the DON JONES INDEX…
|
||
|
@get: Ross Galloway eptax x08 –
see networth |
GAINS
POSTED in GREEN LOSSES POSTED in RED 7/31/26... 14,396.77 standard 14,394.17 reconfigured 7/24/26... 14,397.46 standard - 14,287.95 reconfigured
7/3/26... 15,029.54
reconfigured 6/27/13...
15,000.00
Original |
|
|
(THE DOW JONES INDEX: 7/31/26...52,208.06; 7/24/26...51,711.65;
6/27/13… 15,000.00) |
||
LESSON for FRIDAY,
JULY 31, 2026 – “SHOW US the
MONEY!”
Money!
Some have it, more don’t... nearly everybody wants it.
It is the substance and sustenance of the American Dream – and every
good American has, or should have, a strategy for obtaining it (or, if they
already have it, keeping it).
Some are legal, others not. Some
require hard, life-shortening physical labor – others a modicum of animal
cunning, still others merely good fortune as ordained prosperout genetics.
All but the most beaten-down agree and derelict understand that among
the requirements for rising in one’s station are information, education and...
for the fortunate few... connections.
To acquire education, many...
particularly the young of whatever Generative Appellation comes into vogue...
are sent off to schools. The majority attend public schools (whose
quality depends largely on ambient circumstances like location), other will opt
for private educations (often with an historical, religious or partisan
bent)... fewer still are home educated, although that might require hiding from
the police.
A general education often ends at or around the age of eighteen – after
which the student goes out and finds a job or, perhaps, joins the
military. Higher education... at a public
or private university... usually confers a degree that was believed to add a
degree of value to their worth, but often requires a huge outlay of funds,
often borrowed. There is a perception
that some institutions of higher education are better than others – these
usually cost more and often set applicants to compete against one another.
Not only the student’s future, but the parents’ reputation is often at
stake.
Most Americans can find some college or university willing to take them
– for a price. The United States has
filled millions of professional openings over the years – frequently
beneficial, occasionally not.
Sometimes an American will choose to be educated in another country...
whether to add cachet to his or her resume, to study under world-renowned
educators (or just start over after a disappointing tenure at home) or just for
fun.
In our last issue, we noted some of the conditions and sudden problems,
of the university system in India – the most populous nation in the world and
an ascending economic power which, unfortunately, has many of the problems that
have vexed Americans and other nations... decent and dedicated instructors
hamstrung by arrogant, greedy and often corrupt “administrators” and, worse, a
culture of corruption.
Many of India’s aspirants to the medical professions... a critical
industry, both domestic and for the revenues earned by doctors, nurses and
specialists from the subcontinent who choose to ply their trade in places where
they can be better paid – like the United States... rose up in anger after the
educational bureaucracy exceeded even the usual low expectations of the
bureaucrats and fouled up their process so bad that millions who had taken and
often passed their examinations were told that they labors had been wasted, as
had the funds that self-sacrificing parents had invested in the prospects of a
doctor or an engineer in the family.
We noted... based on numerous media accounts ranging from the
jocular to dead serious (literally)... that instead of apologizing and at least
attempting to correct their culture of incompetence, the bureaucratic class
(particularly in the person of the country’s Education
Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan).
Whereas many
American students ease into their labors amidst the distractions of joining
fraternities or sororities, following the university sports teams, partying...
and that other obsession of young people...
the trolled and often bankrupted Indian students did what students worldwide
have done for centuries – they protested.
And the
Administrators did what their kind usually do – denied the existence of the
problem, called in police to beat up and lock up dissenters and maintain that
everything was just fine, except for the handful of malcontents.
The response from Indian
Chief Justice Surya Kant, calling the cheated and defeated students
"parasites" attacking the system broke open the floodgates of resistance.
"There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment and
don't have any place in the profession,” Kant sloughed off the critics, “(s)ome
of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI
(opposition political) activists, some of them become other activists, and they
start attacking everyone."
Kant’s terminology was seized upon by the mob
in the form of the
Cockroach Janta Party, a grass-roots movement that the New York Times
wrote as founded just two months ago that has come to symbolize
the anger among India’s youth. It started in response to Kant’s rant comparing
the country’s unemployed youth to cockroaches and parasites and, by June, the
party announced a sit-in demanding accountability over the exam leaks.
As we left off last week, war
was being waged with words and deeds.
The Times reported that “chaotic scenes” were playing out on the streets of New Delhi as
security forces used tear gas and batons to disperse tens of thousands of
people marching on the Parliament in one of the largest protests against Prime
Minister Narendra Modi’s government in years.
“A smiling Mr. Modi, (who’d) arrived to open a session of the
Parliament, tried to project an image of calm. He did not address the
protesters’ demands directly, even as security forces struggled to hold back
the crowds spilling onto the roads leading to the building.” The exact number of protesters injured was
not clear, but Indian media reported that over 100 people had been brought to two
hospitals in Delhi; police officials told Indian news outlets that at least 50
of their personnel were also injured and hundreds more arrested.
“The space for protest and dissent in India’s traditionally
raucous democracy has shrunk significantly during Mr. Modi’s 12 years in
office,” the Times reported. “His government has cracked down on dissent and
put activists behind bars, creating a chilling effect on public opposition.”
But in the dog days of summer with ICE in America and mice in the
halls of the Indian government squeaking their appeals for the cockroaches to
shut up and crawl away, they remained and gained support – finally winning victory over the weekend with Pradhan’s resignation.
|
To discuss
the movement and its future, TIME caught up with Mukul Kesavan, a historian,
novelist, and one of India’s best-known writers (ATTACHMENT ONE) who called
the movement “interesting” and... asked if the protests posed a threat to
Modi’s regime... added that “it’s a movement of the urban salariat... very middle-class
people; largely Hindus, very young, and theoretically “are the very basis of
(Modi’s) political constituency?” He
speculated that the PM... like more than a few politicians in America, and
elsewhere... is “an old, dysfunctional guy” and, asked about the future of
the cockroaches, could only say that he was so “bewildered by the scale,
intensity, and coming-from-nowhere part of this movement” that it now wasn’t
clear to me “how it sustains itself or where it goes.” |
As noted above, this Lesson is about money, who has it, who
doesn’t... how the have less intend to take more via education or other means; and we can assess these factors
by using a number of charts, graphs and listings breaking down the wealth of
nations and of the people in those nations.
Visual Capitalist (Feb. 24th,
ATTACHMENT TWO) ranked national riches via data from McKinsey, for the world’s major economies (but not,
unfortunately, India @get?) by the per capita wealth of their top 1%, adjusted
for purchasing power. The results revealed “a startling gap: while American
elites lead the pack with $16.4 million in wealth, others (had) a net worth of
less than a third of this.”
Their findings placed the United States as Number One for the top
one percent average Per Capita Wealth (PPP) with – six months ago – an average of
$16.4 M. Australia was a distant second
at $10.6M, followed by Canada, Germany and France.
We also led in the share of the top one percent’s wealth capture
at 35% of the entire plunder, second only to Mexico (smaller, poorer countries
undoubtedly had higher percentages).
Consequently, the bottom half of the people had only nine thousand in
per capita wealth, far behind all others (except, again, Mexico – where the
peasants are fleeing across the border to a better life in the USA... they
might better consider the French or Australians, an aging Japan or even China).
“In
fact,” the Viz Caps concluded, “China’s bottom 50% holds more wealth per person
than the bottom half in the U.S., when adjusted for purchasing power.”
An AI Overview (ATTACHMENT THREE) found the
global net worth threshold to enter the top 1% worldwide was
approximately $870,000 to $1 million, “though requirements var(ied)
drastically by country.” The United States threshold was approximately
$13.7 million per household – of $5.8 million per individual. The top 1% of American households control
roughly 31.6% ($49+ trillion) of total U.S. wealth and... until a series of
unfortunate events (below) one man... the South African immigrant Elon Musk...
held over a trillion or two percent of the total.
The tiny plutocracy of Monaco
ranked just behind at $12.88M (USA) followed by the Swiss.
Mister Musk lost his trill (but
not his status as the world’s richest) after a further decline in SpaceX
shares on Monday cut his net worth by more than $20 billion, “lowering his fortune below the
$700 billion threshold for the first time since December.” (Forbes, Wednesday, ATTACHMENT FOUR)
Forbes reported that SpaceX’s
declining stock value comes even after the firm’s successful test launch of its
Starship rocket on Friday, as Wall Street appeared to express caution ahead of
the test: JPMorgan analyst Seth Seifman wrote in a note earlier in the week
there would be “plenty of analyze” (sic) from the latest Starship launch,
though the firm expected “progress and setbacks” across dozens of more launches
through 2027.
WHAT
TO WATCH FOR
Whether SpaceX shares fall
below $100. Morgan Stanley analysts wrote Friday that threshold would imply
investors would see no value in the rocket maker’s AI business. Still, some
already see “zero or negative value” as the firm accelerates its spending on
space and connectivity and “largely uncertain economics,” the analysts wrote.
BIG NUMBER
About $750 billion. That’s
how much Musk’s net worth has declined since hitting a peak of $1.45 trillion
on June 16. Around $116 billion of the decline is because Forbes removed Tesla
options based on new vesting conditions agreed to by Musk and his automaker.
He still ranks well ahead
of Google co-founders Larry Page ($268.5 billion) and Sergey Brin ($247.1
billion) as the world’s richest person.
KEY
BACKGROUND
Musk saw his net worth
reach multiple milestones throughout 2025, culminating in his trillionaire
status following SpaceX’s initial public offering last month. He first crossed
the $700 billion threshold in December, just days after reaching $600 billion,
and hit $800 billion in February. A now-monthlong rout in SpaceX shares comes
despite optimism from analysts, including former Wedbush Securities analyst Dan
Ives, who argued Musk’s rocket maker is “well-positioned to become a major
hyperscaler” across connectivity, rocket launches and AI infrastructure. Other
analysts have pointed to the possible value of Starship’s potential: UBS
analyst Gavin Parsons wrote the latest launch was important because it was
“intended to validate” capabilities required of the rocket’s launch ramp,
including booster engine relight ability.
