Friday, January 2, 2026

Something to Know - 2 January 2026

I hope you take the time to read this entry by Mary Geddry.   She says it far better than anyone else I know of right now.   Her choice of words and phrasing takes into consideration all the suffering we have felt in 2026 and points to Jack Smith who has stuck to his guns in his moderated and consistent investigation and pursuit of justice in all matters Trump.  Mary peels back all the bloody bluster laid out by Trumpism and exposes a field of rot and corruption, and Smith keeps on point in his pursuit.   In the city of New York, the election of its new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, presents a method of governance which defies Trump, and may be the example for all those who still have respect for our Constitution to find a path in 2026 to lead us out of a morass.

Geddry's Newsletter a Publication of nGenium marygeddry@substack.com 

8:29 AM (1 hour ago)
to me
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more



Clarity, Under Oath and Underground

Jack Smith's record, a cracking economic order, a new mayor beneath City Hall, and a moonbeam for the year ahead

Jan 1
 
READ IN APP
 

Good morning! Clarity is rarely gentle. It arrives late, often after damage is done, and almost always without apology. But clarity, even when it's grim, is a form of power. It gives shape to what must be confronted and strips away the comforting myths that keep real change just out of reach. This moment, heavy as it is, offers that kind of clarity. Jack Smith's testimony belongs to that category, not as catharsis, but as record; not as resolution, but as grounding.

Normally, when Donald Trump speaks, I listen at double speed while sketching or cleaning the kitchen, just fast enough to catch the lie before it mutates into five more. I mark the moment, check the transcript, quote accurately, and move on. Trump's speeches are built for volume, not durability. Jack Smith's deposition was different. Even at 2x speed, eight hours is still four, so I read the transcript first and then searched the video for the passages that mattered, not to see how loudly he said them, but how quietly. The contrast was the point.

I remember a brief clip from early in Jack Smith's tenure that stuck with me far more than any press conference ever could. He was walking down a Washington sidewalk with a couple of colleagues, no entourage, no scowl, no performance. Just a man in motion, carrying what looked like a brown bag lunch. Calm, grounded, comfortable in his own skin.

Smith is a triathlete, and it shows, not in swagger, but in bearing. The posture of someone who understands endurance matters more than speed. Someone who knows you don't finish a long race by chest-thumping at mile two. You finish it by pacing yourself, trusting the work, and staying upright when others burn out.

That same discipline runs through the eight-hour deposition transcript now circulating widely, released despite, not because of, the House Republicans who insisted on keeping it closed-door. Smith had offered to testify publicly, but was refused. Transparency, it turns out, was only appealing until it involved the full record. Once the transcript escaped containment, however, the effect was immediate. Strip away the bad-faith questioning and cable-news caricatures, and what you're left with is not a man on the defensive, but a prosecutor doing something deeply inconvenient to his critics: calmly telling the truth, under oath, without theatrics.

Over and over again, Jack Smith returns to the same foundational point, one that detonates years of talking points. He did not charge Donald Trump because Democrats wanted him to. He charged him because, in his professional judgment, the evidence met the highest standard in American criminal law. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In both cases, January 6 and classified documents alike.

These cases didn't dissolve because the facts collapsed. They were dismissed because Trump regained power. History will notice the difference, even if some members of Congress pretend not to.

Smith is equally blunt about responsibility. Trump, he explains, was not a bystander caught in a swirl of overzealous aides. He was the central actor, the most culpable, the most responsible. The crimes benefited him. The pressure campaign, the lies, the scheme to subvert lawful government functions all flowed outward from him. No fog of euphemisms, just causation.

On January 6, Smith's language tightens further. The attack, he says, does not happen without Trump. Trump sent people to the Capitol, refused to act once violence erupted, and then used the chaos as leverage. The violence was foreseeable, and useful. Smith states it plainly: Trump's actions "endangered the life of the Vice President." The sitting vice-president of the United States, placed in mortal danger by the man who put him there.

And then Smith dismantles the last refuge of Trump's defenders: the claim that he genuinely "believed" the election lies he told. Under oath, Smith explains that Trump was repeatedly informed by advisers, courts, and state officials that the fraud claims were false, and was briefed on why certain vote-counting patterns were entirely normal. None of it mattered. As Smith put it, the evidence showed a "pattern of knowingly false claims," one marked by its "depth, length, and repetition." Trump didn't stop when the claims were debunked, instead he refined and focused them. The conduct, Smith concluded, was far too consistent and selective to be confusion. It was deliberate deceit.

This is where Smith adds a detail that seems to genuinely irritate his interrogators: his witnesses were not Democrats. He makes the point plainly. Many of the key witnesses were Republicans; some were lifelong Republicans. Some worked directly for Trump and voted for him. Some supported him until they didn't, until the facts made continued loyalty impossible. Smith was not relying on partisan opponents or liberal activists. He was relying on Trump's own people, from his own administration and his own party. This is usually the moment when the room goes quiet, because the "witch hunt" narrative doesn't survive contact with its own witness list.

The same precision applies in the classified documents case. Smith lays it out without embellishment: Donald Trump "willfully retained" highly classified national defense information after leaving office, stored it in unsecured locations "including a ballroom and a bathroom," and then "repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice" to conceal his continued possession of it. Smith confirms that Trump showed sensitive materials to people who lacked clearance or any legitimate need to know, including at Bedminster. This was not carelessness or nostalgia. As Smith made clear under oath, the evidence pointed to intent, retention, concealment, and obstruction, in sequence.

Finally, Smith addresses the part that always gets waved away as "tone policing" until someone's life is actually threatened: witness intimidation. Trump's public statements, Smith explains, endangered witnesses, court staff, prosecutors, and their families. The threat didn't need to be explicit to be effective. Courts agreed. Appeals courts agreed. Smith makes no apologies for acting to protect the process. None.

In that sense, this deposition reads less like a defense than a reckoning. History will likely remember it as the moment Jack Smith was finally allowed to litigate the case he was denied by circumstance. Not before a jury, not with a verdict at the end, but on the record, under oath, with the facts laid out cleanly and without adornment. The cases didn't fail. They were interrupted. And this testimony preserves what interruption could not erase.

The facts are still here, the witnesses are still on the record, and the evidence still says what it says. The lies didn't win by becoming true; they won by force. Force is loud, but brittle. Truth, patiently documented, even when carried in a brown paper bag, has a longer shelf life.

Jack Smith's quiet walk down that sidewalk turns out to be the right image after all. Forward motion, steady, unglamorous, grounded in the belief that doing the work still matters, even when the finish line keeps moving.

All of this comes with a side of structural collapse, polite authoritarianism, and a faint but stubborn whiff of hope rising out of a decommissioned subway station.

We'll start where the administration would very much prefer you not look: the plumbing. Not the metaphorical kind, actual financial plumbing. While Donald Trump congratulates himself for having "achieved more than anyone could have imagined" in what he charmingly calls the second of his first years, the overnight lending markets have been quietly screaming for help. Trillions of dollars slosh through the repo market every night to keep the global financial system functioning, and lately the Federal Reserve has been forced to step in again and again, outside quarter ends, outside crises, outside any normal explanation, to keep those rates from blowing out. This is the sort of thing that only happens during events like 2008 or COVID, which is why everyone involved is pretending very hard that it's no big deal. Don't worry, they tell us, AI will save us in 2026. The markets are crossing their fingers while the Fed is mopping up leaks weekly.

What this actually means is that banks don't trust each other. They're demanding a risk premium just to lend money overnight, like dogs circling each other with their teeth half-bared. They might sniff, and they might bite. Either way, it's not a sign of confidence. While the administration keeps insisting that rate cuts are just around the corner, the market is effectively responding, "Absolutely not." Treasury yields remain high, mortgage rates remain brutal, and credit cards are still eating households alive. The cost of money is staying expensive because the world is charging America a trust surcharge.

