this is magically clear thinking and Brewster's millions is a great launching point for the discussion and the inspection of our culture and its relationship to wealth
Based solely on the title of your piece (“Billionaires are awful…”), I was prepared to strongly disagree with whatever I was about to read. But your piece is indeed thought provoking. Generally speaking, billionaires are no more or less “evil” than anyone else. I don’t resent Jeff Bezos’ extreme wealth, but rather, I appreciate the “value” and broad elevated living standard that his vision created.
But as you say, human nature is what it is, and evolving structural economic concentrations can have huge negative consequences for our society and political process as a whole.
I mourn the sick polarized society we’ve become and the loss of trust in our institutions and in each other. Too much money in politics is not responsible for all this, but it’s definitely a big factor.
Bryan, this is without a doubt your best post ever,and I've been reading you from the beginning.
I'm a lifelong blue collar worker and my goal was always to get rich enough to retire early and help the less fortunate. For part of my career I was a General Contractor who did handicap accessibility. Living in WA most of my work was funded by the state, because it's cheaper to keep people in their homes than in a nursing home. But there were a certain percentage of people who didn't qualify for state services through no fault of their own. I did a fair amount of pro-bono work just to keep them in their homes. I contacted the Gates Foundation to see if they could help and they blew me off because they were more interested in helping the rest of the world than blue collar Americans who'd worked their whole lives and sacrificed their bodies to make someone filthy rich.
So as far as I'm concerned billionaires should cease to exist. By any means necessary. And I mean any means. I'd be happy to build the guillotine.
Well... I'm not in favor of death... :P just regulation.
And I think the distinction again remains this...
There's wealth... and then there's sovereign.
The key is this... society needs to exist for these people to achieve that status. Thus, society has a legitimate stake in the regulation of those people who threaten it.
Billionaires threaten the rest of society (as we have it currently constructed anyway). That's why I want to point out they're not the same as just "being wealthy."
You have a 100 million dollars? Ok. You're set forever. Pretty much anything you want.
500 million? Really set. Almost your own gravity well.
Billion? Now you are a gravity well.
10 Billion? You're slowly asymetrically more powerful than governments.
100 Billion? You're on that plane with governments.
I totally agree with this writing. That said, one piece not covered in the talk of the post-war boom is that the US was the single, unddamaged, producing country that rebuilt the war-ravaged ones. That gave us a market beyond our shores that bolstered our own economy, somewhat similar to what China is doing now with its export market development. This doesn't argue against the point of the article. But had we been producing for only our own population, the national growth may not have had the same level of growth, we would not have had the same level of Federal income based on taxes, and our investments in our own future may not have been so broad. The consumer-focused growth would have been there as industry refocused away from war production. I would argue that it would not have been such a "miracle" had we been producing only for ourselves.
Do you remember when the US government hit Rockefeller and Bell with antitrust?
Well, in 2026, the US government defended Elon Musk from a French court, relying on the First Amendment: Musk's product generates images of naked children from real images, this is illegal in the EU, but in a oligarchy it's a Freedom.
State charters... not federal. But yes, in 1790 there wasn't "legalzoom dot colonies" or whatever, you couldn't just go and file an LLC. You had to be chartered. This was because the framers (and others) harbored a deep sense of distrust against centralized economic power, and they also wanted corporations (since they were a liability shield) to be limited. Thus, charters were granted by States, typically limited in duration, scope, or both, and were regulated heavily. They were also prohibited from lobbying, electioneering, and owning each other's stock issuances. :D
That all goes out the window by 1890. Hence, Trump's fascination with the "Gilded Age."
BTW - I'd argue the "beginning of the end" viz. State chartering and the system we have now? Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). The Supreme Court concludes that the 14th Amendment applies to corporations, effectively making them "people" with respect to the law, not artifices.
State charters... not federal. But yes, in 1790 there wasn't "legalzoom dot colonies" or whatever, you couldn't just go and file an LLC. You had to be chartered. This was because the framers (and others) harbored a deep sense of distrust against centralized economic power, and they also wanted corporations (since they were a liability shield) to be limited. Thus, charters were granted by States, typically limited in duration, scope, or both, and were regulated heavily. They were also prohibited from lobbying, electioneering, and owning each other's stock issuances. :D
That all goes out the window by 1890. Hence, Trump's fascination with the "Gilded Age."
Being a billionaire is bad for your personality, morality, and soul. It isolates you from others because you are suspicious that everyone is out to get your money—and many of them truly are. It tricks your mind into thinking you deserve it all. You become depressed because there is nothing left to strive for that you can’t merely purchase. Relationships fail. Addictions win. Look at Elon Musk, the entire Trump family, Peter Thiel, bill gates (whose wife divorced him after learning about his Epstein Island pursuits)—you think any of these guys are truly happy?
“Throughout history, the tension between wealth and morality has manifested in various forms — from the venality of the Gilded Age to the current worship of oligarchs of Silicon Valley, a pantheon where their wealth affords them not only power but a moral license to act with impunity.”
this is magically clear thinking and Brewster's millions is a great launching point for the discussion and the inspection of our culture and its relationship to wealth
Based solely on the title of your piece (“Billionaires are awful…”), I was prepared to strongly disagree with whatever I was about to read. But your piece is indeed thought provoking. Generally speaking, billionaires are no more or less “evil” than anyone else. I don’t resent Jeff Bezos’ extreme wealth, but rather, I appreciate the “value” and broad elevated living standard that his vision created.
But as you say, human nature is what it is, and evolving structural economic concentrations can have huge negative consequences for our society and political process as a whole.
I mourn the sick polarized society we’ve become and the loss of trust in our institutions and in each other. Too much money in politics is not responsible for all this, but it’s definitely a big factor.
Bryan, this is without a doubt your best post ever,and I've been reading you from the beginning.
I'm a lifelong blue collar worker and my goal was always to get rich enough to retire early and help the less fortunate. For part of my career I was a General Contractor who did handicap accessibility. Living in WA most of my work was funded by the state, because it's cheaper to keep people in their homes than in a nursing home. But there were a certain percentage of people who didn't qualify for state services through no fault of their own. I did a fair amount of pro-bono work just to keep them in their homes. I contacted the Gates Foundation to see if they could help and they blew me off because they were more interested in helping the rest of the world than blue collar Americans who'd worked their whole lives and sacrificed their bodies to make someone filthy rich.
So as far as I'm concerned billionaires should cease to exist. By any means necessary. And I mean any means. I'd be happy to build the guillotine.
Well... I'm not in favor of death... :P just regulation.
And I think the distinction again remains this...
There's wealth... and then there's sovereign.
The key is this... society needs to exist for these people to achieve that status. Thus, society has a legitimate stake in the regulation of those people who threaten it.
Billionaires threaten the rest of society (as we have it currently constructed anyway). That's why I want to point out they're not the same as just "being wealthy."
You have a 100 million dollars? Ok. You're set forever. Pretty much anything you want.
500 million? Really set. Almost your own gravity well.
Billion? Now you are a gravity well.
10 Billion? You're slowly asymetrically more powerful than governments.
100 Billion? You're on that plane with governments.
That's the point I'm making.
I still like the guillotine idea. It would make becoming a billionaire much less appealing.
Did wonders for the French. :P
In general, I'd prefer not to have "revolutions" - they end messy.
I totally agree with this writing. That said, one piece not covered in the talk of the post-war boom is that the US was the single, unddamaged, producing country that rebuilt the war-ravaged ones. That gave us a market beyond our shores that bolstered our own economy, somewhat similar to what China is doing now with its export market development. This doesn't argue against the point of the article. But had we been producing for only our own population, the national growth may not have had the same level of growth, we would not have had the same level of Federal income based on taxes, and our investments in our own future may not have been so broad. The consumer-focused growth would have been there as industry refocused away from war production. I would argue that it would not have been such a "miracle" had we been producing only for ourselves.
Do you remember when the US government hit Rockefeller and Bell with antitrust?
Well, in 2026, the US government defended Elon Musk from a French court, relying on the First Amendment: Musk's product generates images of naked children from real images, this is illegal in the EU, but in a oligarchy it's a Freedom.
And to think, when this country was founded, corporations were required to be authorized through congressional approval to incorporate.
State charters... not federal. But yes, in 1790 there wasn't "legalzoom dot colonies" or whatever, you couldn't just go and file an LLC. You had to be chartered. This was because the framers (and others) harbored a deep sense of distrust against centralized economic power, and they also wanted corporations (since they were a liability shield) to be limited. Thus, charters were granted by States, typically limited in duration, scope, or both, and were regulated heavily. They were also prohibited from lobbying, electioneering, and owning each other's stock issuances. :D
That all goes out the window by 1890. Hence, Trump's fascination with the "Gilded Age."
BTW - I'd argue the "beginning of the end" viz. State chartering and the system we have now? Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). The Supreme Court concludes that the 14th Amendment applies to corporations, effectively making them "people" with respect to the law, not artifices.
That was more or less the nail in the coffin.
State charters... not federal. But yes, in 1790 there wasn't "legalzoom dot colonies" or whatever, you couldn't just go and file an LLC. You had to be chartered. This was because the framers (and others) harbored a deep sense of distrust against centralized economic power, and they also wanted corporations (since they were a liability shield) to be limited. Thus, charters were granted by States, typically limited in duration, scope, or both, and were regulated heavily. They were also prohibited from lobbying, electioneering, and owning each other's stock issuances. :D
That all goes out the window by 1890. Hence, Trump's fascination with the "Gilded Age."
Try spending it on feeding hungry people around the world.
This is called The Long Memo. You were warned.
Good point.
Sorry you're not bright enough to comprehend.
true. I am pretty thick.
Being a billionaire is bad for your personality, morality, and soul. It isolates you from others because you are suspicious that everyone is out to get your money—and many of them truly are. It tricks your mind into thinking you deserve it all. You become depressed because there is nothing left to strive for that you can’t merely purchase. Relationships fail. Addictions win. Look at Elon Musk, the entire Trump family, Peter Thiel, bill gates (whose wife divorced him after learning about his Epstein Island pursuits)—you think any of these guys are truly happy?
When will you be writing the piece about the steps that need to be taken to deconstruct the parasites and reform a working economy?
Thanks for speaking the obvious truth that so many willfully refuse to see.
You can get rid of $30m, maybe even $100m, and have nothing to show for it, and you don’t even have to leave Substack to do it.
Create a note. Tap on the three little dots on the right. There ya go…. Polymarket.
You can predictive market your way out of multimillions VERY quickly.
Best of luck. Or not.
Looking forward to hearing what the solution might be.
Related:
“Throughout history, the tension between wealth and morality has manifested in various forms — from the venality of the Gilded Age to the current worship of oligarchs of Silicon Valley, a pantheon where their wealth affords them not only power but a moral license to act with impunity.”
https://www.timelesstimely.com/p/the-worship-of-wealth?r=bx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Except for Steyer.
There are no exceptions.
Just like there are no good Nazis.
There are no good billionaires.
It's not about morality. It's about systems design.
https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/05/california-governor-race-influencers/
Yes. He’s so honest and is going to solve all of California’s problems. With magic!