5
#000000
#FFFFFF
inequality
Can the Billionaire Oligarchs Buy Their Way Out of Populist Outrage?
Working people notice when they're getting screwed but a massive right-wing media infrastructure exists to redirect their anger, probably the oligarchs’ greatest achievement.
Oct 06, 2026
Will the worldwide revolt against oligarchy reach America before the billionaires buy our elections this fall?
Two weeks ago tomorrow, on September 23rd, Madrid’s police had to cordon off a downtown street to carry an 87-year-old woman named María del Carmen Abascal out of the apartment she’d lived in for seven decades. She normally uses a wheelchair, so they carried her out on a stretcher, which provided some truly inflammatory social media video. All because her landlord wanted to raise the rent, which requires a change of tenants.
The pictures of María being carried out of her apartment lit Spain on fire; she’s become the face of the nation’s housing crisis which has seen average rents nearly double in the past ten years. This past weekend tens of thousands marched again, with about a thousand people camped out in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol: one banner read “Looking for an apartment, selling a kidney.”
While the pressure campaign worked on the landlord, who backed down and agreed to let her go home, it didn’t work on the “conservative” politicians who dominate the Spanish parliament. When Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s government proposed emergency tenant protections, the conservative opposition parties joined forces to kill them in parliament. As a result, Sánchez has pretty much been forced into taking the gamble of calling a snap election for November 29th.
Spain is the microcosm, but this is happening all across the developed world. France is on fire because students are tired of their schools being starved for resources. Populist movements are sweeping the European continent.
Forty-five years of “conservative” neoliberalism and austerity — all specifically designed to make the rich richer at the expense of working class people — have left average citizens furious.
And that fury is driving two parallel movements; the big question before us is which one will prevail both this fall here and over the next few years worldwide.
One movement is reflected in the encampment in Puerta del Sol where people understand that the landlord, land speculators, and the morbidly rich are the cause of their pain. You could call this the New Deal movement, for shorthand.
The other is seen in the far-right parties that have been topping the polls in Germany, France, and Britain by telling those same frightened people that it’s not the billionaires that are the problem; it’s that brown-skinned immigrant with a funny name or the queer kid who lives down the street.
Whichever side wins the argument over who’s the villain in today’s economic crisis for working people will be the one that ends up running these countries, including America.
We’ve seen this movie before here in America, although most people have no memory of it and could only vaguely recognize a quick telling of history.
The last time the morbidly rich held as much of our nation’s wealth and political power as they do today was the Gilded Age from the 1880s to the late 1920s, and popular rage at the oligarchs led to real progressive change:
- Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, and then progressive Republican Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft used it to break up the railroad and oil trusts along with dozens of others.
- The Tillman Act of 1907 made it a crime for corporations to give money or any sort of support to federal candidates for office.
- The income tax arrived in 1913 and the estate tax in 1916, and by the 1930s Franklin Roosevelt was building Social Security, the right to unionize, and the rest of the New Deal on that simple foundation.
- After World War II, democracies around the world copied FDR’s American New Deal formula, and that tightly regulated capitalism along with high taxes on the morbidly rich produced the largest middle class in history.
Then working class people and progressives got complacent, thinking this would be the new normal forever, with a single paycheck being the entrée into the middle class. The oligarchs, however, were just getting started, just like they did during the Industrial Revolution following the Civil War that produced the first Gilded Age.
As I lay out in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy, the counterattack began in 1971 when a corrupt tobacco lawyer named Lewis Powell wrote a memo for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urging corporate America to step up and use their great wealth to seize control of our courts, campuses, media, low-media-cost low-population states that could be flipped Red, and Congress.
The Heritage Foundation and ALEC followed within two years, as rightwing billionaires started buying radio stations, newspapers, and television networks, while Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan turned the project into government policy.
The regulations and tax rates that had restrained great wealth and political corruption came down, and the money and political power of giant corporations and the morbidly rich have largely controlled both our politics and our economy ever since.
Working people noticed they were getting screwed but by then there was a massive rightwing media infrastructure to redirect their anger, probably the oligarchs’ greatest achievement.
For example, when Bush’s 2008 property- and bank-crash set off real rage at the banks and their oligarch CEOs, Koch-funded front groups organized it into the Tea Party and pointed it at Obama and his attempts to give all Americans healthcare.
It hit its peak of success when Donald Trump came down the escalator in 2015, telling voters he didn’t need anybody’s money because, as he put it, “I’m really rich.” Suddenly it wasn’t the rich who were screwing average Americans: it was the rich who’d save us!
To pull it off, he appropriated New Deal and Great Society language, promising to save and even strengthen Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; this is what con men have done throughout history.
The voters wanted their New Deal back with its middle class security on a single paycheck, but, true to Republican form, what they got instead was trillions in tax cuts for billionaires like Trump and his cabinet, paid for with almost a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid, an experimental program in six states to further privatize Medicare, and threats to cut Social Security.
One of the most interesting laboratories for finding out whether billionaire money can still buy public opinion the way the Kochs did with the Tea Party is Prop 40 in California, the 5 percent one-time tax on that state’s roughly 230 billionaires that will cover the healthcare shortfall the state will experience because of the Big Beautiful Billionaire’s Bill’s cuts to Medicaid.
A billionaire-backed group has gathered more than $187 million to stop it, while the measure’s backers have only pulled together an estimated $31 million. Google’s Sergey Brin alone has put in over $100 million.
