.

We’ll buy them annuities. Assuming age 40, that’s about $3,500 a month. Age 60, over $5,000 a month.

So, Elon has enough money to make every homeless person not homeless. And he’s only one billionaire+.

All total America’s billionaires hold about 8.5 trillion dollars. If we knock them all down to 20 million we could give at least 8 million of the poorest people in America annuities that pay about $3,500 a month. (One does feel for the cocaine dealers and models in this scenario, however. Oh, an the mega-yacht builders. No progress without someone suffering, I guess.)

Now do “use the money corporations spend on stock buybacks.” Left for the reader, but… there won’t be any poor people left in America.

The fact is that the really rich people are, well, so amazingly rich that it boggles comprehension. They don’t have a lot of money. They don’t have a LOT of money. They don’t have a LOT of money.

They have a LOT of money.

OK?

And yes, they do get a lot of it by making other people poor, they receive massive public subsidies, blah, blah, blah. I’ve written a bunch of those articles and if you’re making the argument that they did it all on their own Atlas Shrugged’esque, you an idiot. A very useful idiot for the people with so much money.

(This proposal is illustrative, not expected and yes, if taken seriously it would cause a lot of economic re-balancing and lots of people would whine it wasn’t fair. It’s illustrative. Illustrative. Repeat after Ian, “illustrative”. It’d still be a better way of using the money than the AI bubble though.)

America has poor people because the people with money and power want it that way. The details of how it is done are complicated, but it really is that simple.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Page 1 of 38

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén