Blog Dis
The billionaires' bamboozle...
2026-07-21
There's only so much I can take before I blow my stack, to rant and rave over the world's complacency or lack of intestinal fortitude to speak up, to challenge those in positions of wealth and power, and not just the injustices of this world but the hypocrisy that is piled up like some kind of thriving anthill.
Of late, I've been rounding the corner to a newer and higher grouping of smoke-stacks, and these have long surpassed their ready-to-blow point. 🤬
It may not seem worth it or too difficult. However, know that it's easy to point the finger at billionaires for many of the world's woes, who on the surface want you to believe that they care about the humans and animals on this remarkable spinning ball. Yet, and more often than necessary, reality is the glaring opposite. Billionaires make no bones about applying innovative approaches to acquiring money, which can often mean capitalizing on the inventions of others, to claim them as their own, as though the hard work of these persons is their personal candy store, to buy-out as they please, which is often the case, and only if the opportunity is ripe.
The after thought, as to what potentially befalls the world is just that an after thought. We know that the efforts of billionaires are the reason why we each can afford a personal computer. But billionaires are also responsible for spearheading the mRNA vaccine, and I'm not prepared at this moment to acknowledge if this is even an example of a meaningful contribution worth putting into the hands of the medical community. There are hidden agendas aplenty, and a dust cloud of conspiracy theories swirling in the aftermath of Covid vaccines. Need I say more on this particular comment?
In 1916, John D. Rockefeller became the world's first billionaire. He was an American oil magnate and his stockholdings are the reason why his net worth was pushed beyond this mark of one billion. Now imagine back in 1916, the average American family earned anywhere between $700-$800 dollars per year (let me stress this once more—per year) and this equates to about $12 to $15 of earnings in one week. This is also the same era when modern tax codes had yet to come into existence, so taxes were typically a rich person's problem vs the majority of persons who lived in poverty, or close to the brink of poverty.
We're fully aware, as noted in historical records, that these corporate oil tycoons were responsible for supplying the money to build the railroads in North America. Their money was put up, along with the supplementation of Government grants, as well as the back-breaking work of immigrants, migrant laborers and military engineers, without whom there wouldn't have been railroads.
Take due note that the grueling back-breaking labor was primarily done by Irish and Chinese immigrants, and not by one single billionaire.
Let me repeat my opening to this post... There's only so much hot-air my brain can process without reaching the stage of being ready to explode. We've been living in modern times since the 1500s when Gutenberg's printing press came into existence. Our contemporary modern history began in 1945 and goes to this present day, the year 2026, in the 21st Century when no one would have cause to disagree with me when I say that technology is fully ensconced in pretty much every facet of living in developed countries. This technology has allowed some unknown tech-geeks to become our newest billionaires, while also helping to create an enormous number of multi-millionaires.
My lasers are presently being aimed at the billionaires, rather than millionaires who ironically are viewed by billionaires as just starting out. Apparently, earning the first million is just as hard as earning the first billion. I wouldn't personally know about either, and perhaps you as well.
Joseph Stiglitz was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2001, alongside George Akerlof and A. Michael Spence, for their ground-breaking work in comprehending markets, considered pioneering in the field of asymmetric information. They demonstrated that hidden or unequally distributed information can cause markets to fail, which is to say that all it takes is for one party to have access to vital information, to know more about the markets that others do not. Seems logical. So when Mr. Stiglitz was interviewed about Denmark's proposal in 2026 to levy an annual flat tax rate of 0.50% against their richest citizens, those worth over 25 million Kroner (the equivalent of $2.5 Million US), Mr. Stiglitz stated categorically that billionaires arguing against the notion of taxing the super-rich, because it would be detrimental to economies, is an utterly absurd statement asserted by these billionaires.
If it feels like billionaires are gaslighting us normal folk, your feelings are spot on.
It's safe to assume that this proposed tax is causing concern amongst the richest 1% of Denmark's population. They'll find out soon enough when the new tax comes to pass. To further illustrate this example, an individual worth more than $2.5 million US will end up with a tax bill of $12,500. To give you context, I'm worth far, far less than $2.5 Million US but I've paid out to-date in 2026 over 32% in taxes on my earned salary. I'm considered to be a middle-income earner. Whereas, a single-digit billionaire paying a flat tax rate of 0.50% on their total net worth would equate to $5 million in taxes. Based on having just one billion in net worth, the single-digit billionaires would end up with $995 million after taxes. And, somehow, they'll have to figure out how to scrape by on just less than one billion.
Mr. Stiglitz then went on to point out that the majority of the world's wealth (over 40%) that's been generated in the last 25 years in the 21st Century has gone to the top 1% of the population—the super rich. Whereas, the bottom 50% of the population (comprised of middle-income and lower) had only received 1% of this wealth. Therefore, I take sides with Mr. Stiglitz when he makes his valid point that it's only serves the interests of billionaires to claim that taxing them annually, even a little bit, will hurt the economy. Bamboozle! Asking them to pay an additional 0.50% on their total net wealth will not prevent them from being able to exploit their workers—this is how these billionaires were able to accumulate their great wealth in the first place.
Additionally, in the past the super rich were disallowed from contributing hundreds of millions to support political campaigns. This measure had truly benefited society because it meant that wealth couldn't be translated into political favoritism, and that the wealthy were forced to remain neutral. In North America, however, and for the past six years, we've witnessed first-hand how the super rich have been able to make outlandish donations in the range of hundreds of millions, to in effect Rent-a-President. This is our current climate in which some elections are being impacted, and which is the reason why Australia passed legislation in their Parliament to cap political contributions to $50,000 per person/entity. This takes effect in January 2027.
We, too, should do the same in North America.
I could go on, to continue to rant and rave about the injustices that super-wealth causes, if it isn't properly managed. I could state that those in the middle-income range and lower are automatically taxed at higher rates on annual income, and how these monies could easily be applied to offset the cost of inflation and the ever-increasing grocery prices, or for the less fortunate who can't afford healthcare. I refer you again to my example of the percentage of taxes I've already paid. We're only in the month of July, with five months of calendar year remaining and I won't be able to escape paying my income tax rate. Because I had supported a tax partner for over a decade, it was pointed out to me that by the time end July rolls around, my pay will inch up a little, every month, until end December, which is to say the tax rate is lowered, once I've reached the threshold of payable taxes. Well, I live this reality and I can assure you that the tax relief didn't feel like relief at all. I was still locked into the 32% tax rate, and if I had qualified for a tax refund, based on having paid too much up front in the first place, this only means that my government held onto my money for nearly a year without paying me interest.
Or, I could point out that because billionaires are in possession of greater resources of capital and assets, and there's a difference between the two (capital refers to financial resources to finance operations vs assets which represents everything of value a person owns or a business), they are in the enviable position to shelter hundreds of millions in countries where taxes are not levied. Would it make a difference then if these billionaires were mandated by legislation to pay out a flat tax rate of 0.50% annually?
The super wealthy can also borrow against their own assets, without obligation to pay taxes on this money, while still being able to retain these assets, to be used as leverage, to buy other assets. You see why my smoke stack is ready to blow?
If it is an old expression to state that the rich get richer, then surely, and because of the ballooning wealth of billionaires, the poor are surely getting poorer.
The arrival of AI technology and it's money-making potential is being hailed and propped up by the very billionaires who created and encouraged its growth in the first place. They did so by providing open source tools to allow software developers to utilize these tools, for free, to finalize AI development. Here is the bamboozle: the billionaires in turn are able to use the software development skills of others, to benefit themselves, and their bottom line profits, because the billionaires are the very persons retaining ownership of this AI technology. Presently, their subscription rates for AI chatbots are losing money, until such time as individuals and corporations utilizing the technology become wholly hooked, and dependent, after which prices will get jacked up.
It's an old game. We've seen it play out in numerous ways, in the past, such as in the form of specialty streaming channels or music streaming engines like Spotify, where your song list is built and retained so long as you continue to subscribe to their services. End your subscription and your song list goes away.
Next up on the road to blowing my smoke stack are AI data centers. Another example of the flagrant and ongoing bamboozling. We continue to hear about it all the time; how these data centers are the future, and how fresh water is needed to run them. Know that this is the greatest falsehood (more like propaganda) being served up. There's no need to drain our fresh water supplies when there are other highly effective means to cool these data processing centers. Here are some examples of different options:
* immersion coolant systems, to allow data centers to be submerged in a specifically designed synthetic fluid that absorbs heat.
* dielectric cooling systems that can circulate through equipment without conducting electricity.
* closed-loop cooling systems that recycle coolant instead of constantly consuming fresh water.
* dry-coolant systems that use the air
However, all these aforementioned options are not as cheap as gobbling up fresh water, the very life-giving force that humans need to thrive, to survive. Animals, fish, insects also rely on water. Again, however, why do billionaires push the usage of fresh water to cool their data centers? I'm not about to bamboozle you in return by skirting around the answer: BILLIONAIRES ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING A FLYING HOOT ABOUT YOU, not as much as they care deeply about hoarding money, or as much as they care about being able to run with the cheapest option, while telling us to conserve our consumption of water. The other worthy issue with this matter of consumption of fresh water is the long-term impact it will have on the small towns of North America, and how water consumption bills will be boosted because of the drain on water supplies to keep AI data centers running, and these higher rates will be paid by the townsfolk, not by the billionaires.
I mean this with all sincerity when I state it's high time, and our future depends on it, to change our political system in order that we severely limit the influence of those with the deepest pockets.
There! Fixed the problem with a proposed solution.
Of late, I've been rounding the corner to a newer and higher grouping of smoke-stacks, and these have long surpassed their ready-to-blow point. 🤬
It may not seem worth it or too difficult. However, know that it's easy to point the finger at billionaires for many of the world's woes, who on the surface want you to believe that they care about the humans and animals on this remarkable spinning ball. Yet, and more often than necessary, reality is the glaring opposite. Billionaires make no bones about applying innovative approaches to acquiring money, which can often mean capitalizing on the inventions of others, to claim them as their own, as though the hard work of these persons is their personal candy store, to buy-out as they please, which is often the case, and only if the opportunity is ripe.
The after thought, as to what potentially befalls the world is just that an after thought. We know that the efforts of billionaires are the reason why we each can afford a personal computer. But billionaires are also responsible for spearheading the mRNA vaccine, and I'm not prepared at this moment to acknowledge if this is even an example of a meaningful contribution worth putting into the hands of the medical community. There are hidden agendas aplenty, and a dust cloud of conspiracy theories swirling in the aftermath of Covid vaccines. Need I say more on this particular comment?
In 1916, John D. Rockefeller became the world's first billionaire. He was an American oil magnate and his stockholdings are the reason why his net worth was pushed beyond this mark of one billion. Now imagine back in 1916, the average American family earned anywhere between $700-$800 dollars per year (let me stress this once more—per year) and this equates to about $12 to $15 of earnings in one week. This is also the same era when modern tax codes had yet to come into existence, so taxes were typically a rich person's problem vs the majority of persons who lived in poverty, or close to the brink of poverty.
We're fully aware, as noted in historical records, that these corporate oil tycoons were responsible for supplying the money to build the railroads in North America. Their money was put up, along with the supplementation of Government grants, as well as the back-breaking work of immigrants, migrant laborers and military engineers, without whom there wouldn't have been railroads.
Take due note that the grueling back-breaking labor was primarily done by Irish and Chinese immigrants, and not by one single billionaire.
Let me repeat my opening to this post... There's only so much hot-air my brain can process without reaching the stage of being ready to explode. We've been living in modern times since the 1500s when Gutenberg's printing press came into existence. Our contemporary modern history began in 1945 and goes to this present day, the year 2026, in the 21st Century when no one would have cause to disagree with me when I say that technology is fully ensconced in pretty much every facet of living in developed countries. This technology has allowed some unknown tech-geeks to become our newest billionaires, while also helping to create an enormous number of multi-millionaires.
My lasers are presently being aimed at the billionaires, rather than millionaires who ironically are viewed by billionaires as just starting out. Apparently, earning the first million is just as hard as earning the first billion. I wouldn't personally know about either, and perhaps you as well.
Joseph Stiglitz was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2001, alongside George Akerlof and A. Michael Spence, for their ground-breaking work in comprehending markets, considered pioneering in the field of asymmetric information. They demonstrated that hidden or unequally distributed information can cause markets to fail, which is to say that all it takes is for one party to have access to vital information, to know more about the markets that others do not. Seems logical. So when Mr. Stiglitz was interviewed about Denmark's proposal in 2026 to levy an annual flat tax rate of 0.50% against their richest citizens, those worth over 25 million Kroner (the equivalent of $2.5 Million US), Mr. Stiglitz stated categorically that billionaires arguing against the notion of taxing the super-rich, because it would be detrimental to economies, is an utterly absurd statement asserted by these billionaires.
If it feels like billionaires are gaslighting us normal folk, your feelings are spot on.
It's safe to assume that this proposed tax is causing concern amongst the richest 1% of Denmark's population. They'll find out soon enough when the new tax comes to pass. To further illustrate this example, an individual worth more than $2.5 million US will end up with a tax bill of $12,500. To give you context, I'm worth far, far less than $2.5 Million US but I've paid out to-date in 2026 over 32% in taxes on my earned salary. I'm considered to be a middle-income earner. Whereas, a single-digit billionaire paying a flat tax rate of 0.50% on their total net worth would equate to $5 million in taxes. Based on having just one billion in net worth, the single-digit billionaires would end up with $995 million after taxes. And, somehow, they'll have to figure out how to scrape by on just less than one billion.
Mr. Stiglitz then went on to point out that the majority of the world's wealth (over 40%) that's been generated in the last 25 years in the 21st Century has gone to the top 1% of the population—the super rich. Whereas, the bottom 50% of the population (comprised of middle-income and lower) had only received 1% of this wealth. Therefore, I take sides with Mr. Stiglitz when he makes his valid point that it's only serves the interests of billionaires to claim that taxing them annually, even a little bit, will hurt the economy. Bamboozle! Asking them to pay an additional 0.50% on their total net wealth will not prevent them from being able to exploit their workers—this is how these billionaires were able to accumulate their great wealth in the first place.
Additionally, in the past the super rich were disallowed from contributing hundreds of millions to support political campaigns. This measure had truly benefited society because it meant that wealth couldn't be translated into political favoritism, and that the wealthy were forced to remain neutral. In North America, however, and for the past six years, we've witnessed first-hand how the super rich have been able to make outlandish donations in the range of hundreds of millions, to in effect Rent-a-President. This is our current climate in which some elections are being impacted, and which is the reason why Australia passed legislation in their Parliament to cap political contributions to $50,000 per person/entity. This takes effect in January 2027.
We, too, should do the same in North America.
I could go on, to continue to rant and rave about the injustices that super-wealth causes, if it isn't properly managed. I could state that those in the middle-income range and lower are automatically taxed at higher rates on annual income, and how these monies could easily be applied to offset the cost of inflation and the ever-increasing grocery prices, or for the less fortunate who can't afford healthcare. I refer you again to my example of the percentage of taxes I've already paid. We're only in the month of July, with five months of calendar year remaining and I won't be able to escape paying my income tax rate. Because I had supported a tax partner for over a decade, it was pointed out to me that by the time end July rolls around, my pay will inch up a little, every month, until end December, which is to say the tax rate is lowered, once I've reached the threshold of payable taxes. Well, I live this reality and I can assure you that the tax relief didn't feel like relief at all. I was still locked into the 32% tax rate, and if I had qualified for a tax refund, based on having paid too much up front in the first place, this only means that my government held onto my money for nearly a year without paying me interest.
Or, I could point out that because billionaires are in possession of greater resources of capital and assets, and there's a difference between the two (capital refers to financial resources to finance operations vs assets which represents everything of value a person owns or a business), they are in the enviable position to shelter hundreds of millions in countries where taxes are not levied. Would it make a difference then if these billionaires were mandated by legislation to pay out a flat tax rate of 0.50% annually?
The super wealthy can also borrow against their own assets, without obligation to pay taxes on this money, while still being able to retain these assets, to be used as leverage, to buy other assets. You see why my smoke stack is ready to blow?
If it is an old expression to state that the rich get richer, then surely, and because of the ballooning wealth of billionaires, the poor are surely getting poorer.
The arrival of AI technology and it's money-making potential is being hailed and propped up by the very billionaires who created and encouraged its growth in the first place. They did so by providing open source tools to allow software developers to utilize these tools, for free, to finalize AI development. Here is the bamboozle: the billionaires in turn are able to use the software development skills of others, to benefit themselves, and their bottom line profits, because the billionaires are the very persons retaining ownership of this AI technology. Presently, their subscription rates for AI chatbots are losing money, until such time as individuals and corporations utilizing the technology become wholly hooked, and dependent, after which prices will get jacked up.
It's an old game. We've seen it play out in numerous ways, in the past, such as in the form of specialty streaming channels or music streaming engines like Spotify, where your song list is built and retained so long as you continue to subscribe to their services. End your subscription and your song list goes away.
Next up on the road to blowing my smoke stack are AI data centers. Another example of the flagrant and ongoing bamboozling. We continue to hear about it all the time; how these data centers are the future, and how fresh water is needed to run them. Know that this is the greatest falsehood (more like propaganda) being served up. There's no need to drain our fresh water supplies when there are other highly effective means to cool these data processing centers. Here are some examples of different options:
* immersion coolant systems, to allow data centers to be submerged in a specifically designed synthetic fluid that absorbs heat.
* dielectric cooling systems that can circulate through equipment without conducting electricity.
* closed-loop cooling systems that recycle coolant instead of constantly consuming fresh water.
* dry-coolant systems that use the air
However, all these aforementioned options are not as cheap as gobbling up fresh water, the very life-giving force that humans need to thrive, to survive. Animals, fish, insects also rely on water. Again, however, why do billionaires push the usage of fresh water to cool their data centers? I'm not about to bamboozle you in return by skirting around the answer: BILLIONAIRES ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING A FLYING HOOT ABOUT YOU, not as much as they care deeply about hoarding money, or as much as they care about being able to run with the cheapest option, while telling us to conserve our consumption of water. The other worthy issue with this matter of consumption of fresh water is the long-term impact it will have on the small towns of North America, and how water consumption bills will be boosted because of the drain on water supplies to keep AI data centers running, and these higher rates will be paid by the townsfolk, not by the billionaires.
I mean this with all sincerity when I state it's high time, and our future depends on it, to change our political system in order that we severely limit the influence of those with the deepest pockets.
There! Fixed the problem with a proposed solution.