The billionaires’ group even succeeded in getting two decoy measures, Props 41 and 42, on the same ballot, written so that if either one gets more votes than Prop 40, the billionaire tax dies even if a majority of Californians vote for it.
And the ads for the “No on 40” campaign is featuring teachers, firefighters, and the head of the state’s Planned Parenthood affiliates while the “Yes on 40” side says in the official voter guide that actual teachers, nurses, and Planned Parenthood workers support the tax.
It’s the same kind of phony grassroots campaign Reagan used when he promised cutting taxes and killing unions would increase prosperity, and when the Tea Party and GOP warned against “communism” in Obamacare, forcing the end to the possibility of a public option.
This same billionaire and corporate money is now pouring into the Senate races nationwide, using tools the robber barons of the late 19th century could have only dreamed about.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee released a deepfake of Texas Democrat James Talarico in a dress with a disclosure so small and faint that Berkeley digital forensics expert Hany Farid said most people wouldn’t immediately know it was fake. Another group produced a phony “Daisy” ad portraying him as a doctor performing gender surgeries on children.
In Michigan, Republicans greeted Abdul El-Sayed’s primary win with ads built around his full name and the Muslim Brotherhood, and their main super PAC has committed $51 million to that one race. On Sunday, I watched MS NOW play two of the newest deceptive Republican deepfakes, one putting Talarico in a makeup chair and another inventing “terrorists” in El-Sayed’s family.
Spending just on Senate races is projected to pass $3.4 billion this cycle, and most of the big money is just now starting to hit the airwaves and, thus, tightening the races that had seemed were in the bag for Democrats.
And if the lies don’t work, there’s always the power of our currently-billionaire-run government to insert itself in ways that can spin an election out of control. Last September Trump signed a national security memorandum called NSPM-7 that directs the FBI, the Treasury, and the IRS to go after the networks and funders behind what it calls domestic terrorism, and it lists among the “indicators” of that terrorism:
“anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity.”
By that standard, María’s Spanish neighbors camped in a public square to protest a greedy landlord could find themselves under investigation. Add the masked, anonymous, trigger-happy ICE thugs already working our streets with their new electric shock gloves, and the machinery of a “papers, please” society is right here right now.
There’s no way this one single election will settle all this. During the first Gilded Age, it took 45 years to go from the Sherman Act to Social Security — with quite a few lost elections along the way —and the people who won that fight went through it never knowing if they’d prevail or not; the biggest intervention was probably the Republican Great Depression.
But this November is a hinge moment in history. A Congress that can check Trump, a billionaire tax passed in the biggest state in the union, and senators like Talarico and El-Sayed who explicitly have run against the Epstein billionaire class would tell every Republican and the oligarchs who own them that their old trick of pointing at immigrants and trans kids has stopped working.
On the other hand, if the deepfakes, decoy ballot measures, massive rightwing media penetration, algorithmic manipulation on billionaire-owned social media platforms, and billions in ads win out instead, they’ll be used in every election from here on.
The easy lesson here is that if Spain’s protesters got an 87-year-old woman back into her home by showing up, we can do the same for our democracy that’s been so badly battered by 45 years of Republican con men and Democratic neoliberals.
The next No Kings day of action is Saturday, October 17th, and “No Kings” has always meant “No Oligarchs,” too.
Check your registration at vote.org, call your members of Congress through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and tell them you want deepfake political ads outlawed, and if you live in California, vote yes on 40 and no on 41 and 42.
Keep Reading
Show Less
The Wealthy Hold More Power Than Ever—Can We Take It Back?
How can government enact and enforce the necessary reforms if it’s under the control of a power elite that won’t permit them?
Oct 05, 2026
Behind this election’s dominant issue of affordability lies the record concentration of wealth at the top of America. The richest 0.001% of Americans—a handful of extraordinarily wealthy men—now control more of the nation’s wealth than at any time in modern history.
To be sure, wealth is not a zero-sum game in which the riches of those at the top necessarily come at the expense of everyone else. But power is a zero-sum game, because the more of it that is held by some people, the less of it is held by others.
Wealth cannot be separated from power. Great wealth becomes great power through campaign contributions, media ownership, the ability to buy off opposition, the capacity to wage pubic relations campaigns, and the resources to deploy armies of lawyers who litigate on your behalf. Recent years provide abundant illustration of all this.
This massive power shift is even more starkly illustrated by the billionaires, financial mavens, and tech bros who put Trump in power, who refuse to slow climate change, and who are now deciding on the future of AI and therefore humanity.
In these ways, great power also becomes great wealth. It buys changes in laws, regulations, and court decisions that bestow even more wealth on those with the power to alter the system to their benefit—and to siphon off resources from everyone else.
This power shift has also become clearly evident in recent years. In the Trump era it has taken the form of blatant corruption. But the political bribes, billionaire media ownership, PR campaigns, and well-financed litigation predated President Donald Trump.
For many years (with the notable exception of the Biden administration), antitrust enforcement has been defanged to make it easier for big firms to monopolize. Among the most widely discussed findings about the US economy is the rise of corporate concentration since the 1980s. The biggest firms, their top executives, and their major shareholders have all done wonderfully well. Consumers and employees, however, have faced higher prices, lower paychecks, and fewer choices.
At the same time, labor laws have been altered to make it more difficult to organize unions. In the 1950s, more than a third of private-sector workers were unionized. Now, fewer than 6% are.
Tax laws have been changed to reduce the rates and amounts paid by the super-wealthy, to the point where many pay no taxes at all—even though they have more wealth than ever.
This massive power shift is even more starkly illustrated by the billionaires, financial mavens, and tech bros who put Trump in power, who refuse to slow climate change, and who are now deciding on the future of AI and therefore humanity.
The question I keep coming back to is whether this can be reversed.
There is historic precedent. After the first Gilded Age—which ran from the 1890s to the start of World War I, and which featured wide inequalities of income, wealth, and political power—America reacted in what came to be known as the Progressive Era.
Starting under Theodore Roosevelt, monopolies were busted up, corporations were regulated, a progressive income tax was enacted, and corporate political donations (bribes) were barred. Then, starting in 1933, under Teddy Roosevelt’s fifth cousin, power continued to be shifted to what became the largest middle class in world history.
Then came the 1970s and 1980s, when the process began to go in reverse.
The challenge is arguably much greater today because wealth and power are more concentrated than in the first Gilded Age, creating a chicken-and-egg paradox: How can government enact and enforce the necessary reforms if it’s under the control of a power elite that won’t permit them?
Now, just four weeks from what could be a major political victory for the Democrats in taking back at least one chamber of Congress, this paradox should soon be the center of our national debate.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Democracy Means More Life, But Not to Trump and Company
The administration’s agenda for the last two years is built around the concept of less access to life. It has committed billions of taxpayer dollars to this mission.
Oct 03, 2026
It’s such a simple idea—that our nation was founded to provide its citizens and new arrivals with more life. Our unique form of government, grounded in the notion of self-determination, explicitly seeks to expand life possibilities for more people so that they might realize gifts granted at birth. Why didn’t this occur to me sooner? After all, “life” so clearly precedes “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence.
To our detriment, we are now living through a period where the person we elected president, whose predecessors largely upheld the nation’s founding principles, seeks to bury its most basic intent. The administration’s agenda for the last two years is built around the concept of less access to life. It has committed billions of taxpayer dollars to this mission. When superimposed on their repetitive attempts to disempower women, people of color, and ethnic minorities, the four efforts that follow cap a prolonged assault on life:
The allocation of vast resources to expel several hundred thousand people from the country, sidestepping their due process rights. All emigrated to fulfill more of life’s possibilities in safer and more nurturing surroundings. A strong majority have bolstered the nation’s economic might and cultural richness. Read this Guardian article for a full grasp of the horrifying actions done in our name and paid for with taxpayer dollars. For those expelled, life’s possibilities have been lessened. Ours too are diminished, as their contributions are subtracted from community life.
Preserving an entitlement to more life in all its various forms inspires a cause that warrants universal backing.
The denial of science-based findings regarding climate disruption and positive health measures. This translates into many more citizens having fewer life options. On the climate front, the administration has contended that more oil enhances our lives. The truth is that more oil equals less life. Profligate burning of it disrupts the proper functioning of the atmosphere, sickens more people, and causes extreme weather that results in severe dislocations and needless deaths. At the same time, disregarding years of learning regarding preventive health measures and positive treatment protocols shrinks the chances of more of us for a full life.
The constriction of public discourse by curtailing press freedom and criminalizing constitutionally protected citizen dissent. The upshot is that the breadth and depth of the field of ideas available to us as citizens is considerably constrained. Life’s richness is fed with bursts of fresh air, not with heavy doses of government suppression. When the range of the possible is narrowed, there is less of life’s potential.
The direction of public resources in support of the fortunes of a few extremely wealthy people. This distortion shuts off opportunities for more citizens to spread their economic wings in pursuit of a better life. The so-called “American Dream” has become a mirage of unrealizable expectations for 90% of the population. Ironically, it was the throttling of these expectations that stoked the anger and resentment of a plurality of our fellow citizens and led to the election of a person committed to limiting life chances for millions.
These acts, designed to deprive constituents of more life, are evidence of a transgression more egregious than all the others this administration has perpetrated. It demands immediate attention and redress.
Strategically speaking, fighting for more life is easier to grasp than fighting for democracy, The latter asked people to stand together in defense of an abstract idea. For some it had partisan overtones. In contrast, preserving an entitlement to more life in all its various forms inspires a cause that warrants universal backing. It would be sufficient for undertaking a mass movement fueled by nonviolent direct action.
Who of us, regardless of political affiliation, would advocate for less life? This is the cause for which we must fight now—to regain the ground we have lost, and to realize even more fully the primary intent of the Declaration of Independence: more life.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'I Know Where I Want to Live': Ex-Venture Capitalist Explains Why He'd Be Happy to Pay California Billionaire Tax
"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride. Our tax system favors wealthy people, and the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
Oct 01, 2026
As some of California's richest residents pour tens of millions of dollars into defeating a proposed billionaire tax, one former venture capitalist is making a remarkably different argument: He is perfectly happy to pay it—and he's not alone.
John O'Farrell, a former partner at Andreessen Horowitz, explained Wednesday in a 12-post thread on the social media platform X why he supports the California Billionaire Tax Act, commonly known as Proposition 40, which is on the state's November midterm ballot.
O'Farrell's argument contradicts the chorus of Silicon Valley billionaires and their allies who warn that taxing billionaire wealth would drive the ultra-rich out of California.
"I know where I want to live," he wrote.
"I've been fortunate to benefit from tech wealth. I'm not even close to being a billionaire, but I could easily afford to pay the wealth tax—and any billionaire certainly can—without the slightest effect on my lifestyle," O'Farrell said. "I support a wealth tax at my wealth level also."
Introduced by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, with an option to pay the tax in annual installments of 1% over five years.
The proposal would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
"I find the knee-jerk opposition of some ultra-wealthy people to the idea of paying any new tax deeply disappointing," O'Farrell said in his thread. "To be honest, I can't understand it. They have so much money they couldn't spend it in multiple lifetimes."
Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies—a Washington, DC-based progressive think tank—exposed 22 California billionaires who have poured more than $150 million into defeating Prop 40, "with more rolling in every day," as Chuck Collins wrote for the group.
"These 22 include a prince, several private jet-flying chums of Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of crypto and tech bros designing the [artificial intelligence] future for the rest of us," Collins noted. "On January 1, 2025, these 22 billionaires had a combined wealth of $439.8 billion. By September 1, 2026, their wealth had grown to $722.1 billion. In a little under 20 months, their combined wealth increased $282.6 billion, a gain of over 64%."
O'Farrell's social media thread pointed out how "our tax system favors wealthy people."
"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride," he wrote, adding, "the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
"Paying taxes is ultimately a matter of self-interest," he contended. "What kind of society do we want to live in? One that rewards achievement but also emphasizes fairness and opportunity for all—or one in which you have to cower in a bunker and live in fear of the pitchforks?"
"One enables the pursuit of happiness for all," he concluded. "The other, just the pursuit of endless wealth."
Prop 40 is backed by numerous progressive groups including the Teamsters union, California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
Sanders, Khanna, and others—including Congresswoman Aisha Wahab (D-Calif.), Democratic congressional candidate Randy Villegas, and California insurance commissioner candidate Jane Kim—are set to speak at a series of rallies for Prop 40 starting Saturday in San Francisco.
O'Farrell isn't the only wealthy Californian who supports Prop 40. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose fortune has soared into the hundreds of billions of dollars, has said he is “perfectly fine” with the proposed tax, telling Bloomberg that he and his family “chose to live in Silicon Valley” and that whatever taxes California applies, “so be it.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Has Clubbed Our Tax Code Back Into the Stone Age—Can Congress Fix It?
Lawmakers face a choice: They can continue their vote-pandering through “no tax on” proposals, or they can address the glaring structural flaws in the federal income tax and, in doing so, perhaps save our tax system and our democracy.
Sep 27, 2026
A tale of two couples:
Barney and Betty are both 66. Betty works as a hostess at a local restaurant. She makes $15,000 in hourly pay, plus another $25,000 in tips. Barney owns an interest in his family’s business, organized as a Subchapter S corporation, from which his annual income is $50,000. Over the holidays, Barney works long hours at a local big box store. He makes $10,000, $2,500 of which is the premium for overtime.
At tax time, Barney and Betty report $100,000 of adjusted gross income. In computing their taxable income, they take deductions of $25,000 for Betty’s tips, $12,000 in deductions for seniors, a $10,000 qualified business income deduction for Barney’s income from the family business, a $2,500 deduction for Barney’s overtime pay, and a standard deduction of $35,500, leaving them with taxable income of $15,000 and a federal income tax bill liability of $1,500.
The only path out of this mess is to rebalance our income tax structure. The Working Americans Tax Cut Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.O would accomplish that rebalancing.
Fred and Wilma are both 64. Wilma no longer works. Fred makes $100,000 per year as an accountant with a local firm. Although he works long hours during tax season, he is not paid overtime because of his base compensation and position, which includes managerial duties. At tax time, Fred and Wilma report $100,000 of adjusted gross income. They take a standard deduction of $32,200, leaving them with taxable income of $67,800 and a federal income tax liability of $7,640.
These are, of course, concocted examples. But they show how tax policy in the US under President Donald Trump has returned to the Stone Age. There are couples with tax pictures virtually identical to Barney and Betty’s and other couples with tax pictures virtually identical to Fred and Wilma’s. Do they ever compare their respective situations? Do they question the Swiss cheese tax code we have courtesy of two Trump tax bills?
Could it get worse? Absolutely. As Brian Faler at Politico reported, members of Congress have a slew of new “no tax on” proposals ready to campaign on. No Tax on Boat Loan Interest? Yep. Taxes on Utility Bills? Absolutely, and it’s bipartisan no less! I spoke to a senior congressional staffer a few months ago who was just giddy about all the “no tax on” proposals his office hoped to include in a 2029 budget reconciliation bill.
The “no tax on” provisions currently in the tax code are set to expire after 2028. Will they be extended? Of course they will. As I commented to Politico, if you do away with no tax on tips, you can kiss the state of Nevada goodbye. And imagine how this will play in the other swing states in 2028. “No tax on auto workers” sure will sound sweet in Michigan. And if you want to carry Georgia, you damn well better sign on to “no tax on peanut farm workers.” By the time we get to the 2032 campaign, the pandering will be stripped of all pretense and we’ll be hearing “no tax on Pennsylvanians.”
How problematic is this from a tax policy perspective? Huge. The federal income tax system depends on voluntary compliance. The system must make sense to taxpayers for them to voluntarily comply. If you’re Fred or Wilma, would our tax system still make sense to you? Hardly.
How, then, do we rein this craziness in? We start by identifying the source of the problem. As gimmicky as provisions like no tax on tips are, and even though they benefit only a tiny percentage of workers, they address a need millions of Americans feel and millions more Americans understand. When people hear “tipped worker,” they don’t picture the blackjack dealer at the Venetian making $150,000 a year. They don’t even picture a worker like Betty, who together with her husband enjoys a comfortable income. They picture the struggling unmarried server at their local Denny’s slinging dishes for $35,000. And they understand well she doesn’t have enough income before federal income tax, let alone after, to pay her basic living expenses.
Now, consider struggling non-tipped workers and their reaction to no tax on tips. Do they think their tipped counterparts are getting an unfair break like the ultra rich get on their lightly-taxed investment gains? Or do they think that they should have their income tax burdens reduced as well, and that the rich should be required to pay more?
Asking those questions, of course, answers them, and shines a light on the real problem: The federal income tax is fundamentally flawed at both ends of the income spectrum. At the lower end, incomes not even sufficient to cover basic living expenses are subject to federal income tax. At the upper end, marginal rates top out at a fraction of the country’s highest income levels. Doctors making in the high six figures face the same marginal tax rate as CEOs making 50 times that much.
The only path out of this mess is to rebalance our income tax structure. The Working Americans Tax Cut Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.O would accomplish that rebalancing. Their bill provides an exemption from federal income tax for income up to the basic cost of living, with a progressively smaller income tax reduction for those with incomes just above the basic cost of living. At the same time, the bill imposes a surtax on income in excess of $1 million, and larger surtaxes on incomes above $2 million and $5 million.
If the Working Americans Tax Cut Act becomes law, the ghastly “no tax on” provisions could be allowed to expire. The great majority of tipped workers, like that struggling server at Denny’s, won’t care, since they’d pay no federal income tax either way. A handful of taxpayers would still benefit from no tax on tips. But nobody will waste political capital on a tax break for affluent blackjack dealers.
Members of Congress face a choice. They can continue their vote-pandering through “no tax on” proposals. Or they can address the glaring structural flaws in the federal income tax and, in doing so, perhaps save our tax system and our democracy.
Let’s hope they make the right choice. Stone Age tax policy won’t end well for any of us.
This article was originally published on Bob Lord's Substack.
Keep Reading
Show Less
An IPCC for Inequality Is Good, But It Can't Replace the Movement That Made It Possible
The gap between rich and poor will not be closed in a seminar room, it will be closed the way every advance against entrenched power has been won, by people organizing, demanding, and refusing to be told that the way things are is the way they have to stay.
Sep 25, 2026
For years, the people organizing against extreme inequality have made a simple argument that the world’s institutions preferred not to hear: The gap between the very rich and everyone else is not an accident, not a law of nature, and not something we have to accept. It is a choice, made by people with the power to choose differently.
For a long time that was a fringe position. It isn’t any more.
You can see the shift in the news that South Africa is pushing to create an International Panel on Inequality, like an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the wealth gap, to pull the evidence together in one authoritative place and put it in front of governments. Joseph Stiglitz backs it. More than 500 economists have signed on.
Nobody skipping meals is waiting for a footnote. What they are waiting for is action, and action comes from pressure.
This is a good thing, and we welcome it. When the establishment builds an institution to take your issue seriously, it means the argument is being won. The people who got this far deserve credit.
But I want to be honest about where the real momentum is coming from, because it matters for what happens next. The panel is a sign of progress. It is not the engine of it. The engine is the movement that dragged inequality up the agenda in the first place, and that movement is where the story of actual change has been written.
Look at what the IPCC has actually done so far. For 30 years it has produced the best climate science anyone had ever assembled. It won a Nobel Prize. It leaves no room for honest denial. And for a long time, governments read it and carried on much as before. The science mattered enormously.
However, it moved politics fastest when people forced it to: kids walking out of school on Fridays for the Future, communities blocking fossil fuel projects like the Keystone XL Oil Pipeline. The movement was decisive. Change came when the two worked together, and not a moment before.
Inequality is in the same place as the climate crisis now—the evidence is not the thing we are short of. We already know the shape of it. The richest 1% took 41% of all the new wealth created between 2000 and 2024. Around 2.3 billion people, nearly 1 in 4 of us, now skip meals because they can’t afford to eat. South Africa, which is carrying this panel forward, is the most unequal country the World Bank has ever recorded.
A panel will sharpen that picture, and sharper is better. But nobody skipping meals is waiting for a footnote. What they are waiting for is action, and action comes from pressure.
Here is the encouraging part: That pressure is already working.
When Brazil used its G20 presidency to put a global tax on billionaires on the table, it did not come from nowhere. Movements, campaigners, and economists had pushed the idea for years, and the Fight Inequality Alliance was part of that.
The economist Gabriel Zucman drew up a plan: a 2% minimum tax on the world’s roughly 3,000 billionaires, enough to raise around $250 billion a year. In November 2024, for the first time, G20 leaders agreed to cooperate on taxing the ultra rich. An idea dismissed as impossible a few years earlier was suddenly the position of the world’s largest economies.
That is what movements do. They move the line of what is politically possible, and they do it faster than any institution.
This is why the movement matters, and why its role in this next chapter should be front and center. We are the ones knocking on the doors, running the campaigns, and keeping the pressure on long after the summit is over and the experts have gone home.