Trump insists this is all in your head. Inflation, he says, is coming down "very fast." Wages, he says, are rising "much faster than inflation." More people are working than ever before, he assures us, apparently excluding everyone who remembers the past seventy years. In reality, inflation is still hovering around three percent even as oil languishes in the $50s, job losses pile up, and mass deportations should, under any sane economic model, be producing deflation. Instead, prices stay sticky. Wages, once adjusted for inflation, are flat. Labor force participation is lower than when Biden left office. Consumer confidence has collapsed to the lowest level ever recorded, not during COVID, not during the Great Recession, not during the 1970s malaise. Literally ever. Americans have never felt worse about the economy, which is impressive when you consider how many historical disasters they've lived through.

According to Trump, everything's great. Ignore the 700-plus corporate bankruptcies this year, the tens of thousands of household filings, the fact that bankruptcy season hasn't even peaked yet. Ignore the rising credit card balances, the stagnant paychecks, the sense that the ground is quietly giving way beneath everyone's feet. This is all part of the illusory 4-D chess economic plan. Recessions are a feature, not a bug, unless you're a consumer, in which case you're on your own.

And here's where the story goes global, because the real problem isn't just domestic dysfunction. It's that the rest of the world is starting to exit the room. Japan, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, has begun raising interest rates for the first time in decades. That's triggering the unwind of the yen carry trade, an arcane but enormously consequential mechanism that has quietly propped up U.S. borrowing for years. As Japanese capital flows back home, Treasury data now shows net outflows from the United States, from both private investors and official institutions. Foreign dollar reserves are near historic lows. Translation: the "sell America" narrative is no longer fringe; it is today's portfolio strategy.

The Fed will intervene to save banks. Credit will tighten. Consumers will get crushed. And over the long term, the dollar's privileged position erodes, not in a dramatic collapse, but in a steady, grinding loss of confidence that no amount of coal plants or AI data centers can reverse.

Now, keep all of that in mind and shift scenes, way underground, literally to a shuttered Gilded Age subway station beneath City Hall, where Zohran Mamdani took the oath of office as New York City's youngest mayor in more than a century. It was a deliberate choice: a monument to a time when government built ambitious public infrastructure to improve ordinary lives. Mamdani didn't pick that space to be cute. He picked it to remind people that cities weren't always managed like hedge funds with police departments attached.

The Wall Street Journal, doing what it does best, frames this moment as a test of whether Mamdani will quickly learn to stop being himself. The clock is ticking, they warn. New Yorkers have no patience. Business leaders are nervous. His ideas are "untested." He should probably moderate. You can practically hear the unspoken plea: please keep doing the same thing, just with more deliberation and patience.

What's missing from this framing is the obvious point: the system they're defending has already failed. New York didn't become unaffordable because leaders were too bold. It became unaffordable because for decades the city treated housing, transit, and child care as market luxuries rather than public necessities. Mamdani isn't being asked to prove his policies work. He's being asked to prove that alternatives may exist or even co-exist.

This pressure campaign isn't happening in a vacuum. Hovering over it all is Donald Trump, who previously threatened to deploy the National Guard if Mamdani won, and then smoothed it over with a congenial White House meeting, because authoritarianism works best when it smiles first. The threat was never really about crime. Trump has been laying the groundwork for years to redefine dissent as disorder and federalize force as a routine response to political opposition. Democratic-run cities aren't targets because they're dangerous; they're targets because they're visible counterexamples.

So Mamdani governs under a warning. If he moderates too quickly, the doctrine succeeds without troops. If he doesn't, any protest, any spike in unrest, real or manufactured, can be used as justification. Create the conditions, then claim necessity. It's an old playbook.

This is where the contrast becomes unavoidable. At the national level, we're watching a president accelerate economic decay while preparing coercive tools to manage the fallout. At the city level, we're watching a mayor attempt, constrained, imperfectly, under intense pressure, to rebuild social capacity instead of extracting from it. One model responds to stress by tightening control. The other responds by expanding care.

Which one succeeds isn't just a question of policy. It's a question of whether change is given the opportunity to try before it's declared a failure.

Trump may have dragged a reckoning that was once decades away right to our doorstep. Mamdani, standing beneath the tiled arches of an abandoned station, is betting that people are ready to build something different. The system, as always, is already sharpening its knives.

As we step into the new year, I want to leave you with a quieter image than the headlines usually allow. My moonbeam vigil was held beneath the holiday lights at Shore Acres State Park, where the cliffs meet the Pacific and everything glitters a little more fiercely than it needs to. Among the cascading LEDs and engineered wonder, I lit a small moonbeam of my own. It may have seemed trivial beside all that spectacle, but intentions don't measure themselves against wattage. They travel differently. I like to think that somewhere between the surf and the stars, a little peace and joy shook loose and scattered itself where it was needed.

This past year asked far too much of all of us. It demanded attention without offering relief, resilience without rest, and clarity in a fog of bad faith. Yet here we are, still watching, still caring, still insisting that truth matters and that the future is something we participate in, not just endure. In itself, that is no small thing.

So to each of you reading this: may the new year bring steadier ground, sharper light, and moments of grace that arrive when you least expect them. May your coffee be hot, your bullshit detectors finely tuned, and your capacity for wonder stubbornly intact. Wherever you are, however you mark it, I wish you peace, joy, and a new year that gives back more than it takes.



 


--
****
Juan Matute
CCRC


Thursday, January 1, 2026

Something to Read on NewYear's Day - 2026

At this time of a year, like almost every year, newsletters and articles are full of postings and stories about all new "news events" or the "top stories" of the past year.   This year, I have no interest in being reminded of what has made me a grouch at best or a despondent member of the ordinary 90% at its worst.   Frankly 2025, like the infamous Project, makes me sick.   So, imagine my smile as I read this piece on New Year's Eve.  It is just a granular story about how something as simple as Costco keeps me sane.    My wife and I confess that we do not want to be considered as avid consumer spenders.  But, we do need to buy things to appease our basic needs.   We are both Costco members, and have been from the early stages of Fedco (airline employees were members).    We do need to be reasonable, so we do not need 50 pounds of rice, or 40 rolls of toilet paper, or multiple bottles of Cholula or two-bottles of whatever when we only need one.   We definitely save money and get good products,  and we do wait in lines to buy our Kirkland gasoline, which is anywhere from 50 to 90 cents cheaper per gallon.  We do acknowledge Costco's marketing strategy of changing the storage floor locations of different products just so we can experience the delight of seeing what other great buys are available - but that is the only change.   The check out process is the fastest of any store, and the use of technology in the process makes standing in line behind massive purchases by owners of small businesses pass by as no problem.   Costco looks the same at all stores.   The shopping experience is an assurance that you are getting a good product and not getting ripped off.  The experience has no surprises and remains as a beacon of consistency in a gloomy changing world.   And no, I do not get a bribe payment for saying so.  



Jake Lundberg

Staff writer

In a world where everything seems to be getting worse, Costco mostly stays the same—and that's what keeps us going back.



Good Value

supermarket cart with red background

(Credit is Endai Huedl / Getty)

View in browser

Because every day is Black Friday at Costco, I choose to go on Saturday. I like to get there early. I always park in the same spot (right next to the cart return), and wait with the other die-hards. It has the thrill of a stakeout, absent any crime or danger. When the doors open, we move toward the entrance in an orderly march. There's a small gasp upon entry—the kind of quiet awe that one feels before the most epic human achievements, as when stepping across the threshold of St. Peter's or the Chartres Cathedral. But in this place, there is no baroque majesty, no stained glass, just abundance bathed in light. In the sweep of human history generally marked by scarcity and want, here is bounty on an unimaginable scale; here is a year's supply of mozzarella sticks; here is a hot dog and a drink for $1.50; here is a monument of our civilization, in more than 600 locations across the United States.

I take the ease with which I resort to Costco talk—about produce prices in particular—as a worrying sign that I've become a middle-aged bore. But there's something happening at Costco that I think goes beyond bell peppers (note that my family eats a lot of them, and, boy, are they a bargain). Costco is a marvel not just historically but also in this moment. In an age of broken institutions, insufferable politics, and billionaire businessmen auditioning to be Bond villains, most things feel like they're getting worse. Costco seems to stay the same. The employees are generally satisfied. The customers are thrilled by the simple act of getting a good deal. All of it makes a unique space in contemporary American life, a space of cooperation, courtesy, and grown-ups mostly acting like grown-ups.

It starts with the thing you're pushing, the vessel into which you shall receive thy bounty. The cart is improbably large yet easily maneuvered through the warehouse's aisles. Through some invisible quality control, the sad and broken-down ones you find at the supermarket—unlevel, rear wheel locked, front wheel spinning—seem to be ushered quietly into oblivion at Costco. You're at the helm of a Peterbilt with the handling of a Porsche.

Traffic is never light, but things generally move along. Pushing something that large requires an awareness of oneself in space. Those who might need to consult a list or message their spouse—should I grab this brick of cheddar cheese?—seem to know to step off to the side. At my store in Granger, Indiana, where elbows are perhaps not as sharp as at some other locations, patrons appear to have an unspoken patience with the person who wants to give a bag of avocados an extra squeeze, or hold a double shell of raspberries up to the light. There are occasional expressions of camaraderie as well: "We can't get enough of that stuff," somebody might say as you load two pillow-size bags of Pirate's Booty into the cart.

You might see the bargain-hunting bonds among Costco shoppers as a function of the chain's history. To join its ranks costs $65 a year; the store's membership model originates from a nonprofit wholesale collective for federal employees called Fedco, founded in Los Angeles in the 1940s. The genealogy is complex (a three-hour-long Acquired podcast episode traces it in full), but one trait has endured: the company is animated—even as a for-profit enterprise—by the idea of bringing good value to its members. This has yielded a cultlike loyalty, such that the company can largely rely on happy members to do its advertising and marketing by word of mouth—or perhaps by wearing prized company merch. Kirkland Signature, Costco's in-house label for hundreds of products, is a kind of anti-brand that happens to be one of the world's largest for consumer packaged goods. Just buying something under its comically dull logo makes you feel like a smart shopper: You've made the wise decision to forgo a better look for a better price.

Costco is a place that encourages, and rewards, just knowing the drill—and the drill isn't hard to figure out: Move along. Don't block the way. Unload your cart onto the conveyor belt with dispatch, but leave the heavy stuff. Make the barcodes visible. Violators are never exiled, but transgression, I know from experience, is not without shame. Once, I left the cart in front of the flower display loaded down with 120 pounds of water-softening salt. When I returned, the grandmother who was blocked from the flowers (find me a cheaper dozen roses!)—well, she gave me the finger.

The veneer of civilization is always thin, even at Costco, as one is reminded before major holidays, or in the vicinity of the samples. When there's a Christmas feast to be provisioned, or half a bite of pizza to be tasted, order breaks down, and with it, spatial awareness, common courtesy, and the Golden Rule. We're circling like buzzards; we're blocking the way; we're shaking our heads at the nerve of the person who took the last three.

But the checkout restores us to our senses. At my Costco, there is usually a line to get in line for the cashier. People can game the system, but most quietly queue up, content to wait their turn to pick a register. The clerks are cheerier than they should be before this endless current of humans and their stuff. Whatever lapses I might have had in the store (did I take a second sample? maybe), here, I'm on my best behavior.

Out of the store, car loaded, cart returned, I tighten up and steel myself for the road. Have you seen the way these people drive nowadays?


--
****
Juan Matute
CCRC


Wednesday, December 31, 2025

Something to Know - 31 December

Robert Reich knows a bit about economics and politics.   You can learn from him on how to become a multi-Billionaire.  The easiest way for 99% of us is to buy a Powerball ticket and figure out your mathematical chance and hope.   However, the 1% need about 20-25 Million already on hand to be in competition.   Of course, the more money you have, the easier your chances might be.  With all the wealth needed to put down the ante to influence your chances, you can follow along with Dr. Reich's formulas.  Of course the big stick is being tight with the L.I.C. - Lobbyist Industrial Complex, which is not anywhere near the Adam Smith formula for Capitalism.

Robert Reich 

Dec 29, 2025, 1:03 AM (1 day ago)
to me
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Five ways to make more than a billion dollars

None have anything to do with "free market" capitalism

Dec 29
 
READ IN APP
 

Friends,

One of the most notable characteristics of 2025 has been the shamelessness of the billionaire class and the conspicuousness of its corruption.

For many years, whenever I've warned that an increasing portion of the nation's wealth is falling into the hands of an ever-smaller number of people, the moneyed interests have responded: "But that's just the free market," or "the free market has decided they deserve it."

Rubbish. There's no such thing as a "free market" to begin with. Today's so-called "free market" is the outcome of political decisions over monopolization, labor organization, private property, finance, trade, taxes, and much more.

Who's behind these political decisions? Increasingly, the same small number of ultra-rich who have gained disproportionate influence over our politics. They've created five ways for themselves to accumulate a billion dollars or more.

1. First, exploit a monopoly.

Does Jeff Bezos deserve his billions because he founded and built Amazon?

No. Amazon is a monopolist with nearly 40 percent of all e-commerce retail sales in America. In addition, Amazon is protected by a slew of patents granted by the U.S. government.

In 2023, the U.S. government — through the Federal Trade Commission and 17 states— charged Amazon with illegally maintaining a monopoly by crushing competition, inflating prices, and harming consumers through anticompetitive practices like punishing sellers who offer lower prices elsewhere. (The trial is currently scheduled to begin in 2027.)

If the government fully enforced anti-monopoly (antitrust) laws and didn't give Amazon such broad patents, Bezos would be worth far less.

If anti-monopoly laws were enforced, other titans of high tech would be worth far less, too — among them, Elon Musk, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Apple's Tim Cook, and Oracle's Larry Ellison.

2. A second way to make more than a billion is to get insider information that's unavailable to other investors.

Billionaire Steven A. Cohen headed up a hedge fund firm in which, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department, insider trading was "substantial, pervasive, and on a scale without known precedent in the hedge fund industry." Nine of Cohen's present or former employees pleaded guilty or were convicted. Cohen got off with a fine, changed the name of his firm, and apparently is back at the game.

Former billionaire investor Bill Hwang was convicted in late 2024 and sentenced to 18 years for fraud related to the collapse of his Archegos Capital Management. The charges focused on his trading on insider information, market manipulation, and fraud.

The crypto market often experiences sharp volatility linked to policy announcements by the Trump regime. Moments after Trump announced new tariffs on China, one inside trader became $150 million richer from a leveraged short position.

Insider trading is endemic in C-suites. SEC researchers have found that corporate executives are twice as likely to sell their stock on the days following their own stock buyback announcements, when their stock prices soar, as they are in the days leading up to the announcements.

If government cracked down on insider trading, hedge fund mavens and top corporate executives wouldn't be raking in nearly as much money.

3. A third way to make more than a billion is to buy off politicians who will change the rules of the "free market" in your favor.

The first Trump tax cut has saved Charles Koch and Koch Industries an estimated $1 to $1.4 billion a year, not even counting tax savings on profits stored offshore and a shrunken estate tax. The second Trump tax cut saved the Kochs even more. They and their affiliated groups spent some $20 million lobbying for the Trump tax cut and $550 million seeking to get Trump elected in 2024. Not a bad return on investment.

Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, sank a quarter of a billion dollars into getting Trump elected in 2024 and is on the way to spending as much if not more trying to keep the House and Senate under Republican control. What does Musk get out of it? Lower taxes on himself and his businesses, rollbacks of regulations that limit his profits, and federal contracts that make him even richer.

Trump and his own family have also reaped big rewards by changing the economy's rules in their favor. By the end of 2025, they had cleared at least $1.2 billion through their crypto investments — whose value has ballooned in large part because of Trump's decisions to deregulate crypto and encourage its use.

The value of their crypto investments also rose with Trump's pardon of Changpeng "CZ" Zhao — the billionaire co-founder of the Binance crypto exchange who pleaded guilty to money laundering charges. Binance was closely tied to World Liberty Financial, actively managed by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

Earlier this year, a state-controlled United Arab Emirates firm bought $100 million of cryptocurrency issued by World Liberty Financial — essentially a huge deposit for World Liberty, which could then generate returns in the tens of millions of dollars each year.

Trump's wealth soared again in mid-December on news that Trump Media & Technology Group, the publicly traded company whose biggest shareholder is Trump, is merging with TAE Technologies, a privately held fusion technology company. The additional wealth was the consequence of more self-dealing by Trump: His Department of Energy had created an Office of Fusion to support the commercialization of fusion.

The family company of billionaire Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has also been making a bundle off political influence. Lutnick's company helped raise capital for Toby Neugebauer, a billionaire who's building one of the giant data centers that will power the next generation of AI, banking millions in fees in the process. Lutnick has also been twisting the arms of American allies and dangling policy favors in exchange for investments in U.S. industrial projects that have given his family's clients access to foreign capital.

If we had tough anti-corruption laws preventing such political payoffs and self-dealing, the Kochs, Musks, Trumps, Lutnicks, and other high-rollers wouldn't get the spoils of their political influence: tax breaks, regulatory rollbacks, and government subsidies that have enlarged their fortunes.

4. The fourth way to make more than a billion is to extort big investors.

Adam Neumann conned J.P.Morgan, SoftBank, and other investors to sink hundreds of millions into WeWork, an office-sharing startup. Neumann used some of the money to buy buildings he leased back to WeWork and to enjoy a lifestyle that included a $60 million private jet. WeWork never made a nickel of profit.

After Neumann was forced to disclose his personal conflicts of interest, WeWork's initial public offering fell apart, and the company's estimated value plummeted. To salvage what they could, investors paid him over $1 billion to exit the board and give up his voting rights. Most other WeWork employees were left holding near-worthless stock options. Thousands were set to be laid off.

A few wealthy fraudsters have been found guilty and forced to disgorge their ill-gotten gains (in 2024, Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange, whose net worth reached an estimated $26 billion, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for defrauding customers and investors of nearly $10 billion).

But many have not. If we had tougher anti-fraud laws and better enforcement, Neumann and others like him wouldn't be billionaires.

5. The fifth way to make more than a billion is to get the money from rich parents or relatives.

new UBS report finds that a record number — 91 people — became billionaires in 2025 through inheritance. Their total bounty was almost $300 billion.

It's the beginning of what's expected to be the largest inter-generational wealth transfer in history, during which heirs will inherit at least $5.9 trillion over the next 15 years.

An estimated 45 percent of all wealth in America is inherited. That's because, under U.S. tax law — which is itself largely a product of lobbying by the wealthy — the capital gains of one generation are wiped out when those assets are transferred to the next.

As Mitt Romney (remember him?) recently pointed out, had Elon Musk purchased his Tesla stock for, say, $1 billion and held it until his death, and if it were then worth $500 billion, he would never pay the 24 percent federal capital gains tax on the $499 billion profit. Under the current tax code, when Musk's heirs inherit his stock, the assets will be treated as if the heirs purchased it for $500 billion. So no one will ever pay taxes on the $499 billion capital gain.

If unearned income were treated the same as earned income under the tax code, America's non-working rich wouldn't be billionaires. And if capital gains weren't eliminated at death, many heirs wouldn't be, either.

The good news is that Americans are becoming increasingly alarmed about the harms billionaires are inflicting on our system. A Harris poll released last month finds that over half of Americans (53 percent) believe that billionaires are threatening democracy.

In addition, a significant 71 percent of Americans believe there should be a wealth tax. And a majority believe there should be a cap on how much wealth a person can accumulate.

These schemes also threaten capitalism itself. The system doesn't work when monopolies, insider trading, political payoffs, fraud, and large amounts of inherited wealth are rigging it. As the system loses public trust, it begins to unravel.

When and if sane and honest people ever again control the U.S. government, one of the first things they should do is enact a tax on large accumulations of wealth.

Also an end to the current rule that allows all capital gains to be erased when the owners of the capital die, thereby enabling heirs to inherit all the accumulated wealth tax-free.

Not the least, we must get big money out of politics — to end the bribes and corruption that have distorted capitalism for the benefit of a handful of people at the top. (Here's a way to do it.)





--
****
Juan Matute
CCRC