[danaris]

Billionaires are mortal.

Money isn't.

When Jeff Bezos dies, someone is going to inherit his money. There's no particular reason to believe that whoever he chooses as his heir(s) will be less disposed toward funding fascism and destroying the ability of regular people to have a voice in the world.

You invoke Carnegie, but the current generation of robber barons have shown no real propensity toward philanthropy—they donate to charity, to be sure, but in tiny (relative) amounts, and frequently to their own foundations, which make it legally charity, but in practice just another way for them to control their own money.

The proposals that the billionaires of today will give away their money (and thus power) within their lifetimes, or that their heirs will suddenly become champions of labor and the downtrodden, require some fairly significant evidence—from today, not just comparisons to the Gilded Age—before they can be considered credible.

[LarsDu88]

I would argue that Gates, Buffet, Mackenzie, and (yes) Zuckerberg do actually have philanthropic foundations setup that will outlast their mortal lives. Chan-Zuckerberg Institute + Biohub, Gates Foundation, giving pledge... Gates at least was directly inspired by Carnegie's example.

Elon Musk definitely does not fall in that category and instead dumps wealth endlessly into moonshot ventures and into his own political and social power.

There are also efforts by more rightwing billionaires to put their money in education/social engineering type ventures like the right wing leaning libertarian University of Austin.

The real problem was issues like Citizen's United, the rampant insider trading that is going on in Congress, and efforts to destroy the Estate Tax.

The assumption that right wing facist billionaires will automatically spawn political clones just does not hold up if you look into the families of the robber barons though. More often than not, the wealth gets diluted, the children become more liberal, or the following generations simply become feckless and squander the wealth. After 100 years typically the only thing that lasts will be names on buildings.

[danaris]

Again, you're trying to take the Gilded Age as a prime example, when there's already evidence that shows it's not going to be that way.

Gates and Zuckerberg are, to my understanding, giving away only tiny fractions of their wealth to charity. A far cry from Carnegie.

Their foundations remain powerful engines for them, and their heirs, to control the money and how it gets spent.

And the norms have changed since the Gilded Age: at that time, there was still a very strong culture of honor, dignity, and genuine service even among what were then the "nouveau riche" that is utterly absent today. Indeed, one of the primary hallmarks of today's right-wing movement is the aggressive denial that dignity and respect are things that should even exist. (Except, of course, for them.)

For children raised in that kind of environment, the very best we can realistically expect is that they will simply squander the wealth and have little direct impact on the political sphere.

Here's hoping that after 100 years, the only thing that lasts about this crop of robber barons is their names as a cautionary tale in history, about what happens to the wealthy when they forget that they are few, and we are many.

[peyton]

> funding fascism

What are you talking about? The point of fascism is to circumvent the need for funding.