We have been doing it without a panel, and we have already moved things many said could not be moved. Give that movement the authoritative evidence a body like this can provide, and you do not only get a better report. You get a sharper weapon in the hands of the people already fighting.
The tax has not been won yet. The United States and Germany refused to back a binding version, and it was watered down to a promise to cooperate. But notice why.
It did not stall for lack of evidence. Zucman had done the numbers, and nobody serious disputed them. It stalled because the people who would pay still had the power to slow it down. That is the real contest, and it is not a contest of data. It is a contest of power, and power is shifted by organized people, not by publications.
I say all this as someone who spends more time with campaigners than with economists, and I will be honest about our own side too.
Movements do not win every time. We are sometimes better at naming a problem than at holding the ground we take. But the lesson of the last decade is not that we need fewer people in the fight and more in the seminar room. It is the opposite. The evidence has been overwhelming for years. What has changed the weather is people refusing to accept it.
So build this panel well, and build it close to the movement that made it necessary. Let it answer the questions people are actually fighting over. Get its evidence into the hands of the people doing the pushing. Check whether it does speak to the inequalities and the solutions people are talking about and demanding change for. Treat the organizers and the communities living this every day as partners in the work, not an audience for the findings. Do that, and this panel becomes part of something genuinely powerful.
Because the gap will not be closed in a seminar room. It never has been. It will be closed the way every advance against entrenched power has been won, by people organizing, demanding, and refusing to be told that the way things are is the way they have to stay.
The evidence is on our side. It has been for a long time. Now comes the part that actually changes lives.
Keep Reading
Show Less
$2.2 Trillion: The Collective Net Worth of 'Big Tech Oligarchs' Invited to Trump-Xi Dinner
US Sen. Bernie Sanders noted that the expected dinner attendees "have nearly doubled their wealth since Trump's election."
Sep 24, 2026
The combined net worth of the tech executives expected to attend US President Donald Trump's private dinner Thursday night with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, is around $2 trillion, underscoring the staggering wealth and political influence of the small group of moguls poised to profit immensely from rapid developments in artificial intelligence—which researchers and industry insiders say is a threat to humanity.
The dinner attendee list is expected to include Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the world's richest man; OpenAI CEO Sam Altman; Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang; Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg; Google CEO Sundar Pichai; and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. A Forbes analysis released earlier this week estimated that the tech executives are worth a combined $2.2 trillion.
The Trump White House has published the dinner menu for the event but has not released any details on what will be discussed on Thursday night. Given the expected guest list—and intensifying competition between the US and China on AI development—artificial intelligence is expected to be a major topic of discussion.
Earlier this week, during a speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Trump dismissed efforts to regulate AI and said he plans to "encourage" the technology, "not rein it in."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who introduced legislation earlier this week that would ban AI superintelligence and pause advanced AI development, wrote in a social media post on Thursday that "the function of AI must be to improve life for all humanity, not just make a handful of billionaires even richer."
Sanders pointed to the guest list for the Trump-Xi dinner and noted that the expected attendees "have nearly doubled their wealth since Trump's election."
Trump invited 10 Big Tech Oligarchs to his private dinner with President Xi of China.
They have nearly doubled their wealth since Trump's election & are now worth almost $2 trillion. Here's how much richer each of them got since Trump was elected:
Elon Musk: ⬆️ $658 billion…
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) September 24, 2026
Bloomberg reporter Jonathan Tamari argued that the Trump-Xi dinner shows how the US president has "treated Silicon Valley execs almost like an extension of his administration."
Other executives expected to attend the dinner are Citigroup’s Jane Fraser, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and Apple's Tim Cook.
Keep Reading
Show Less
In Riverside Church Address, Sanders Warns 'Dangerous Global Oligarchy' Threatens Humanity
"If there was ever a time in human history, in our country and throughout the world, that we have got to come together and create a world not based on greed but based on justice, based on decency, now is the time."
Sep 22, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders warned in a speech late Monday that the world is hurtling toward "an extremely dangerous global oligarchy" whose unprecedented concentration of wealth and political power endangers democratic institutions, the environment, and humanity's collective future as artificial intelligence rapidly advances.
"The oligarchs of today, worth hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, having investments all over the world, fervently believe that they are the masters of the universe, and that they, through their enormous wealth and power, have been ordained to rule the world," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an address at the historic Riverside Church in Manhattan, where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered a famous speech condemning the Vietnam War. "Today we say to those oligarchs: This country, this world, belongs to all of us, not just you."
Sanders used his remarks, delivered as world leaders arrived in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly, to decry a massively unequal status quo under which political leaders cater to the needs of billionaire donors and corporate interests rather than the broader population, whose wages are being swallowed by rising costs and whose communities are increasingly devastated by pollution and war.
Sanders also warned about the rise of "right-wing demagogues" who are exploiting real material struggles and government failures to advance nefarious agendas that pit "working people against each other based on the color of their skin, where they were born, or their religion."
"Instead of producing more bombs and weapons and seeing the military-industrial complex enjoy huge profits, governments throughout the world need to come together to feed the children, take care of the vulnerable, and protect our planet from the ravages of climate change," said Sanders, calling for an end to US military assistance to Israel, which is using American-made weaponry to carry out its genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip.
"Never before in human history have so few people held so much wealth and so much power, never before in human history have we had such enormous concentration of ownership," the senator said, warning that advancements in AI technology could dramatically intensify the crises facing humanity if control isn't wrested from "a handful of Big Tech oligarchs."
Watch Sanders' full speech:
Sanders called on US President Donald Trump, a billionaire who has dismissed warnings about the threats posed by AI, and Chinese President Xi Jinping to "begin the process of negotiating a comprehensive treaty to establish a pause on advanced AI and a ban on AI superintelligence" when the leaders meet this week.
The progressive senator also cautioned against "despair and depression" in the face of pressing global challenges, saying, "We got to stand up, we got to fight back, we've got to create the kind of nation and world that you and I know we can create."
"If there was ever a time in human history, in our country and throughout the world, that we have got to come together and create a world not based on greed but based on justice, based on decency, now is the time," said Sanders.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Nobel-Winning Economists Say California Billionaire Tax Could Be ‘Turning Point in the Battle Between Democracy and Oligarchy’
“What will allow California to thrive in the future," the economists said, "is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax-free: it is adequate public spending on health, education, and public infrastructure, key engines of economic growth."
Sep 21, 2026
As California voters head to the polls this November, their vote on whether to enact a first-of-its-kind billionaire wealth tax may mark "a turning point in the battle between democracy and oligarchy," says a group of Nobel Prize-winning economists.
The fight over Proposition 40—a ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of those with $1 billion or more in order to fund the state's healthcare system—has heated up in recent weeks.
The initiative remains popular, with 52% of voters in the state supporting it, according to a poll out last week. But California's elite have lined up at least $156 million behind an aggressive campaign to kill it, with Google co-founder Sergey Brin alone giving at least $102 million.
And while the proposal has strong backing from progressive politicians and labor unions, some prominent Democrats have tried to stop it, most notably Gov. Gavin Newsom.
As the rich flood the airwaves with ads warning that taxing their wealth would bring about economic ruin, six Nobel laureates, all of whom have won the prestigious prize for their work in economics, signed an open letter on Saturday endorsing Prop. 40.
They are inequality scholar Daron Acemoglu, global poverty researcher Abhijit Banerjee, labor and public finance economist Peter Diamond, anti-poverty economist Esther Duflo, trade economist and columnist Paul Krugman, and inequality and globalization economist Joseph Stiglitz.
"Proposition 40 would be the first-ever tax on billionaire wealth enacted anywhere in the world," the economists wrote. "California is the right place to take this historic step."
They explained that the growing number of billionaires in the state in recent decades has helped to make California "one of the most unequal places in America." While the state's richest 0.001% of residents were worth a combined $700 billion a decade ago, its 250 billionaires are now worth about $2.3 trillion—equivalent to the entire annual income of the state's 20 million taxpayers.
"This extreme wealth has translated into extraordinary power," the economists wrote, citing data showing that during the 2024 election, billionaires accounted for 19% of all federal election spending in the US and that these same billionaires are now marshaling huge sums of money to oppose a tax that would affect them.
While acknowledging that many of California's wealthiest have "made important contributions, for which they have been amply rewarded," the researchers noted their use of loopholes in the tax system to effectively pay a lower tax rate than the average Californian.
Most billionaire wealth is held in the form of stocks and other assets whose gains are not generally subject to income tax until they are sold.
As a result, billionaires in the state paid about $3 billion in state income taxes per year from 2019-25, while their fortunes increased by about $1.4 trillion over the period. Dividing total state income tax by that increase equals roughly 1.6%. Meanwhile, the average California family pays about 5-6% of their annual income in state income taxes.
The economists argued that enacting a wealth tax would allow the state to play "catch-up," raising about $100 billion—enough to offset federal cuts to the state's Medicaid program enacted in the Republican budget legislation last year, which have helped to fuel thousands of layoffs at hospitals around the state.
They also disputed a common counterargument that the tax will spur billionaire flight from the state and "doom" Silicon Valley.
Not only would the tax apply to any billionaire living in the state as of January 1, 2026, meaning most would not have had time to relocate; they also pointed out that in 2026, after Prop. 40 was announced, California has attracted 80% of the nation's venture capital funding, compared to just 50% prior to 2025, according to data from PitchBook's Venture Monitor.
“What will allow California to thrive in the future," the economists said, "is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax-free: It is adequate public spending on health, education, and public infrastructure, key engines of economic growth to which it is only fair to ask the ultrawealthy to contribute.”
They added that passing Prop. 40 "isn’t just critical for Californians," but could "kickstart a movement to tax ultra-high-net-worth individuals in other states—and eventually at the federal level and in other countries."
The six Nobel laureates who signed Saturday's letter are not the first prominent economists to publicly advocate for the wealth tax. University of California, Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez helped draft the proposal, while Gabriel Zucman, a chaired professor at the Paris School of Economics, has conducted research underpinning it. Paris School professor Thomas Piketty and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich have also come out in support of the ballot initiative.
Responding to the letter from the Nobel laureates, Dutch historian and wealth tax advocate Rutger Bregman—whose School for Moral Ambition has worked alongside Zucman to promote similar initiatives around the world—said it was "really great to see" more celebrated economists speaking up in favor of the proposal.
"You don't have to be a radical leftist to see why it's a good idea," Bregman wrote on social media. "This is not going to be some kind of socialist revolution. The proposal is about restoring balance to a mixed economy. You could even argue it's about saving capitalism itself from oligarchs like Sergey Brin. I think that's exactly why Nobel Prize-winning economists are coming out in favor of this tax."
