Democrats hate him - that alone would be a good enough reason for me to like him but there are also many, many more reasons to like this very successful guy!
The first trillionaire is a CIA cutout. For those not old enough to remember he is the billionaire Howard Hughes of a bygone era. That said, I do give Musk credit for freeing twit which probably saved the country from pervasive social media censorship.
I'll post a fresh comment but it's a reposted sentiment:
I don't think the rightwing often understands the left's view on 'illionaires
The left will for example take someone who is hardworking and even if you make $100k a year without investments, you're not on that wage alone going to become a billionaire or trillionaire (maybe a millionaire)
So they infer you need to do something "unjust" or "immoral" to accumulate monies beyond that "honest work" that can't make you a billionaire+
These monies must then come from people "doing honest work" which they get through dishonest business practices (is what they argue)
I think there's some truth to the sentiment, or the rightwing doesn't seem to embrace traditional Christian views on wealth as much ("harder for rich man to enter heaven than camel to go through eye of a needle" ... the story of the rich man being condemned to hell for not helping the poor man Lazarus who was in need, etc.) - but obviously it's not a totally accurate view: you definitely can make use of businesses and technologies to create vast amounts of wealth individually
So there's something of a struggle of honest labor versus "dishonest" capital in this conversation, which is not a new conflict by any means
The other related issue is more of proportional wealth, but the average "honest worker" has had their wages stagnate for a while, while CEO pay is currently sitting at ~300x that of the average worker. The average CEO is obviously (or at least I think it's obvious) not working 300x "harder or smarter" than the average worker, whose wages are not at a "comfortable middle class level". So literally if the wealthiest weren't as "greedy" and would "buy off" poorer people more, they probably wouldn't complain as much about the growing sense of "economic inequality" of the richest versus the poorest in American society.
There are other objectionable grifts at play, like with the 2008 bank bailouts: some "businesses" profit out of loans made out of thin air and when their loans go bust the losses are socialized on to the public (aka the left might view this as more "stealing from the average hard worker"), so they "win" no matter what the outcome here, or at least don't "lose" like other normal people do.
The colonists arrived in America on the Mayflower in 1620. The Dutch (now Afrikaners) arrived in South Africa (then unsettled) at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652. Do they not have as much right to be called "Africans" as we have to be called "Americans"? Or do we both have to be called "Europeans"?
The Picts were part of the British racial heritage. Look up pictures of how they dressed and lived and compare to tribal Africa. https://allthatsinteresting.com/picts Not much different (maybe more ornate). When you look down your nose at someone, beware that you are not simply cricking your neck backward.
Zimbabwe is the African country that has issued both a million-dollar bill and a trillion-dollar bill, famously printing a $100 trillion banknote in 2009 at the height of a severe hyperinflation crisis.
Democrats hate him - that alone would be a good enough reason for me to like him but there are also many, many more reasons to like this very successful guy!
The first trillionaire is a CIA cutout. For those not old enough to remember he is the billionaire Howard Hughes of a bygone era. That said, I do give Musk credit for freeing twit which probably saved the country from pervasive social media censorship.
I'll post a fresh comment but it's a reposted sentiment:
I don't think the rightwing often understands the left's view on 'illionaires
The left will for example take someone who is hardworking and even if you make $100k a year without investments, you're not on that wage alone going to become a billionaire or trillionaire (maybe a millionaire)
So they infer you need to do something "unjust" or "immoral" to accumulate monies beyond that "honest work" that can't make you a billionaire+
These monies must then come from people "doing honest work" which they get through dishonest business practices (is what they argue)
I think there's some truth to the sentiment, or the rightwing doesn't seem to embrace traditional Christian views on wealth as much ("harder for rich man to enter heaven than camel to go through eye of a needle" ... the story of the rich man being condemned to hell for not helping the poor man Lazarus who was in need, etc.) - but obviously it's not a totally accurate view: you definitely can make use of businesses and technologies to create vast amounts of wealth individually
So there's something of a struggle of honest labor versus "dishonest" capital in this conversation, which is not a new conflict by any means
The other related issue is more of proportional wealth, but the average "honest worker" has had their wages stagnate for a while, while CEO pay is currently sitting at ~300x that of the average worker. The average CEO is obviously (or at least I think it's obvious) not working 300x "harder or smarter" than the average worker, whose wages are not at a "comfortable middle class level". So literally if the wealthiest weren't as "greedy" and would "buy off" poorer people more, they probably wouldn't complain as much about the growing sense of "economic inequality" of the richest versus the poorest in American society.
There are other objectionable grifts at play, like with the 2008 bank bailouts: some "businesses" profit out of loans made out of thin air and when their loans go bust the losses are socialized on to the public (aka the left might view this as more "stealing from the average hard worker"), so they "win" no matter what the outcome here, or at least don't "lose" like other normal people do.
not a real african where's his lip plate, spear, and loin cloth? He does have a million kids though by a bunch of baby mammas so maybe he really is
The colonists arrived in America on the Mayflower in 1620. The Dutch (now Afrikaners) arrived in South Africa (then unsettled) at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652. Do they not have as much right to be called "Africans" as we have to be called "Americans"? Or do we both have to be called "Europeans"?
You obviously are leaving out the Nubians and the Kingdom of Kush, who were parallel to the Egyptians in culture and civilization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubians#/media/File:Epoca_tolemaica,_stata_d'uomo_con_fascetta_e_capelli_ricci,_120-100_ac_ca..JPG (Not to mention leaving out the Egyptians.) This is a bit like saying the Italians couldn't have produced a Leonardo or a Michaelangelo, by pointing at Sicily.
The Picts were part of the British racial heritage. Look up pictures of how they dressed and lived and compare to tribal Africa. https://allthatsinteresting.com/picts Not much different (maybe more ornate). When you look down your nose at someone, beware that you are not simply cricking your neck backward.
Two actually. Black Democrats hate S. African Teresa Heinz Kerry too.
PS. Because she's South African and her skin is white like Elon.
They also hated Ben Carson for the audacity of leaving the Democrat plantation. Slave owners can’t stand it.
u/#trumpwrong
Not the first...
Zimbabwe is the African country that has issued both a million-dollar bill and a trillion-dollar bill, famously printing a $100 trillion banknote in 2009 at the height of a severe hyperinflation crisis.
100 Trillion Dollars
u/#catdance
Yes, I saw a picture of one on another meme board.
First public trillionaire