Note to all billionaires especially those with holdings 50 b

[ralfy]

I think so as well, with that point probably passed with ex
President Carter's push for growth limits and conservation.
He became an unpopular one-termer, for this , for the most part.

This contradicts your earlier statement, that these limits can be expanded.

Good Observation:

Sure for at least 2 reasons.

The first is an anti derivative differentiation toward an absolute .
In Marxian terms , it is through the concept of diminishing returns that a perpetual expansion of value has to take place. But incrementability subscribes to divisibility of available assets against demand.

If markets are not growing at the same rate as the supply is either over or underproduced, the producer will fix prices by dumping oversupplies into waste, rather then reduce prices.

The divisbility of supply, will tend to represent a model of infinite progression, where there never will be an absolute lack of supply, only the prices put on them will rise accordingly.

This is the whole idea behind the NWO, primarily, and secondarily, the threat of nuclear world war.

The other rationale is purely philosophical, and it has to do with Trumpism's neo-Kantian resurgence, which does emphasize negative values associated with ontological negation and contradictions in material synthesis , that structuralism has not been able to edify.

The contradiction of having reached limits and being unlimited by it's perpetual mobility toward an unreachable absolute are both contradictory and not.

Even if prices are removed, there will still be an absolute lack of supply because of physical limitations.

[Meno_]

there are two ways to go after this the first is if you keep halving the supply, you never run out. At least not until the planetary orbit keeps us fairly safe.
We can subsist on far less by wasting far less.

The second is the misconception about saving supplies.


Once there was a man a fairly good and heroic man, trying to do good and he lived with his father in law who was a Chinese emperor.
This is a story my old grandad told me.
This simply heroic man did something useful and life saving for the emperor, and the emperor told him he would grant him anything he wished for. (Within reason)
So the guy thought about it and said all I want is one grain of rice on a square on a chess board.
Then 2 grains on the second square 4 on the third and so on until all the squares are covered.
The emperor thought his sin in law lost it, and readily agreed, thinking what a fool ,he could have asked for half the kingdom.
So the order was given to comply, and the emperor went to sleep.

Next morning, alarmed underlings woke up the emperor in great frenzy and told him that there is no amount of rice in China to be able to provide enough rice for the hero.
The emperor was incredulous.

Well doubling shows the same propensity to halving, but upwards. There is physically no limit either forwards or backwards to reach an absolute supply.

[Meno_]

The number of billionaires world wide is increasing, directly corresponding to the effects of evaluating currencies. Low end billionaires like Trump and Oprah, (around 2 nil.) are dwarfed by top of the line ones like the Wal-Mart' s and the like.

Millionites are becoming mere upper middle class figures, still clunking to less subtle forms of identification , such as ascribing social class with the car they drive.


The United States has the most billionaires in the world, with 420 more than the next closest country, China, according to Wealth-X's 2019 Billionaire Census report. There are 705 billionaires in the United States, 285 in China, 146 in Germany, 102 in Russia, and 97 in the United Kingdom.

The combined net worth of US billionaires exceeds the total billionaire wealth of the next eight highest-ranked countries (China, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Hong Kong, India, and Saudi Arabia).

The report further stated that the top 15 countries accounted for 75 percent of the global billionaire population. Collectively, the 1,942 billionaires in these 15 countries are worth $6.8 trillion — that accounts for 79 percent of total global billionaire wealth in 2018.

Here are the top 15 countries with the most billionaires in 2019.

1. United States
Jeff Bezos
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Getty
Number of billionaires: 705

Total billionaire wealth: $3,013 billion

Richest Individual: Jeff Bezos ($118 billion)

2. China
Jack Ma
Jack Ma. VCG/VCG via Getty Images
Number of billionaires: 285

Total billionaire wealth: $996 billion

Richest Individual: Jack Ma ($41.8 billion)

3. Germany
dieter schwarz
Dieter Schwarz. http://www.60pages.com/north-and-south/
Number of billionaires: 146

Total billionaire wealth: $442 billion

Richest Individual: Dieter Schwarz ($23.6 billion)

4. Russia
moscow russia skyline
Moscow, Russia. Shutterstock
Number of billionaires: 102

Total billionaire wealth: $355 billion

Richest Individual: Leonid Mikhelson ($21.6 billion)

5. United Kingdom
Jim Ratcliffe
Jim Ratcliffe. AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth
Number of billionaires: 97

Total billionaire wealth: $209 billion

Richest Individual: Jim Ratcliffe ($18.7 billion)

6. Switzerland
ernesto bertarelli
Ernesto Bertarelli. AP PhotoKEYSTONE/Dominic Favre
Number of billionaires: 91

Total billionaire wealth: $240 billion

Richest Individual: Ernesto Bertarelli ($16 billion)

7. Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong. Jessica Hromas/Getty Image
Number of billionaires: 87

Total billionaire wealth: $259 billion

Richest Individual: Li Ka-Shing ($30.8 billion)

8. India
Mukesh Ambani
Mukesh Ambani. Reuters/Amit Dave
Number of billionaires: 82

Total billionaire wealth: $284 billion

Richest Individual: Mukesh Ambani ($49.5 billion)

9. Saudi Arabia
saudi arabia
Saudi Arabia. adznano3/Shutterstock
Number of billionaires: 57

Total billionaire wealth: $147 billion

Richest Individual: Alwaleed Al Saud ($14.7 billion)

10. France
bernard arnault
Bernard Arnault. Reuters
Number of billionaires: 55

Total billionaire wealth: $195 billion

Richest Individual: Bernard Arnault ($88.5 billion)

11. United Arab Emirates
04_Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque_Abu Dhabi_United Arab Emirates
Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. TripAdvisor
Number of billionaires: 55

Total billionaire wealth: $165 billion

Richest Individual: Majid Al Futtaim ($5.13 billion)

12. Brazil
Jorge Lemann
Jorge Paulo Lemann. Scott Olson/Getty
Number of billionaires: 49

Total billionaire wealth: $154 billion

Richest Individual: Jorge Paulo Lemann ($22.4 billion)

13. Italy
Giovanni Ferrero
Giovanni Ferrero. REUTERS/Giorgio Perottino
Number of billionaires: 47

Total billionaire wealth: $141 billion

Richest Individual: Giovanni Ferrero ($24.2 billion)

14. Canada
Canada
Canada. Flickr/Kris Arnold
Number of billionaires: 45

Total billionaire wealth: $87 billion

Richest Individual: Sherry Brydson ($8.39 billion)

15. Singapore
Wee Cho Yaw
Wee Cho Yaw. Reuters
Number of billionaires: 39

Total billionaire wealth: $84 billion

Richest Individual: Wee Cho Yaw ($8.53 billion)



More: CEO World Contributor contributor 2019 Billionaire

[Meno_]

[quote="Meno_"]The number of billionaires world wide is increasing, directly corresponding to the effects of evaluating currencies. Low end billionaires like Trump and Oprah, (around 2 nil.) are dwarfed by top of the line ones like the Wal-Mart' s and the like.

Millionites are becoming mere upper middle class figures, still clunking to less subtle forms of identification , such as ascribing social class with the car they drive.


The United States has the most billionaires in the world, with 420 more than the next closest country, China, according to Wealth-X's 2019 Billionaire Census report. There are 705 billionaires in the United States, 285 in China, 146 in Germany, 102 in Russia, and 97 in the United Kingdom.

The combined net worth of US billionaires exceeds the total billionaire wealth of the next eight highest-ranked countries (China, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Hong Kong, India, and Saudi Arabia).

The report further stated that the top 15 countries accounted for 75 percent of the global billionaire population. Collectively, the 1,942 billionaires in these 15 countries are worth $6.8 trillion — that accounts for 79 percent of total global billionaire wealth in 2018.

Here are the top 15 countries with the most billionaires in 2019.

1. United States
Jeff Bezos
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Getty
Number of billionaires: 705

Total billionaire wealth: $3,013 billion

Richest Individual: Jeff Bezos ($118 billion)

2. China
Jack Ma
Jack Ma. VCG/VCG via Getty Images
Number of billionaires: 285

Total billionaire wealth: $996 billion

Richest Individual: Jack Ma ($41.8 billion)

3. Germany
dieter schwarz
Dieter Schwarz. http://www.60pages.com/north-and-south/
Number of billionaires: 146

Total billionaire wealth: $442 billion

Richest Individual: Dieter Schwarz ($23.6 billion)

4. Russia
moscow russia skyline
Moscow, Russia. Shutterstock
Number of billionaires: 102

Total billionaire wealth: $355 billion

Richest Individual: Leonid Mikhelson ($21.6 billion)

5. United Kingdom
Jim Ratcliffe
Jim Ratcliffe. AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth
Number of billionaires: 97

Total billionaire wealth: $209 billion

Richest Individual: Jim Ratcliffe ($18.7 billion)

6. Switzerland
ernesto bertarelli
Ernesto Bertarelli. AP PhotoKEYSTONE/Dominic Favre
Number of billionaires: 91

Total billionaire wealth: $240 billion

Richest Individual: Ernesto Bertarelli ($16 billion)

7. Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong. Jessica Hromas/Getty Image
Number of billionaires: 87

Total billionaire wealth: $259 billion

Richest Individual: Li Ka-Shing ($30.8 billion)

8. India
Mukesh Ambani
Mukesh Ambani. Reuters/Amit Dave
Number of billionaires: 82

Total billionaire wealth: $284 billion

Richest Individual: Mukesh Ambani ($49.5 billion)

9. Saudi Arabia
saudi arabia
Saudi Arabia. adznano3/Shutterstock
Number of billionaires: 57

Total billionaire wealth: $147 billion

Richest Individual: Alwaleed Al Saud ($14.7 billion)

10. France
bernard arnault
Bernard Arnault. Reuters
Number of billionaires: 55

Total billionaire wealth: $195 billion

Richest Individual: Bernard Arnault ($88.5 billion)

11. United Arab Emirates
04_Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque_Abu Dhabi_United Arab Emirates
Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. TripAdvisor
Number of billionaires: 55

Total billionaire wealth: $165 billion

Richest Individual: Majid Al Futtaim ($5.13 billion)

12. Brazil
Jorge Lemann
Jorge Paulo Lemann. Scott Olson/Getty
Number of billionaires: 49

Total billionaire wealth: $154 billion

Richest Individual: Jorge Paulo Lemann ($22.4 billion)

13. Italy
Giovanni Ferrero
Giovanni Ferrero. REUTERS/Giorgio Perottino
Number of billionaires: 47

Total billionaire wealth: $141 billion

Richest Individual: Giovanni Ferrero ($24.2 billion)

14. Canada
Canada
Canada. Flickr/Kris Arnold
Number of billionaires: 45

Total billionaire wealth: $87 billion

Richest Individual: Sherry Brydson ($8.39 billion)

15. Singapore
Wee Cho Yaw
Wee Cho Yaw. Reuters
Number of billionaires: 39

Total billionaire wealth: $84 billion

Richest Individual: Wee Cho Yaw ($8.53 billion)


At 3 % interest one billion can generate this much net a day:

=82, 191.00 ~ eighty two thousand one hundred ninety one dollars

[Meno_]

Here is what it cost to shelter LA's homeless-half of all US homeless:

https://laist.com/2018/06/22/heres_what ... helter.php



That is 657 million a year for half of US population per year. Double that is 1,314 billion a year. for total US approx. population for housing.Food may be double that , so maybe 3 billion or 150,000 dollars a day for the complete package per day.

Now, added to the argument that according to civic analysis, it would cost less to cover that then to manage the homeless population per municipal law, the question becomes inescapable , why prefer homelessness ?

The answer given by Silhouette, , that such a move would prove ideologically unproductive or logically unsound , makes some kind of sense.


I or, may be that such move would be overtly idiosyncratic.

[Meno_]

Here is one billionaire? Whom we all know by now, whose tax returns are being opened to scrutiny, and how it is beginning to shed some light into generally accepted business practices at the higher levels:

TRUMP, INC.

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies

The president’s businesses made themselves appear more profitable to lenders and less profitable to tax officials. One expert calls the differing numbers “versions of fraud.”


One of President Donald Trump’s signature skyscrapers, at 40 Wall Street in New York. Documents reveal Trump shared conflicting cost and occupancy figures for the building with lenders.(

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.

Lenders like to see a rising occupancy level as a sign of what they call “leasing momentum.” Sure enough, the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.

A dozen real estate professionals told ProPublica they saw no clear explanation for multiple inconsistencies in the documents. The discrepancies are “versions of fraud,” said Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance and real estate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley. “This kind of stuff is not OK.”

New York City’s property tax forms state that the person signing them “affirms the truth of the statements made” and that “false filings are subject to all applicable civil and criminal penalties.”

The punishments for lying to tax officials, or to lenders, can be significant, ranging from fines to criminal fraud charges. Two former Trump associates, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, are serving prison time for offenses that include falsifying tax and bank records, some of them related to real estate.

“Certainly, if I were sitting in a prosecutor’s office, I would want to ask a lot more questions,” said Anne Milgram, a former attorney general for New Jersey who is now a professor at New York University School of Law.

Trump has previously been accused of manipulating numbers on his tax and loan documents, including by his former lawyer, Cohen. But Trump’s business is notoriously opaque, with records rarely surfacing, and up till now there’s been little documentary evidence supporting those claims.

That’s one reason that multiple governmental entities, including two congressional committees and the office of the Manhattan district attorney, have subpoenaed Donald Trump’s tax returns. Trump has resisted, taking his battles to federal courts in Washington and New York. And so the question of whether different parts of the government can see the president’s financial information is now playing out in two appeals courts and seems destined to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Add to that a Washington Post account of an IRS whistleblower claiming political interference in the handling of the president’s audit, and the result is what amounts to frenetic interest in one person’s tax returns.

ProPublica obtained the property tax documents using New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The documents were public because Trump appealed his property tax bill for the buildings every year for nine years in a row, the extent of the available records. We compared the tax records with loan records that became public when Trump’s lender, Ladder Capital, sold the debt on his properties as part of mortgage-backed securities.

ProPublica reviewed records for four properties: 40 Wall Street, the Trump International Hotel and Tower, 1290 Avenue of the Americas and Trump Tower. Discrepancies involving two of them — 40 Wall Street and the Trump International Hotel and Tower — stood out.

Trump’s personal attorney at the time, Michael Cohen, keeps watch as supporters lay hands on the then-presidential nominee. “It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes,” Cohen later testified, “and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes.” (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”

The Trump Organization did not respond on the record to detailed questions provided by ProPublica. Robert Pollack, a lawyer whose firm, Marcus & Pollack, handles Trump’s property tax appeal filings with the city, said he was not authorized to discuss the documents. A spokeswoman for Mazars USA, the accounting firm that signed off on the two properties’ expense and income statements, said the firm does not comment on its work for clients. Executives with Trump’s lender, Ladder Capital, declined to be quoted for the story.

In response to ProPublica’s questions about the disparities, Laura Feyer, deputy press secretary for New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, said of the Trump International Hotel and Tower, “The city is looking into this property, and if there has been any underreporting, we will take appropriate action.”

Taxes have long been a third rail for Trump. Long before he famously declined to make his personal returns public, a New York Times investigationconcluded, Trump participated in tax schemes that involved “outright fraud,” and that he had formulated “a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns.” Trump’s former partners in Panamaclaimed in a lawsuit, which is ongoing, that Trump’s hotel management company failed to pay taxes on millions in fees it received. Spokespeople for Trump and his company have denied any tax improprieties in the past.

In February, Cohen told Congress that Trump had adjusted figures up or down, as necessary, to obtain loans and avoid taxes. “It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes,” Cohen testified, “and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes.”

The two Trump buildings with the most notable discrepancies shared a financial trait: Both were refinanced in 2015 and 2016 while Trump was campaigning for president. The loan for 40 Wall Street — $160 million — was then the Trump Organization’s biggest debt.

The fortunes of 40 Wall Street have risen and fallen repeatedly since it was constructed in 1930. Once briefly in the running to become the world’s tallest skyscraper (before being eclipsed by the Chrysler Building and then others), the 71-story landmark had an illustrious history before falling into disrepair as it changed hands multiple times.

Trump says in his book “Never Give Up” that he took over 40 Wall Street for $1 million during a down market in 1995. Others have reported the price as $10 million. Trump gave the property his signature treatment, decking out the lobby in Italian marble and bronze and christening it “The Trump Building.” Tenants such as American Express moved in.

But the rent rolls suffered when big-name tenants fled to Midtown in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Less blue-chip operations replaced them. In recent years, there were more setbacks. About two years ago, for example, high-end food purveyor Dean & Deluca canceled plans to locate an 18,500-square-foot emporium on the higher-priced first floor. The space remains empty.

The building at 40 Wall was underperforming, charging below-market rents, according to credit-rating agency Moody’s. Its profits were lagging.

Trump’s company, which has sometimes struggled to obtain credit because of his history of bankruptcies and defaults, turned for relief to a financial institution where Donald Trump had a connection: Ladder Capital, which employs Jack Weisselberg, the son of the Trump Organization’s longtime CFO, Allen Weisselberg. Ladder is a publicly traded commercial real estate investment trust that reports more than $6 billion in assets. In 2015, and still today, Jack Weisselberg was an executive director whose job was to make loans.

Trump and Jack Weisselberg had history together. Jack was at UBS, in its loan origination department, in 2006, when the Swiss bank loaned Trump $7 million for his piece of the Trump International Hotel and Tower. Allen Weisselberg had bought a condo from Trump in one of his buildings for a below-market price of $152,500 in 2000. He deeded it to Jack three years later for about $148,000. Jack sold the unit for more than three times as much in 2006. (Jack Weisselberg declined to comment on Ladder’s loans or his relationship with the Trump Organization.)

Even with a sympathetic lender, the struggles at 40 Wall Street would normally raise questions. Trump’s representatives needed to demonstrate signs of the building’s financial health if they wanted a new loan with a lower interest rate.

They had a compelling piece of data, it seemed. Trump’s team told Ladder that occupancy was rebounding after registering a lackluster 58.9% on Dec. 31, 2012. Since then, Trump representatives reported, the building had signed new tenants. Income from them hadn’t fully been realized yet, largely because of free-rent deals, they said. But after 2015, they predicted, revenues would surge.

“That’s a selling point for people in the business,” said Riordan, who was previously the executive director of the Rutgers Center for Real Estate. Borrowers “want to show tremendous leasing momentum.” The steepness of such a rise in occupancy at the Trump building was unusual, Riordan and other experts said.

Documents submitted to city property tax officials show no such run-up. Trump representatives reported to the tax authorities that the building was already 81% leased in 2012.

“What is bizarre is that you have these tax filings that are totally different,” Riordan said. A gap of at least 10 percentage points between the two occupancy reports persisted for the next two years, before the figures in the tax and loan reports synced in January 2016.

The portrayal of a rapid rise in occupancy, and the explanation that income would soon follow, were critical for the refinancing. Indeed, Ladder’s underwriters were predicting that 40 Wall Street’s profits would more than double after 2015. Having reviewed Trump’s financial statements and rent roll, they estimated the building would clear $22.6 million a year in net operating income.

Ladder needed credit ratings agencies like Moody’s and Fitch to endorse its income expectations and give the loan a favorable rating, which would in turn make it easier for the next step of the plan: to package the loan as part of a bond, a so-called commercial mortgage-backed security, and sell it to investors. Without the expected rise in income, Riordan said, the loan size or terms would likely have needed to be renegotiated to satisfy the ratings agencies and investors, which would mean less favorable terms for Trump and Ladder. “There was a story crafted here,” Riordan said. “It’s contradicted by what we see in the tax filings.”

Wallace, the University of California professor, added: “Especially in underwriting loans, you are supposed to truthfully report.” Both the lender and the borrower are required to supply accurate information, she said.

Moody’s and Fitch analysts found the underwriter’s projections slightly too rosy, but Fitch conferred an investment-grade rating on the loan, allowing it to proceed as planned. Trump ultimately received a 10-year loan with a lower interest rate than the building previously had as well as terms that would allow him to defer paying off much of the principal until the end of the loan.

Once granted, the loan to 40 Wall Street ran into trouble: The year after it went through, the loan servicer put it on a “watch list” because of concerns that the building wasn’t making sufficient profit to pay the debt service with enough of a margin. It stayed on the list for three months. (Trump’s company has continued making payments.)

As of 2018, the most recent year available, the building had never met the underwriters’ profit expectations, trailing by more than 8%, according to data from commercial real estate research service Trepp. Experts say that, given the amount of research underwriters do, a property typically meets their expectations fairly quickly.

The 40 Wall Street documents contain discrepancies related to costs as well as to occupancy. Generally, there are “more opportunities to play games on the expense side,” said Ron Shapiro, an assistant professor at Rutgers Business School and a former bank senior vice president, “particularly because there are many more kinds of expenses.”

Comparing specific expense items in both sets of records is challenging, because accountants may group categories differently in reports to tax and loan officials. But some differences on 40 Wall Street documents elicit head-scratching.

For example, insurance costs in 2017 were listed as $744,521 in tax documents and $457,414 in loan records.

Then there was the underlying lease. Trump technically doesn’t own 40 Wall Street. He pays the wealthy German family that owns the property for the right to rent the building to tenants. In 2015, both Trump’s report to tax authorities and a key loan disclosure document asserted that Trump’s company paid $1.65 million for these rights that year. But a line-by-line income and expense statement, which Trepp gathered from what the company reported to the loan servicer, reported the company paid about $1.24 million that year.

“I don’t know why that would be off,” said Jason Hoffman, who is chair of the real estate committee for a professional association of certified public accountants in New York state. Like other experts, he said there are legitimate reasons why tax and loan filings might not line up perfectly. But Hoffman said the firm where he works makes sure the numbers match when it prepares both tax and loan documents for a client — or that it can explain why if they don’t.

Financial information for the Trump International Hotel and Tower raises similar questions. Trump owns only a small portion of the building, which is located on Columbus Circle: two commercial spaces, which he rents out to a restaurant and a parking garage. Trump’s company told New York City tax officials it made about $822,000 renting space to commercial tenants there in 2017, records show. The company told loan officials it took in $1.67 million that year — more than twice as much. In eight years of data ProPublica examined for the Columbus Circle property, Trump’s company reported gross income to tax authorities that was typically only about 81% of what it reported to the lender.

Trump appeared to omit from tax documents income his company received from leasing space on the roof for television antennas, a ProPublica review found. The line on tax appeal forms for income from such communications equipment is blank on nine years of tax filings, even as loan documents listed the antennas as major sources of income.

Trump has an easement to lease the roof space; he doesn’t own it. But three tax experts, including Melanie Brock, an appraiser and paralegal who has worked on hundreds of New York City tax cases, told ProPublica that the income should still be reported on the tax appeals forms.

It’s hard to guess what might explain every inconsistency, said David Wilkes, a New York City tax lawyer who is chair of the National Association of Property Tax Attorneys. But, he added, “My gut reaction is it seems like there’s something amiss there.”

Tax records for Trump personally and for his business continue to be subjects of contention in multiple investigations. The Justice Department has intervened in the investigation by the Manhattan district attorney, whose office has sought Trump’s personal tax returns. Congressional lawmakers investigating his business dealings have sought documents from his longtime accountant, Donald Bender, a partner at Mazars. Trump is fighting the subpoenas in court. (Bender did not respond to requests for comment.)

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has said the committee is seeking to determine if Cohen’s testimony about Trump inflating and deflating his assets was accurate. Cummings asked for Mazars’ records related to Trump entities, as well as communications between Bender and Trump or Trump employees since 2009.

Such communications, the subpoena stated, should include any related to potential concerns that information Trump or his representatives provided his accountants was “incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise unsatisfactory.”





Trump, Inc. at ProPublica
155 Ave of the Americas, 13th Floor
New York, NY 1001

[Meno_]

Billionair's club running scared?

Recently Michael Bloomberg announced he may be running on the Democratic ticket against Trump, as Trump expressed a sexual to ' The Apprentice' as the 'Presidential Apprentice' after he leaves the White House.

Ahhhhhhh! Seriously?



Michael Bloomberg reportedly preparing for presidential run – live

Billionaire former New York mayor expected to file paperwork designating himself as a Democratic candidate next we

Bernie on Bloomberg: ‘The billionaire class is scared’

Like fellow progressive 2020 candidate Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders has responded to news the Michael Bloomberg may be entering the 2020 race with a bring-it-on attitude.

Sanders’ campaign manager Faiz Shakir also said, in a statement: “More billionaires seeking more political power surely isn’t the change America needs.”

[Meno_]

Can Bloomberg buy himself the presidency for 15 billion dollars?


There are dozens of Cambridge Analytica startups, egagernto get into the political business. Cambridge was getting ten million per interference, and as long as a buck remains to be made, entrepreneurs will sell their souls to jump into the frey. With increasing computational efficiency, the difference between political principal movements will reach the insignificant, defeating rhetoric in favor of the hermetic secondary process.

Signification is a synthetic form of identity politics, which may change into an extrinsic control vehicle.

[Meno_]

Could Bloomberg become Perez in "20?

Yes. He could make a deal even Trump couldn't refuse.

He pays Trump 15 bil. For guarantee Trump not only be impeached , but convicted BY the senate.

No questions, or insurance required.

The only caveat: Bloomberg offers immunity for ALL charges against Trump, or, the charges may simply be dropped.

[Meno_]

Yeah! Kanye West!

Only an billionaire starter, he now is committed to his promise of building homes for the poor and the homeless!

Congrats, if he can be used as a model citizen, then others could follow suit !


KUDOS!!! and to Kim Kardashian !!

[Zero_Sum]

I could give two shits less about Jewish billionaires, starve them out.

Off with their heads concerning this abominable crony capitalism. When this international and global Jewish economic ponzi scheme finally crashes real social liberation will finally be achieved.

Getting real tired of the robber baron class and their bullshit shenanigans.

[Meno_]

Varied responses:


Safe parking: A new way to qualify for a betterment of living conditions for the homeless population. Over 25% of the homeless population of Low Angeles still have cars, and prior to the new Federal ruling on the constitutionality of living on the street, this marks as a

great beginning. Safe Parking is sprouting up nationwide to countereffect conditions :

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos recently gave the organization $5 million dollars.



Still, it counterbalanced a previous report on him ( about a year ago-)


"Hey, big spender: Bezos’s recent charitable donation amounts to a minuscule fraction of his income ( Getty )

Jeff Bezos, CEO and founder of Amazon, recently pledged to donate $98.5m (£74.8m) to support homeless people across the United States. Such a move is geared more towards a PR stunt than a charitable contribution by the richest (or second richest) man in the world. Philanthropy, in general, is better invested in democratically elected, socially representative and publicly accountable taxes than the rich elite. “Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim,” wrote Francis Beckett when summarising former British prime minister Clement Attlee’s views on charity.

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was quick to point out that Bezos’s donation equates to less than 0.09 per cent of the multibillionaire’s net worth and that he should instead “Just pay [his] taxes,” which would be a significantly higher figure. If we take the average net worth of a US citizen to be $97,300, the equivalent charitable donation made would be less than $90 – that’s less than the average weekly grocery spend in the US.

You just have to check your friend’s charity run sponsorship page to see how the regular American generously spends proportionally much more on charity. In fact, those who have an adjusted gross income of under $15,000 make, on average, $1,471 of charitable donations annually."



So things ARE looking up!


Whereas before, cars could not serve as living spaces, and overnight parking meant fines and even Denver boots and towaways. Wallmart was the only parking lot which allowed it without reprisal.

Of course that still leaves 75% of the homeless population who have no cars, but it is the movement toward the right direction which matters. People with stable housing are more likely to become productive and help the next subsequent level of unfortunate people to be helped in some way.

This trend will balance economic balance between the levels of the homeless, by reducing hostile acts between them, furthering the increased comeradeship among them, thereby reducing hostile and illegal acts among them

These processes are initially slow but as they gear up by recognition of mutually enhancing the beneficial effects, -the speed of improvement will arise expinentionally.

[promethean75]

Bezos’s donation equates to less than 0.09 per cent of the multibillionaire’s net worth

Lol, and what makes this even more nauseating is the fact that that tiny fraction is probably more than half his employees combined make in a year.

So this stunt amounts to this: a guy takes only the smallest fraction of some money he didn't make and gives it away, then smiles at the cameras as if he's done something great.

[Meno_]

Trump's holiday menu: handouts for billionaires, hunger for the poor

Bernie Sanders and Rashida Tlaib



Republicans defend cuts to food stamps by saying that keeping people hungry will make them work harder. But we know this is just about cruelty

 @SenSanders

Tue 24 Dec 2019 09.26 EST

When it comes to billionaires benefiting from the generosity of the American taxpayer, the holiday spirit is alive year-round. Taxpayers paid out $115m to Donald Trump so he could play golf at his own resorts.

And Amazon didn’t just pay zero in federal taxes on $11bn in profits – taxpayers gifted the corporation $129,000,000 in rebates. That’s enough to pay for CEO Jeff Bezos’s three apartments in Manhattan, including a penthouse, that cost him $80m.

And what about government generosity for those who actually need help? Tax dollars are somehow much harder to come by when they’re not going to handouts for the rich. The average person in poverty, struggling to put food on the table, gets about $134 a month in nutrition assistance.

Now, just in time for the holidays, Trump has finalized the first of three policies that will make this disparity even more obscene. Two years after passing a $1.5tn tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and large corporations, the Trump administration plans to strip 3.7 million people of their nutrition benefits.

The administration’s first step is to kick 700,000 adults off of nutrition assistance as they struggle to find work. The second step: trying to punish families who have high childcare and housing costs. And third, they want to hurt families who already are making difficult choices between food or heat.

Together, the three proposals will cut billions of dollars from one of our nation’s leading anti-poverty programs. Meanwhile, the Republican tax scam is working exactly as planned. Today, the richest 400 billionaires pay lower taxes than any group in America – including the poor. Nearly 100 of the top Fortune 500 companies now pay nothing in taxes.

This is what oligarchy looks like: Trump’s appetite to shower the ultra-wealthy with corporate welfare is endless – and so is his administration’s willingness to assault our nation’s most vulnerable and hungriest families.

Republicans defend this by saying that keeping people hungry will make them work harder. But we know this is just about cruelty. We know that withholding food from needy people who are underemployed only deepens the crisis of poverty in America.

Some states will be hit harder than others. Vermont could see a 30% cut to benefits, and one in five low-income people who rely on nutrition assistance could no longer be eligible to participate. In Michigan, about one in seven would be kicked off food aid, with an estimated 15% cut in benefits. This is absolutely devastating.

It goes without saying that we must fight as hard as we can against the Trump administration’s savage attack on nutrition assistance. But we need to go beyond that. We must demand that the ultra-wealthy finally start paying their fair share so we can dramatically expand nutrition support. In the richest country in the history of the world, we have a moral obligation to eradicate the hunger that more than 37 million of our fellow Americans suffer every day.

We can start by increasing nutrition assistance by $47 per person per month – that is the shortfall between what low-income people need to prepare adequate meals and what they get in benefits. We should also significantly increase the income threshold for this program, so everyone who needs help gets it. We must also guarantee that all schoolchildren get free breakfast and lunch at every public school in America.

And we should also lift the onerous conditions on what people can buy with nutrition assistance. One Vermonter shared how, in the cold winter months, she wished she could buy her children a hot-roasted chicken from the store, because she had no access to an oven. Under the current program, she can only buy the day-old cold roasted chicken. Multiple Michigan families have similar stories to share. These are the kinds of requirements that force poor people to jump through humiliating hoops but they accomplish nothing in the fight to end hunger.

 Ultimately, we must make a choice as a society: will we tolerate the insatiable greed and cruelty of the billionaire class?

This holiday season, we should work in our communities to make sure our most vulnerable neighbors are taken care of and do not go hungry. But we must also be prepared to mobilize millions of people to defeat the Trump administration’s latest attack on the poor – the same way we came together to block Republicans’ attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act and kick 32 million Americans off their health insurance.

Defending already inadequate benefits is not enough. Ultimately, we must make a choice as a society: will we tolerate the insatiable greed and cruelty of the billionaire class, whose control over our political system lets them take food out of the mouths of hungry school kids? Or do we build a humane, equitable society that ends poverty, hunger, and homelessness – and allows everyone to live with dignity?

As the new year approaches, let us commit to fighting for a government and an economy that works for the overwhelming majority of the people. That is how we will make food security a human right in America.

Bernie Sanders serves Vermont in the United States Senate. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat, represents Michigan’s 13th congressional district in the US House.



© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

[Meno_]

Opinion +Live TV
Rudy Giuliani's anti-Soros tirade exposes three uncomfortable truths
Opinion by Lev Golinkin
Updated 11:09 PM EST, Tue December 24, 2019

article video

Editor's Note: (Lev Golinkin writes on refugee and immigrant identity, as well as Ukraine, Russia and the far right. He is the author of the memoir "A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka." The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.)

(CNN)Monday evening, as American Jews gathered to celebrate the second night of Hanukkah, news broke of Rudy Giuliani's anti-Semitic tirade against billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

The remarks, which came during an alcohol-laden interview with New York Magazine, cap off a long, alarming year for anti-Semitism both in the United States and abroad.

Lev Golinkin
Indeed, the most dangerous thing about living at a time of constant stories about anti-Semitism is how quickly the hatred is normalized. Two and a half years ago, chants of "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville, Virginia, stunned America; today, anti-Semitism is just a part of the news cycle.

And so, as we take stock after this latest news, it's time to face three uncomfortable truths. First, despite his claims, Giuliani's comments are unmistakably anti-Semitic. Second, this anti-Semitism is not merely vile but dangerous: The anti-Soros tropes like those evoked by Giuliani may tacitly encourage those prone to violence, resulting in Jewish bodies on the streets. Most disturbingly, we can't write this off as the inebriated ravings of a single man. Everything Giuliani said had been repeated, over and over, by President Donald Trump, by Republican lawmakers and by Fox News hosts.

Of course, today's surge of anti-Semitism isn't limited to Republicans; the problem is widespread. Some of the leaders of the Women's March have been plagued by accusations of anti-Semitism and a horrific kosher market attack in Jersey City earlier this month is being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism thought to be fueled in part by a hatred of Jews, according to the state attorney general.

But the proliferation of anti-Semitic tropes in the GOP is so worrying precisely because it's widespread and systematic. By now, there's enough evidence to say that, in much of today's Republican Party, anti-Semitic tropes are not an irregularity but a feature.

What happened to Rudy Giuliani? It's a long story
Giuliani's attack runs the anti-Semitic gamut, from medieval accusations of Soros not being truly religious (similar slurs were used during the Spanish Inquisition, which led to the torture and forced conversion of Jews) to claims that Soros controlled a US ambassador and "elected" district attorneys -- which builds on the classic anti-Semitic trope of powerful Jews controlling the government.

Giuliani's baseless accusation -- indeed, the GOP's obsession with Soros -- is the embodiment of modern anti-Semitism, which is, at its root, a conspiracy theory: the belief that Jews are secretly undermining white nations by manipulating ideology, media, money and immigration.

Over the past 300 years, anti-Semites on both sides of the Atlantic have tirelessly spread this deadly lie, tweaking it to suit their needs. To the Russian czars as well as American anti-Semites like Henry Ford and Joseph McCarthy, the Jews were responsible for bringing communism in order to destroy their nations.

The Nazis used this conspiracy to blame Jews for orchestrating Germany's loss in World War I; today's white terrorists like the Pittsburgh shooter use it to claim Jews are bringing in immigrants to turn America into a white-minority state.

Trump is trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes. It must stop
Every conspiracy theory needs a "them," the shadowy puppet master pulling the strings. In the 1800s, it was Baron Nathan Rothschild, the original Soros, a businessman accused of manipulating European currency. Henry Ford focused his anti-Semitic tracts on the Warburg family and their advocacy for the Federal Reserve system.

Today's Jewish bogeyman of choice is Soros. And, according to a number of prominent Republicans, Soros is everywhere.

In the wake of the horrific Parkland school shooting, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre exploded in an entire dog-whistle concerto, accusing globalists and Soros of plotting to take away Americans' guns. Congressman Steve King stated that Soros is bringing immigrants to America; the same conspiracy theory was given by the Tree of Life shooter as his motivation for massacring 11 Jews in Pittsburgh. Theories of Soros being behind Black Lives Matter, Trump's impeachment, and protests against the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation to the Supreme Court have proliferated in the past several years.

The embrace of anti-Semitism posing as anti-Soros conspiracies has gone far beyond the fringe. It's easy to dismiss the Pittsburgh terrorist or even King and Giuliani as outliers. But House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has also propagated the Soros theory, tweeting out a lie about Soros and other Jewish Democratic donors attempting to buy elections.

How to stop the horrifying resurgence of anti-Semitism
Rep. Louie Gohmert, like Giuliani, accused Soros of not being truly Jewish. A prominent Republican lobbyist repeated unfounded claims that Soros had ties to the former US ambassador to Ukraine. President Donald Trump has promoted the theory of Soros bringing migrants to America.

Fox News, in particular, has been a bastion for Soros conspiracy theories. Earlier this year, host Tucker Carlson devoted an entire segment to claims that Soros is "hijacking" our democracy and "remaking" the United States. Last month, another host, Laura Ingraham, blamed Soros for GOP losses in Virginia's state election.

Indeed, earlier this month Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League took the unusual step of calling out Fox's role in the proliferation of Soros theories in an NBC op-ed with the blunt headline "Fox News is normalizing anti-Semitism even as violence against Jews surges."

This, then, is the state of the Republican Party as we enter a new decade as well as what will surely be a tense election year: An anti-Semitic theory has been embraced by the President of the United States, members of Congress and the No. 1 conservative cable network.

This is not simply an obsession with a prominent billionaire. It's no longer a fringe theory. It's not drunken ramblings by the ever-bumbling Giuliani. It is the world's bloodiest anti-Semitic belief that has now become a tenet and a rallying cry for some of the biggest names in one of the two political parties in the United States.

View on CNN
© 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | AdChoices

[Meno_]

Bezos’s donation equates to less than 0.09 per cent of the multibillionaire’s net worth

Lol, and what makes this even more nauseating is the fact that that tiny fraction is probably more than half his employees combined make in a year.

So this stunt amounts to this: a guy takes only the smallest fraction of some money he didn't make and gives it away, then smiles at the cameras as if he's done something great.

Sure, but one thing:



Wealth is vampiric in a good sense: There are not that many loose millions around, investment is all pervasive, capital is vampiric, the secure investment as insurance, against opinion except off shore which only millionaires can afford.

There are simply no loose billions and that remains Trump's problem and that is why they reign him in. One can bankrupt himself while retaining subsistence, there are still bills to be paid.

The existential gesture is a risk, it signals erosion of value, ....

They unfold contrariness of both sides of the coin, Jesus talked about, having a due debt to Caesar and the other to God.

[Meno_]

Hypothetical:


Trump vs.Bloomberg



Bottom line: process, the material of denial by Trump that is projected on Democratic fAilure of impeachment; the very social content of an indigenous dialectic missing from Trump's deals, mainly consistent with his lack, rather thAn actual possession of said material.

Again a reversal from lanes, labeling, an index of formal aniti derivitive phenomena, reducing to minimal rhetoric.

50 billions , let us assume, the approximate Bloomberg fortune, if all invested in paper netting 5%, returns 200 dollars per second. Now that is probably a hundred fold measure of Trump's fortune, whereby Trump's charge of lack of available processing could terminate.

On that score, Bloomberg could conceivably trump Trump, and for that reason a shift to a Democratic landslide would legitimise Capitalism on the whole.

Bloomberg may become immensely popular, as he is insightful, as he is not focusing on New Hampshire and Iowa , since as has been pointed out, are mere branded tests, with nominal population representation.

He is concentrating on California, with huge representational potential.

[Meno_]

TheHill



CAMPAIGN

January 30, 2020 - 11:11 AM EST

Bloomberg unveils plan to boost housing affordability, tackle homelessness





White House hopeful Mike Bloomberg unveiled a plan Thursday that he says would make housing more affordable and tackle homelessness. 

The proposal from the former New York City mayor would guarantee rental assistance for extremely low-income Americans and cut homelessness in half by 2025 by doubling federal funding to fight it.

"More and more American families are struggling to pay the rent, and they are getting no help at all from President Trump. The president said that fixing homelessness would be 'so easy with competence.' Of course, competence is not his strong suit - but the truth is: he's done nothing to help people who are homeless or build more affordable housing," Bloomberg said in a statement.

"Our plan includes a major change in rental assistance to guarantee it for those who need it most and ensure, for the first time, that the neediest households do not get stuck on waiting lists. And as we help more Americans make ends meet, we will get to work building the millions of affordable homes we need to address this crisis." 

Bloomberg's plan calls for guaranteeing housing vouchers for all Americans at or below 30 percent of their area's median income and incentivizing cities to implement effective eviction prevention programs with federal grants. It would also raise the earned income tax credit and increase the child tax credit for low-income Americans. 

The proposal would boost federal spending on homelessness from under $3 billion now to $6 billion annually and support programs tackling mental health and substance abuse.

Other facets of the plan include increasing the supply of affordable housing units nationally, strengthening assistance to help people afford down payments for new homes and promoting coordination between the federal government and state and local governments.

Bloomberg rolled out support for his plan from other mayors who have endorsed his campaign.

"Homelessness isn't just a problem; it's a symptom. The symptom of unaffordable housing, of income inequality, of institutional racism, of addiction, untreated illness; and decades of dis-investment. These are the problems. And if we're going to fight homelessness, we've got to fight them all," said San Francisco Mayor London Breed (D).

"I'm glad Mike Bloomberg has made tackling housing affordability and homelessness a key pillar of his vision for America, and it can't come a moment too soon," he added.

Housing has emerged as a prominent issue in the 2020 Democratic primary, with several other candidates unveiling plans of their own to expand affordability and boost programs to support the homeless population.

 


The Hill

[Meno_]

Amazon's Jeff Bezos pledged 10B to fight climate change. How about the homeless people?

But things seem to be moving in the right direction: a counterpunch to those denialists who would similarly go against any form of change for the general social welfare.

[Meno_]

{David Geffen}


CORONAVIRUS

Smooth sailing for David Geffen amid coronavirus, Twitter irate

By JOE ERWIN

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

MAR 28, 2020 | 1:18 PM



David Geffen is seen on land, on Feb. 1, 2017 in New York City.(Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)

People are dying, hospitals are overrun, supplies are short and the


world is in crisis.

But don’t worry about David Geffen. He’s fine.

The Brooklyn-born billionaire posted photos on Instagram on Saturday showing how he is social distancing — on his huge, state-of-the-art yacht.

“Sunset last night ... isolated in the Grenadines avoiding the virus,” Geffen captioned a picturesque pic, one of three in the post. “I’m hoping everybody is staying safe.”

Many Twitter users, presumably safe, seethed at Geffen, 77.

“Validation is a human need I guess, but I still find it fascinating—and quite sad actually—that David Geffen’s presumably high-end drone, luxury yacht and priceless sunsets aren’t enough for him until he can show it off on a FREE Instagram,” Twitter user “commentarian” posted.

Geffen’s Instagram account was made private Saturday, allowing only followers to see his pictures, a change presumably due to the social-media firestorm.

Geffen co-founded Asylum records in the 1970s and then launched Geffen Records in 1980. In 1994, he co-founded the DreamWorks SKG studio with Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Geffen left the studio in 2008.

To be fair to the moneybags magnate, he has been given lots of money to charity over the years, being particularly active in the fight against AIDS.

But on Saturday, he really missed the boat.


Copyright © 2020, New York Daily News


--- --- ------- --- -------- -- -------------- -- ------



Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos just obliterated California's home sale price record, paying $165 million for David Geffen's famed Warner estate in Beverly Hills, according to real estate sources with knowledge of the deal.Feb 14, 2020

[Meno_]

SPORTS

Robert Kraft’s coronavirus generosity makes him New York family forever

By Mark Cannizzaro

April 2, 2020 | 9:15pm





For years, we in New York have been trained to disdain.

Whenever the name Robert Kraft is mentioned, the response of any Jets or Giants fan (well, mostly Jets fans) generally is rooted in derision.

Kraft is the owner of the big, bad, perennial-winner Patriots, who are despised in these parts for the six Lombardi trophies they’ve hoisted in perceived arrogance and for the way they’ve treated the Jets (like bullies treat 98-pound weaklings) for the past two decades.

Today, however, everyone associated with New York, Jets fans or otherwise, should salute the 78-year-old Kraft, who delivered a deed so special in this frightening and uncertain time of the coronavirus crisis that it should never be forgotten.

Not now.

Not the next time the Jets and Patriots play each other, whenever the NFL season starts up.

Not ever.

Kraft and his son, Patriots president Jonathan Kraft, partnered with the state of Massachusetts to purchase 1.4 million N95 masks for his home state. He purchased another 300,000 protective masks for New York State.

“I personally have a deep affection for all the citizens of New York City,’’ Kraft, who attended Columbia University and played running back and safety on the school’s freshman and lightweight football teams, told Bruce Beck from WNBC-TV Thursday. “I just thought it might be cool if the owner of the New England Patriots is doing whatever he can to help Jets and Giants. This is a gift of ours, these 300,000 masks and the transportation, to the people of New York.’’

The Patriots plane (l.) sent by owner Robert Kraft (r.) delivers N95 masks from Shenzhen, China to Logan International Airport.Getty Images, Anthony J. Causi

New York versus Boston be damned.

Kraft, whose team jet made a trip to China to purchase and pick up the masks, consulted with both Massachusetts Gov. Charles Baker, a Republican, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, about his plans.

Baker gave Kraft his blessing and Cuomo gave thanks with New York in the throes of a dangerous shortage of protective masks.

Republicans versus Democrats be damned.

Kraft’s jet, adorned with the Patriots logo on it, arrived to Logan Airport in Boston on Thursday. The 300,000 masks are believed to be arriving to New York City by Friday.




New England Patriots’ jet will bring N95 masks from China to US

“This transcends politics and brings everyone together,’’ Kraft said. “We’re all one, we’re all together and we’ve got to make sure to take care of the people who take care of us. I believe in the power of will. We can do it, but we have to do it by all pulling together. We are going through something unique and difficult, but we shall overcome.’’

Together. As Jets fans, Patriots fans, Giants fans, everyone.

Since Kraft purchased the Patriots in 1994, New England has compiled a 291-125 record, made the playoffs in 21 of 26 seasons, made it to 10 Super Bowls and won six of them.

It’s human nature for everyone to hate the teams that win all the time, especially in the case of the Jets, who’ve been beaten down by the Patriots year after year with a scant few exceptions.

Not long into Kraft’s ownership of the Patriots, a “Border War’’ began between the Patriots and Jets.

There was Bill Parcells fleeing New England for the Jets after the 1996 season, preferring to buy his own groceries instead of worrying about Kraft meddling in his football business, and taking much of his New England staff with him.

There was Kraft orchestrating the stealing of Bill Belichick from the Jets when Belichick was supposed to become the Jets head coach.

There was Spygate, for which the Patriots were ratted out by former Patriots assistant coach and then-Jets head coach Eric Mangini, and were fined severely in draft picks and money.

A lot has happened over the years between Kraft and the Jets. None of it friendly.

Today, though, rivalries be damned. No more Border War. Everyone is playing for the same team now.

Emotions of jealousy must be replaced by those of genuine gratitude toward a man we’ve become so accustomed to view as the enemy.

Today, until further notice — and maybe forever — Robert Kraft is family.

New York family.


© 2020 NYP Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Terms of Use | Privacy

[Meno_]

Wonder if he will beat even Salomon as the all time richest man in the universe?

And who will remember him for participating, for the few years he has left?

I don't think it matters much one way or another, sans the wisdom of Salomon.

For what it really is, a consuming demand for the excercise of power and the need to control via a badly placed transcendent positive will.
What else could it be, even beyond a shadow of a doubt: to profit enormously through the time of a plague?

Not knocking it, though the taste appears kind of disparaging.:


'Warren Buffett May Become World’s Richest Man – He Just Needed Another Crisis

Warren Buffett will help & acquire businesses during the coronavirus crisis with his huge cash reserves. The profit will be enormous. It could be large enough that Buffett will overtake Jeff Bezos as the world's richest man

 



Warren Buffett appears ready to use this pandemic to his advantage. | Source: REUTERS/Rick Wilking

Warren Buffett is in the business of saving companies to make a profit.

The Oracle of Omaha looks to apply the same strategy as the novel coronavirus strangles multiple sectors of the economy.

While helping businesses, Buffett’s enormous cash reserves allow him to make significant acquisitions.

In 2008, Warren Buffett dethroned Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates as the richest man in the world. At the time, the world was crumbling from the impact of the global financial crisis. But the Oracle of Omaha made tens of billions lending money to companies in dire need of capital.



Twelve years later, the world is in a more significant crisis, and the legendary investor is looking to make a killing.

Buffett Looks To Rescue Distressed Companies For A Steep Price

Warren Buffet is currently the fourth richest man in the globe, with a net worth of $70.5 billion. But before this crisis is over, he will likely have enough assets to overtake Jeff Bezos’ $116.9 billion wealth.

That’s because Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.A) is sitting on a boatload of cash to the tune of $128 billion

During the global financial crisis of 2008, the Oracle of Omaha made billions by throwing lifelines at banks and corporations. It would be a savvy move to employ the same strategy again.

At the height of the 2008 crisis, Goldman Sachs desperately needed to raise capital as liquidity dried up in the banking sector. Buffett invested $5 billion in the bank, which generated Berkshire Hathaway a profit of $3.7 billion three years later. He did the same for Bank of America. His $5 billion investment earned him a return worth $17 billion.

More than a decade later, Warren Buffett is once again on the prowl. The coronavirus pandemic has crippled multiple sectors of the economy. Airlines, hotels, casinos, and cruises are in a world of hurt. Buffett can offer a helping hand, for a price.

Warren Buffett Looking ‘For An Elephant-Sized Acquisition’

On top of extending help to distressed corporations, the Oracle of Omaha can just step in and take over a business. In a letter to shareholders, Buffett wrote that he and Berkshire Hathaway executive Charlie Munger have been hunting for “businesses that Berkshire will permanently own.” He added that they’re looking for an “elephant-sized acquisition.”

In another letter to shareholders, Buffett enumerates the criteria that they look for in a business which include:

a solid management team

attractive returns

strong upside potential

reasonable purchase price

The qualities sound familiar. Buffett has been looking for businesses that possess these key qualities since 1986

As the coronavirus pandemic suffocates cash flow and revenue, Buffett has the pick of the litter at cost-effective prices. Why buy a small share of equity when you can take over the company?

With $128 billion in cash reserves, Buffett can make an elephant-sized acquisition and more. His moves in the coming months will put him in a great position to potentially dethrone Jeff Bezos and reclaim the richest man in the world title.'


 

© 2020 CCN.com By Hawkfish AS, Drengsrudhagen 6, 1385, Asker, Norway.

[Meno_]

Here is another billionaire thinks of the coronavirus infection as a possible business op

[Meno_]

The data is out. The number of U.S. billionaires to the number in the world is roughly 25%.

The percentage of liquidity of US billionaires to their total equity is also approximately 25 %.


The total liquidity of US billionaires is approximately 1.7 trillion.

So lets forget about the 2 trillion stimulus package, and try to evaluate how far a mere 10 percent of the 1.7 trillion would / could assure a tipping point , whereby, Trump need not prefer to put back people to work now, but wait 3 more months to assure to negate the probable effects of a second and a third coronavirus wave .

Very simply, a 1.7 trillion liquidity , discounted by a further 10-15 % ,= 170-200 billion dollars, which approximates the stimulus of the last 6 month's of 2 trillion dollars.

2000 billion divided by 6 months is approximately =around, very roughly 350-375 billion per month.

And that amount could be stretched to underwrite a whole month of keeping the US population safe- exactly the time needed to suppose the start of the summer 2nd wave.

Could not US billionaires underwrite safety at least until July of this year, assuring that zone of safety?

It would only take a 25 % liquidity on their part, and they could actually open a trust whereby telephoning mere millionaires and just average Joe's to add to the pot?

Sure the could, and I bet they could double or even triple the time of safety, to even the third predicted wave , predicted to around the election time.

If Trump could underwrite it, for sure, it would surely guarantee his re-election.

What better time then now to set up a telethon, and it may even snowball 4 or 5 times the amount geared for. If that does not present a picture of social responsibility from top to bottom, I don't know what would.

This is war, so act if it was meant a proper social response!

[Meno_]

Analysis

Wealth concentration returning to ‘levels last seen during the Roaring Twenties,’ according to new research

(Christopher Ingraham/The Washington Post) (Illustration by Christopher Ingraham for the Washington Post)



The 400 richest Americans — the top 0.00025 percent of the population — have tripled their share of the nation’s wealth since the early 1980s, according to a new working paper on wealth inequality by University of California at Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman.

&&&&& &&&&&& &&&&


Just prior to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address, media[7] reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation's wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%.[8] The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%. The average employee "needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO earns in one hour."[9] Although different from income inequality, the two are related. In Inequality for All—a 2013 documentary with Robert Reich in which he argued that income inequality is the defining issue for the United States—Reich states that 95% of economic gains went to the top 1% net worth (HNWI) since 2009 when the recovery allegedly started.[10] More recently, in 2017, an Oxfam study found that eight rich people, six of them Americans, own as much combined wealth as half the human race.[11][12][13]



{Regardless of the problem with information technology, should these figures not alarm the technocrat-that the distributive statistics are coming too close to the time, when avoidance of the consequences, would unleash a very nasty suppression of quantum ignorance of meta psychological effects?

Is it really worth the risk?


Sure, a democrat socialist may have been able to redistribute effects of population equity , within between the oliographic representations, {given Arminius's pronouncements, - of nuclear war if Ms. Clinton were to be elected), but, such laissez faire liberties, merely postpone the ultimate question of the Chinese reversal on population control.

Have the defeatists won?

All sequential logical processes point towards that argument.


However, further statistics may near out a different result.



https://youtu.be/vNLxhuscAnA




Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in relatively few hands. As of 2013, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 36.7% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 52.2%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.8%. Table 2 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2017).

Table 2: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United




{maybe Marx was right?}



What if?