Keep Reading
Show Less
15 Years After Occupy, the Case Against the System Has Never Been Clearer
The 1%’s record wealth and the 99%’s rising cost of living are not two distinct stories. They are one transaction, and we are on the paying end of it.
Sep 19, 2026
As we mark 15 years since Occupy Wall Street, it is worth remembering that the movement against inequality has a long lineage. The Gen Z-led protests flooding the streets of India, Kenya, Bolivia, and Tunisia today have been building for generations.
On the last day of November 1999, tens of thousands of people shut down the World Trade Organization summit in Seattle. Trade unionists marched alongside environmentalists, students locked arms with farmers, and for a few extraordinary days the people who run the global economy could not get into their own meeting.
The press called protesters a rabble with no coherent demand. They were wrong. The demand was simple and it has not changed: an economy that works for the many, not for a handful at the top.
Here is the lesson of the last decades, and the reason for hope: Every time the powerful have declared this movement finished, it has returned larger, sharper, and more connected than before.
That demand lands differently when you cannot afford the basics of life. In Seattle, the debate centred on trade rules. Today, people are doing the maths as they stand in front of a grocery food shop not knowing what they can afford to buy, tackle rents that consume the entire salary, and face energy bills that arrive like a threat. What was once an abstraction has become a household emergency.
Seattle did not come from nowhere. Five years earlier, the Zapatistas had risen in Southern Mexico on the day a free trade deal took effect, declaring that ordinary people had a right to refuse the terms being set for them from above.
The Jubilee movement had brought millions of people onto the streets and into churches to demand the cancellation of crushing debts owed by the world’s poorest countries.
By 2001 a hundred thousand people were meeting in Porto Alegre in Brazil under the banner “another world is possible,” and that same year a young man named Carlo Giuliani was shot dead protesting the G8 in Genoa, Italy.
The powerful learned early that this movement would not simply ask politely. It would demand systemic change.
Then came the crash. In 2008, the same financial system that had been sold to us as untouchable collapsed, and ordinary people were handed the bill while the bankers who broke it kept their bonuses. Out of that betrayal came the next great wave of action.
2011 brought Tahrir Square, the Spanish Indignados, the Greek fight against austerity, the Chilean students, and, in September, a small camp in the shadow of Wall Street.
The Occupy Wall Street movement gave the whole movement its slogan—“We are the 99%.” A single phrase that did what a thousand policy papers could not. The protesters drew the line. There is them, and there is the rest of us, and the rest of us are almost everyone.
Occupy’s camp was eventually cleared. Critics declared the moment over, the movement a failure, the slogan a fad. Look closer and you see something different.
The 1% have the money. We have the numbers, the history, and the truth.
The idea did not die. It moved into the bloodstream of public life. The language of the 1% vs the 99% is now spoken in parliaments and kitchens alike. Ideas once dismissed as fringe—taxing extreme wealth, cancelling illegitimate debt, treating billionaires as a policy problem rather than a national mascot—are now argued seriously by economists and demanded openly in the streets.
That is what a movement can do over time. Shift what people believe is normal, and then shift what they believe is possible.
We need that long memory now, because the case against the system has never been clearer. According to Oxfam, billionaire wealth hit a record $18.3 trillion in 2025, growing three times faster than in the previous five years, while the number of billionaires surpassed 3,000 for the first time in history. The richest 1% now own almost 44% of all the world’s wealth, while the poorest half of humanity holds barely half of 1% of all the world’s wealth.
Just 12 men hold more wealth than 4 billion people combined. Elon Musk recently became the first person in history to be worth a trillion dollars, in a world where 1 in 4 people goes hungry. This is not the weather. It is a result of a system, engineered by people with names and addresses who have rigged the rules in their own favor.
The other side of that ledger is the bill the rest of us pay. The same years that added a trillion to the top produced rents nobody can pay and food prices that climb faster than wages.
The 1%’s record wealth and the 99%’s rising cost of living are not two distinct stories. They are one transaction, and we are on the paying end of it. In the United States, rents across major cities have risen by more than a third since 2020, the cost of living now tops the list of voters’ concerns, and in 2025 Zohran Mamdani became mayor on an affordability platform in the very city where Occupy began.
And the wealthy know they are exposed, which is why they are buying protection. The super rich are now 4,000 times more likely to hold political office than the rest of us, and they have spent freely to capture the media, the courts, and the politics that might otherwise hold them to account. When wealth concentrates like this, democracy thins out. The fight against inequality and the fight for democracy are the same fight.
Here is the lesson of the last decades, and the reason for hope: Every time the powerful have declared this movement finished, it has returned larger, sharper, and more connected than before. Carnegie’s Global Protest Tracker recorded new anti-government protests in more than 70 countries in 2025.
The young people filling the streets today are not starting from zero. They stand on the shoulders of Seattle, Tahrir Square, Zuccotti Park, every square that was ever cleared, every campaign that was ever written off. And they are not marching over an abstraction. They are marching because the cost of a decent life has been priced out of reach while a few thousand people got richer than anyone in history.
So this one goes out to Gen Z, in every city and every country where the numbers no longer add up. Your time is now. You did not break this economy. You inherited the bill for it. Enough is enough.
The 1% have the money. We have the numbers, the history, and the truth. The only question that has ever mattered is whether we organize. Every generation before answered yes. Now it is yours to answer, and the world is waiting to hear it.
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy