I agree. I've been to his organisation's HQ. You can tell a lot about him from the building and organisation and products he created. Very impressive.
But he's still going to view the world from his pinnacle. And my perspective, as a non-billionaire, is bound to be very different. One of my concerns is gross inequality. I understand the argument for incentives. I have no objection to a society that isn't egalitarian. Some people work harder and deserve more because they do so. Luck happens and it isn't the job of a government to undo it unless it causes great harm to others.
I also think there are strong arguments about the imbalance created by the discrepancies of inequality on a grand scale and the power that accrue to the extremely wealthy. Indeed, one of the primary justifications of democracy is that it limits the concentration of power. [I also happen to think it is economically inefficient].
So this is a perspective a person like Bloomberg who holds that power and who takes advantage of the inequality of their massive wealth will not have. Or at least, it is a perspective they will not have sympathy for.
The trouble with the US is that the centrepoint of its politics permits the GOP as currently constituted to exist. I'd far rather the Dems were slightly further left, in Warren territory, and the GOP occupied the part of the spectrum where Bloomberg is. To me, those seem like reasonable choices. But instead, Bloomberg is trying to get Dems to vote for him and his soft right politics, leaving what I think of as the sensible middle within the Dem spectrum.
I'd far prefer that Warren wins leaving space for a newly moderate GOP to modify what she does a few elections down the road. In the meanwhile, I hope Warren chops the head off the gross inequality monster. That's the only way to slay the beast of US politics which is driven by plutocrats who make things great for themselves.
| 