An AI Overview (ATTACHMENT FIVE) of the richest indivicuals in the
United States, now obsolete, ascribed “over $1 trillion” to Musk, with Page,
Brin and Jeff Bezos closely grouped behind at roughly a quarter trill.
America’s political leaders (including President Trump, his predecessors
and Cabinet; Senators, Congressthings, Governors and the Supremes) fall far
behind the techies in personal wealth, but they’re not going to be scrounging
for a family meal at McDonald’s anytime soon.
A Wiki database (also obsolete in that it was prepared between
2018 and 2021 with help from Open Secrets – ATTACHMENT SIX) listed the salaries
of the House and Senate as a paltry $174,000 for the ordinary Senators and
representatives, slightly higher for the majority and minority leaders,
reaching a summit of $223,500 for the Speaker of the House (at that time, @)
Outside interests, however, elevated the wealth of a select few to
multi-million, even near-billion status.
The Leader of the Pack was Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) who obtained his
$664.2M as a coal miner’s daughter’s coal mineowning father; followed by two
more elephants: storage king Jefferson Shreve of Indiana and healthcare
administrator Rick Scott of Florida.
The wealthiest Democrat of a decade ago was Nancy Pelosi whose
means of plutohood was simply “investments”.
A longer, but also obsolete (2012), list of richest American
congresspeople with further data on the volume of reports, average wealth of
the House ($6.6M) and Senate ($14M), by state and party, and by tenure.
“Mark Warner (D-VA) was the wealthiest
Senator in 2012, with an estimated net worth of $257,481,658. Mark Pryor
(D-AR) was the least wealthy Senator in 2012, with an estimated net worth of
$8,500
“Darrell Issa (R-CA) was the
wealthiest representative in 2012, with an estimated net worth of $464,115,018 David
Valadao (R-CA) was the least wealthy representative in 2012, with an estimated
net worth of -$12,167,002” @get David Valadao,
ARE BILLIONAIRES EVIL?
The Economics (ATTACHMENT EIGHT) replied that they were just “a
policy failure” and liberal proposals to impose wealth taxes that “will
stymie innovation and raise less revenue than supporters hope” because the
majority “seem to have earned their mammon fairly, not from inheritance or
political connections.”
Fairness, however, is
complicated. Economists at The Economist
consider hedge funds, crypto and other borderline scams to be fair game – even
if the game is rigged.
THE FIRST and SECOND GILDED AGES
Wealth in America predates the 1776 revolution and was perhaps
most visible in the time period after the Civil War to the turn of the 20th
century – popularly referred to as the Gilded Age.
History.com (Feb. 13, 2018, updated last May, ATTACHMENT NINE)
dates the term to the satirical novel by Mark Twain wherein greedy, corrupt industrialists, bankers and
politicians enjoyed extraordinary wealth and opulence at the expense of the
working class.
Some
of the driving engines of the Gilded Age were, in fact, engines... the
Transcontinental Railroad, which facilitated travel and facilitated both the
American supply chain and the settlement of the West.
Railroad
and shipping tycoons like Cornelius Vanderbilt and Jay Gould
were called “robber barons” and used “union busting, fraud, intimidation,
violence and their extensive political connections to gain an advantage over
any competitors. Robber barons were relentless in their efforts to amass wealth
while exploiting workers and ignoring standard business rules—and in many
cases, the law itself.”
Millions
of domestic and foreign immigrants came to the big cities to work in factories
and sweatshops, hastening the “urbanization of America”. They worked long hours for little pay, lived
in filthy tenements and some of their children and grandchildren struggled
upwards – others didn’t
Defenders of the capitalists like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Henry
Frick responded that they made America great and were often generous
philanthropists (especially after death) – funding libraries, hospitals and
universities while also living lives of luxury in gaudy mansions. The Economist also assessed the effects of
Social Darwinism, media “muckrakers”, the violent birth of unionism and a
technological revolution that brought electricity, telephones and a sea-change
in the status of women (led by activists from @vote to Prohibitionist Carrie
Nation).
The
Economist dated the death of the Gilded Age to the Panic of 1893 where mass
business failures led to a depression that would last for four years. Angry
Americans became Populists or Progressives... honest politicians like Theodore Roosevelt
imposed reforms that limited the power of the robber barons (and also
forestalled the Communist revolutions springing up elsewhere across the world).
Some of these, like the Socialists (allegedly small “d” democratic)
at Liberation News offered an alternative view of the Gilded Age while also
mentioning the effects of technology, immigration and labor. (AI Overview, ATTACHMENT TEN)
Their issue of July 23rd contended that America is now
entering a Second Gilded Age with the defining moment being the Trump v. Slaughter decision giving the Executive
Presidents the right to fire federal regulators... including workers in the
other two pillars of authority, the legislative and judicial.
Coming
on the heels of the Citizens United decision, effectively legalizing political
corruption through the tidal wave of green and dark money, Slaughter ruled that Congress had violated the Constitution in
1914 when it limited the President’s ability to fire FTC leaders.
CAPITALISTS WANTS TO ROLL BACK THE NEW DEAL
Slaughter paves the way for “a whole new level of direct corruption
in Washington, the further erosion of safety standards, assaults on union
rights, and the deregulation of Wall Street and Corporate America as a whole,”
predicted the Socialists – calling in part and parcel of “Project 2025,” the
overall vision of the far-right section of the ruling class “to eliminate the
liberal reforms of the progressive, New Deal and Civil Rights eras and
reinstall a form of governance of unregulated and unrestrained corporate power;
a core feature of (which is) unrestrained presidential power.”
Objectivists
(probably not of the Rand Paul sort) might argue the takeover moot given
Presidential dominion over all three branches of gumment, but Republican fears
of losing the house and maybe the Senate in November accelerate the MAGA need
to protect their sway over “the main regulators of financial markets, including
the Federal Trade Commission, the Security and Exchange Commission, the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board,” and the people’s need to protest this consolidation of
control and corruption.
The Liberationist predict that the FCC “could eliminate the broadcast licenses of outlets
that the president disapproves of,” and warns of implication for Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Transportation Safety
Board, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
The
Liberationists added that Justice
Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent “correctly states that without functional
independence from political pressure, regulatory agencies cannot perform the
core functions given to them by Congress,” and can only be understood
“in the trajectory of U.S. capitalism and the creation of a New Gilded Age.”
Ballroom
and all!
The DJI’s putative independent Presidential candidate – Jack
(the Catfish) Parnell – opined as much Chapter @ in his episode of “Entropy and
Renaissance” (see Generisis.com’s E&R here@
(ATTACHMENT ELEVEN). A strange
concurrence, however, was even promoted by the George W. Bush (Senior)
Institute through an AI overview toting up arguments for and against the
billionaire boys’ club and Issue 36’s “In Defense of Billionaires” by James
Pethokoukis (Fall 2025, ATTACHMENT TWELVE) opined that “banishing”
entrepreneurs like Bill Gates (or Musk or Bezos – given warnings that wealth
caps or confiscatory taxation would simply invite them to relocate themselves,
their companies and their jobs to some more amenable foreign clime) would mean banishing the positive-sum process that
is essential to sustained and dispersed economic growth in the United States as
opposed to the sclerotic EU plutocracies “where fortunes tend to accrue through inheritance or luxury
brands” or dictatorships... ranging from
Mexico to Russia... where wealth is amassed (if not necessarily created) by
“one-time privatization
deals, political protection, or monopolies on certain natural resources.”
Such fortunes, “which stem from
appropriation, not innovation, breed cynicism, anger, and disaffection in the
countries where they exist”... represent what scholars Daron Acemoglu and James
Robinson termed “extractive”
systems, in which the elites can
enrich themselves by capturing the state or monopolizing its resources,
stifling innovation and broad-based prosperity.
The existence of “rent-seekers
abroad” is no reason to hobble productive entrepreneurs in the United States,”
Pethokoukis contends but, however, with a caveat...
his defense of the uberwealthy as enriching America against the riotous roars
of the rabble and “negative
consequences of demonizing private fortune”
also contained this important coda of discrimination:
“Rather than condemn all billionaires,
we would be far better off broadly distinguishing between two different types:
productive billionaires, who build enterprises that generate widespread
prosperity; and rent-seeking billionaires, who extract gains through political
favoritism, resource monopolies, or financial gimmickry. The former can be paragons of economic dynamism; the latter,
parasites on it. Lazily lumping the two together and treating them the
same obscures reality and invites policies that would imperil innovation-driven
economic growth.”
The old-school billionaires beloved by Old Right Republicans
defend inequality in terms of productivity (...(i)t’s true
that some of the 0.01% spend some of their cash on elaborate doomsday bunkers in Hawaii or
New Zealand, (but) they plow much more money back into their businesses, and
a hefty chunk into philanthropy as well).
What Pethy calls the “Blade
Runner fallacy”... offshore (or even, off-planet) escape for the upper
classes... is delusional, even considering Musk’s half-serious proposal for
colonies on Mars.
“Billionaires,
at their best, are not evidence of capitalism gone wrong,” he concludes. “They
are evidence that capitalism is working.”
But
back up a smidgen to that nefarious “0.01” doomsday escape artists or
the admittedly larger proportion whose accumulation of wealth by
rent-seeking or phynancial parasitism was noted, above, as was the tendancy of
the hyperprosperous to give back some of their loot in charitable
donations. How does that jive with
reality?
Well...
Influenzers
to the Bush Institute on Reddit included one named “Annual Necessary” – a
numbers cruncher who cited a constant decrease in capital utilization (which indices reflect
how efficiently capitalists allocate
capital). (ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN)
“In 1967, the U.S. economy used 88% of its capital capacity,
while in 2022, this number decreased to 78%. This means capitalists are
performing their role less effectively.
Currently, 22% of capacity is unused. It would be acceptable if this
number at least stagnated, but the slow, constant fall suggests that
capitalists are performing worse over time,” while “(w)orkers’ productivity is
still growing; however, real wages are slightly lower than productivity.”
@From Taylor and Francis
Jonathan Michie’s online essay on “the degeneration of capitalism from a system of
production to a speculative orgy” (reviews Jan. 29, 2020 via booksellers Taylor
and Francis: ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN) compares predictions, exhortations and
admonitions from as disparate in time and space as Karl Marx, the post-Gilded
Age populists and progressives, New Deal regulatory agent John Maynard Keynes
and the disregulators... from Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher up to the
present.
That fundamental driving force of the system to
produce more and more, on an ever-expanding scale, to out-compete your
rivals... as dominated the (First) Gilded Age) “lost its primacy long ago,”
Michie contends.
Refuting the defenders of pure (productive and
degenerate capitalism) Michie now believes that, today, a large part of that
energy and action “goes on speculation and deal-making, trying to grab a bigger
size of the existing pie – baked by someone else – rather than contribute
towards the production or creation of new goods and services.”
After Ron and Maggie’s era of “deregulation, privatisation and
free-market globalization,” provoked
the recession of 2007-9, the subsequent decade saw the costs of the
speculative failures transferred to the mass of the population via the politics
of austerity, whilst corporate leaders continued along the trajectory of
speculation and deal making, with no serious attempt to realign the economy to
focus on what Michie said needed to be a Green New Deal – with the economy
further regulated by the ecology.
“Instead, a major focus continues to be the ‘rent seeking’
search for new areas of society where existing activities can be monetised,
with the anticipated revenues and profits speculated on through bond and share
sales. There is less focus on the intrinsic merits of the new ‘product’, and
more on the likely movement of the newly issued shares, with money to be made
from the process of speculating on such movements, quite apart from the gains
to be made from those who guess right. (The costs of guessing wrong are often
passed on to others, through ‘limited liability’, or being ‘too big to fail’.)
Added to their passion for bloated costs of stolen equity,
today’s political, economic and media elites have kicked the whole concept of
climate change aside in the six years since publication of Michie’s essays,
despite current evidence to the contrary... it’s
hot!... while those already on the brink of the survival cliff try to
struggle by using a variety of means: DINKs (with or without kids as women
increasingly join the workforce), the “informal economy” (aka crime), migratory
remittances and @.
Through big words, complicated concepts tested in obscure
studies by (well-paid) academicians and pipe-dream politics (“the economy needs
to be redirected, away from financial speculation, monetisation of as many
activities as can be profitably exploited, and deal making, towards a focus on
human wellbeing and environmental and social sustainability”) Michie asks for a
return to “a focus on actual outcomes, in terms of goods and services, within
the context of the climate crisis whereby production needs to be sustainable,
so that the focus shifts to the quality of life and human wellbeing, rather
than increased economic growth for its own sake.”
As for solutions... well, at maximum effect... E&R (above),
past Lessons from the DJI and numerous instances of partisan combat between
capital and labor, workers and administrators and believers (in anything from
health to Jesus to Trump) versus denialists have all played their part in the
politics of the present.
Given the escalating prosecutorial
appetites of the current three-tiered (executive, legislative, judicial) regime
for prohibiting or even criminalizing speech (as, for example, GUK’s account
Minnesota professor Erik Davis, facing six years for allegedly joining antifa
protests, and calling ICE SLAPP prosecutions “petty revenge”: ATTACHMENT
FIFTEEN), let’s just associate the following AI overview with remarks by Mick Jagger
and Keith Richards; controversial – but they can hardly be described as
proletarian. They just play in a rock
and roll band...
An AI Overview on That Prospect... (ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN) contends that
prospects of a (REDACTED) happening
in the U.S. is uncertain, but analysts note growing political polarization,
institutional distrust, and executive overreach as key risk factors. While some
think tanks warn of systemic political transformation, most experts view a
traditional violent uprising as unlikely.
None other than Katie Couric’s Media podcast of July 13th,
Bastille Day, took the anniversary to warn that (redacteds) may have
consequences not all of their supporters anticipated or desired. Her operative, attorney Glenn Sonnenberg,
recalled that the attack on the Bastille… a prison holding captives by order of
the King for their politics, rather than for “traditional” crimes…
ended the Bourbon monarchy, “leading to the execution of the King and the Reign
of Terror, during which over 40,000 people were executed or died in prison.
Eventually, the Terror gave way to the Directory, then the Empire of Napoleon,
the Napoleonic Wars, and the eventual restoration of the monarchy. The 19th
century did not bring respite to the French people, who suffered through more
revolution and successive wars that didn't abate until after the Second World
War.”
Sonnenberg added that the bloodthirsty Robespierre never
anticipated that the Revolution ultimately would call for his head.
He denounces populism – whether of the radical right or Socialist
left – is an abundant evil that may lead to the decay, perhaps even death of
democracy in the U.S.A. at the hands of either President Trump and his ICE
capades or New York’s Zorro and his rent control radicals. He compares them to the guillotine Galahads
of Paris and concludes with Albert Camus, who wrote that: “The French
Revolution gave birth to no great artists…The only poet of the times was the
guillotine.” And as Robespierre observed, “Terror is only justice: prompt,
severe and inflexible…” Hardly words upon which to build a just future.
Instead, Populism in America today “capitalizes upon the desire for visibility
among those who feel invisible. If we take their frustrations seriously,
we can choose reform over revolution — and spare ourselves the cost that
history so often demands after the latter.”
Then again, some of the haves have no interest in
giving up even a fraction of their wealth and power and, instead of reform or
revolution, choose repression – as is on display in Iran.
Democracy
Without Borders (February, ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN) cited largely liberal sources
such as the World Inequality Report, Oxfam, and G-20 whose general concurrence
was that extreme wealth inequality would engender despotic, rather than
democratic change.
BILLIONAIRES
INCREASED THEIR WEALTH BY OVER 80% IN FIVE YEARS
The
G20 committee confirmed that global income inequality remains extremely high, with
a global income Gini coefficient of 0.61. It reports that 83% of countries,
accounting for 90% of the world’s population, have high income inequality,
defined as a Gini above 0.4.
The
World Inequality Report 2026, published shortly
after the G20 committee report, reached a similar conclusion about the
persistence of extreme disparities. It found that global income inequality
remains at very high levels and emphasized that these outcomes were shaped by
political and institutional choices rather than economic inevitability. The
report warned that such concentration risks undermining democratic
accountability and social cohesion.
Oxfam
emphasized that the wealth surge at the top coincides with widespread hardship.
For instance, one in four people globally faces moderate or severe food
insecurity, and 2.6 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet. The G20
committee report also noted that food insecurity is up by 335 million people
since 2019.
INTERNATIONAL
PANEL ON INEQUALITY RECOMMENDED
Further,
the World Economic Forum’s Global
Risks Report 2026 identified inequality as one of the most
interconnected global risks, linking it to social fragmentation, political
instability, and weakened governance.
All of these, and others asked for an International Panel to be
convened.
As
for action… well, maybe later.
Included as attachments “A” through “F” are Gini tables on equality by country (South
Africa worst, Slovakia best) by states (Puerto Rico and New York worst, Utah
best), a list of the richest American corporations, the Forbes 400
richest people, the Quiver Quantitative list of the richest
American politicians and the latest polling data from Real Clear Politics.
|
IN the NEWS: JULY 24, 2026 TO JULY 30, 2026 |
|
|
|
Friday, July 24, 2026 Dow: 51,917.81 |
Rich white student
liberals in trendy Madison, Wisc. hold rallies to support a black career
criminal who stabbed a policemen and was... surprise!... shot and
killed. All the usual suspects fly to
Madison form Mississippi and Minneapolis – Ben Crump, a thin Al Sharpton
sorely in need of hydration. The
Salgando Araujo shooting in # has
raised the issue of whether migrants attempting to escapt can be shot for
resisting arrest when the police charges of self defense are ludicrous. The family says he was afraid that the
unmarked police were carjackers. On the 13th day of war since the
cease fire fails, President Trump and (now officially) WarSec Hegseck move
men and material to Iran and/or the newest front, Yemen, Many threats, little action as oil prices
top $100/barrel and gas hits $5.83 average in California, many places over $6. And now Trump has a new enemy: Canada! (The voices in his head say they
deliberately set wildfires to poison Americans.) It’s another hot week here, there and
everywhere. The wildfires in Europe
are bigger than those in Canada, even, with a third of a million evacuations
and fear that fire will consume the French wine country, forcing
sophisticates to drink... beer! Here,
the wildfires are blanketing Colorado and Missouri while flash floods , hail
and tornadoes celebrate. Sharks,
too! Tropical storm Bertha staggers
into Houston, then dies. |
|
|
Saturday, July 25, 2026 Dow: Closed |
Pete and Donnie deny that
the US is running out of arms – specifically the multi-million dollar
interceptor missiles that target $50,000 Iranian drones. Pentagon leakers say that the USA is
letting some of the Iranian drones and missiles crash to earth in adjacent
countries so long as there are no troops in harm’s way but it’s the U.S. who shoots at a ship trying to
traverse Hormuz. With missile exchanges paused, Trump takes
the opportunity to go back to the National Correspondents’ Dinner, pushed
forward after a failed assassination attempt.
Most of the media denounce him, albeit in a jocular manner and he
jokes back. No violence reported. But in Berlin, a deadly driver rams the
Gay Pride parade, killing three and wounding 17. Euroheat escalates and the Tour de France
is shortened. American violence is
rhetorical – it’s now 100 days to the midterms, and both parties are
scrambling. In S. Carolina, ‘Pubs
favor Lindsey Graham’s sister to succeed him while, in Maine, the asses say
liberal lumberjack Troy Johnson is OK.
|
|
|
Sunday, July 26, 2026 Dow: Closed |
It’s Talkshow Sunday and
ABC tabs Sen, Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Oh) to argue
the merits of the Iran War. Van Hollen
believes we are running out of materiel and says Trump does not have, and
never did have a coherent plan – he was just led around by the nose by
Netanyahu who is also throwing boiling water (not cold, no!) on the US/Saudi
deal to kick off the Sunni nuclear deal . Turner says that Trump is being very
methodical while the goal remains no nukes for Iran. Van Hollen is a fool and a coward because
Iran is the snake in the grass and will return to making nukes if America
quits. Next is a plan to make US
allies stop buying Iranian oil. The roundtablers tackle the midterms with
Republican RINO Chris Christie who says that POTUS is just bored. Liberal Donna Brazile says we should be
more supportive of veterans while Mary Bruce says Trump flip flop on Saudi
nukes will cause Maine to dump Susan Collins and Chritie says that
Republicans are conflicted over whether to go down with their Donald. The Bern comes to “Face the Nation” to
speak out against the war. “Let’s
negotiate, stop the killing and lower gas prices.” Supports Jackson while Collins supports the
billionaire class and says that people
are sick and tired of Rahm Emanuel calling Democrats “Communists”. UN Ambassador Mike Waltz says Trump is a
“President of Peace” and the lack of military gear is a nonsensical lie. The Hill roundtablers say that the problem with the Iran war is that...
“there are many problems.” Wall Street
Journal’s Kyle Peterson waxes historic, raising the war on the Barbary
pirates “on the shores of Tripoli.” |
|
|
Monday, July 27, 2026 Dow: 52,210.08 |
It’s a happy first
Birthday for Punch the Monkey. Stocks rise amd oil prices fall on Iran
war pause but gougers raise prices at the pump 12˘. Trump tribute to the four dead American
soldiers but he renames “death toll” to “Overseas Operations” casualties. The war comes to Seattle where, after two
daredevils jump off the Space Needle, a 15 year old and unknown accomplice
kill three and injure five, including a two year old at the Space Needle food
fest. But Americans, bless their congested li’l
hearts, are occupied with sports and movies.
Lebron James will go to Philly while Caitlin Clark and Jonquel Jones
star in Team Spoon’s 127-122 WNBA all star game win over Team Coop. MLB nominates Andruw Jones, Carlos Beltran
and Jeff Kent to the Hall of Fame; NFL, college and high school football
teams start training for fall. “Odyssey” wins second B.O. with $87M as
“Toy Story Five” passes a billion. On
the way is Black Panther Three with David Johnson starring, Ryan Godling in
Ghost Rider sequel and the “Avengers Endgame” encore returns in September. |
|
|
Tuesday, July 28, 2026 Dow: 52,747.32 |
It’s allegedly Milk
Chocolate Day” but the wet stuff is making what weatherpeople call of the
United States “a state of disaster”.
Flash floods in the Northeast toss cars “like toys”, 540K lose
power. “It’s like some dinosaur stomped
on everything!” BosWash is under water
from training rains of five inches perhour in NYC, 1700 flights are cancelled
and 9000 delayed as far west as Chicago – not to mention all American
Airlines flights due to “tech issues”. It’s no better overseas. Fires in Europe prompt millions of
evacuations, destroy expensive vineyards in France (cheaper ones in Spain)
and a 6.8 EQ strikes Japan 500 mi. SW of Tokyo as malls collapse. Despite the weather, a solemn but
spectacular funeral is held for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as bipartisan
colleagues hear Trump’s oratory and President Zelenskyy and PM Netanyahu
attent (and hold strategy conferences with POTUS after. High on the agenda is an American proposal
to supply nuclear power to the Saudis, but not weapons (yet). Iran, who hated Graham like all Western
infidels, denies the reports of “friendly talks” and the bombings and droning
soon resume. |
|
|
Wednesday, July 29, 2026 Dow: 51,594.14 |
It’s
National Chicken Wing Day under a bright Buck Moon (except where it’s
raining) but the chickens are eaten and the hawks fly out as President Trump
officially cancels the two day cease fire with Iran with the backing of
visiting Bibi and Zelenskyy – who says that Russia and Iran are drawing
closer and closer was the jihadists in Tehran say Americans are the chickens,
and will be eaten (but there is no word on whether Russia is supplying them
with nukes – yet.” Economic issues arise, mixed with global
politics, as Trump imposes a ban on Chinese humanoid robots (that some rich,
lonely perverts are using as sex toys) while Rand Paul’s investigation of
old, retired Dr. Fauci reiterates his failure to recognize that the plague
was not transmitted by animals but manufactured in Chinese labs as an act of
war. Team Trump lashes out at sick old people,
cutting Medicare drug subsidies whom Dr. Oz says will have to pay more for
their pills; against migrants... even sock puppet Gov. Mike deWine (R-Oh)
complaining that mass deportations of Haitians is hurting the right wing
businesses that depend on their cheap labor... as many flee to Canada; but is
backstabbed by his own new Feddie Warsh who
refuses to lower the interest rates and douses the Dow. Swimming against the downward tide.
Apple’s profits are soaring and they introduce a plan to rent phones to
Americans who can’t afford to buy them.
Critics ask who will own and what will happen to the data when they
are turned in or repossessed, fearing merching to telemarketers and identity
thieves. |
|
|
Thursday, July 30, 2026 Dow: 52,208.06 |
The week ends as it began – fires, floods, tornadoes
here and overseas where there is also war. Diseases. Toxic smoke, a bouncing
but inflationary economy; plattnering politicians, sex robots. mass shooters
and the sun. The
corpse of Lindsey Graham moves on from Washington to South Carolina for a
family service while Israeli PM Bibi and Uke President Zelenskyy stay behind
and lobby President Trump for more support.
Iran attacks the Egyptians while angry Russia bombs Poland,
potentially setting off World War Three, but Trump is relaxed; saying that
peace is just around the corner in both Lebanon and Kyev while the
Distracticons sweep in and order the sheep to gask and gawp and gape as
former QB Tony Romo is arrested for... oooh!...
possession of an Open Container in
his vehicle, the Children of America are menaced by... aaaah!... exploding squishy toys that afflict some with
disfiguring burns, and Spider Man casts his web around... surprise!... the producer of the
“Joker” movies – arrested for masterminding a Ponzi scheme – while a failed
Hollywood development is turning into a coyote condo, endangering the
celebrities and their little dogs too!
AAAAH-OOOH!... Even Vegas
and Photnix endure/enjoy record 116°
temperatures; floods sweep away children in New Jersey and a rogue giant
water bottle rolls away with Katy Perry.
ICE promotes its 287G initiative to cooperate with local police – all
of whom insist that they are are not hunting down and rounding up
brown-skinned people but focusing on “the worst of the worst” to fill their
four new giant prison. (Except, of
course, the Haitians – Presidential darkseider Stephen Miller declaring that
“America’s doors are now closed to asylum seekers – permanaently!”) And, on
Monday, America goes Back To School! |
|
|
|
||
|
ECONOMIC INDICES (60%) |
|
|
|
|
|
CATEGORY |
VALUE |
BASE |
RESULTS by PERCENTAGE |
|
OUR SOURCES and COMMENTS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
INCOME |
(24%) |
6/17/13 revised 1/1/22 |
LAST |
CHANGE |
NEXT |
LAST WEEK in June (6/26) Original
Reconfig. |
JULY 10th Original
Reconfig. |
JULY 17th Original Reconfig. |
LAST WEEK Original
Reconfig. |
THIS WEEK Original
Reconfig. |
THE WEEK’S CLOSING STATS... |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Wages (hrly. Per cap) |
9% |
1350 |
7/24/26 |
+0.29% |
8/26 |
1,904.26 |
1,909.78 |
1,909.78 |
1,353.92 |
1,909.78 |
1,353.92 |
1,909.78 |
1,353.92 |
1,909.78 |
1,353.92 |
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/average-hourly-earnings 37.64 |
||||||||||||||
|
Median Inc. (yearly) |
4% |
600 |
7/24/26 |
+0.063% |
8/6/26 |
1,472.81 |
1,473.51 |
1,474.31 |
600.80 |
1,475.24 |
601.18 |
1,475.93 |
601.46 |
1,476.86 |
601.84 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 67,937 974 8.017 8,049 092 |
||||||||||||||
|
Unempl. (BLS – in mi) |
4% |
600 |
7/24/26 |
+2.38% |
8/26 |
542.60 |
555.52 |
555.52 |
614.28 |
555.52 |
614.28 |
555.52 |
614.28 |
555.52 |
614.28 |
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000/ 4.2 |
||||||||||||||
|
Official (DC – in mi) |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
-0.014% |
8/6/26 |
216.79 |
216.76 |
216.73 |
299.92 |
223.51 |
309.31 |
223.48 |
309.27 |
223.45 |
309.23 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 7,317 318 096 097 098 |
||||||||||||||
|
Unofficl. (DC – in mi) |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
-0.007% |
8/6/26 |
260.14 |
259.98 |
259.80 |
299.62 |
246.50 |
284.28 |
246.48 |
284.26 |
246.44 |
284.24 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 13,180 189 891 892 894 |
||||||||||||||
|
Workforce Participation Number Percent |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
-0.0005% -0.0281% |
8/6/26 |
295.83 |
295.82 |
295.81 |
299.98 |
294.60 |
298.75 |
294.60 |
298.74 |
294.52 |
298.66 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ In
162,727 718 212 195 2172 Out 105,169 209 5,984 5,977 6034 Total: 267,869 927
8,196 172 8,206 60.748 .732 .483 .482 465 |
||||||||||||||
|
WP %
(ycharts)* |
1% |
150 |
7/24/26 |
-0.485% |
8/26 |
149.98 |
149.25 |
149.25 |
149.27 |
149.25 |
149.27 |
149.25 |
149.27 |
149.25 |
149.27 |
https://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate 61.50 |
||||||||||||||
|
OUTGO |
(15%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total Inflation |
7% |
1050 |
7/24/26 |
-0.4% |
8/26 |
901.77 |
901.77 |
901.77 |
1050 |
905.38 |
1052.10 |
905.38 |
1052.10 |
905.38 |
1052.10 |
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.5
-0.4 nc |
||||||||||||||
|
Food |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
+0.2% |
8/26 |
257.37 |
257.37 |
257.37 |
300 |
256.86 |
299.40 |
256.86 |
299.40 |
256.86 |
299.40 |
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.2
.2 |
||||||||||||||
|
Gasoline |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
-9.7% |
8/26 |
181.96 |
181.96 |
181.96 |
300 |
199.61 |
320.10 |
199.61 |
320.10 |
199.61 |
320.10 |
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +7.0 -9.7 |
||||||||||||||
|
Medical Costs |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
-0.1% |
8/26 |
267.14 |
267.14 |
267.14 |
300 |
267.41 |
300.30 |
267.41 |
300.30 |
267.41 |
300.30 |
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
+0.5 -0.1 |
||||||||||||||
|
Shelter |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
+0.1% |
8/26 |
238.38 |
238.38 |
238.38 |
300 |
238.14 |
299.70 |
238.14 |
299.70 |
238.14 |
299.70 |
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
+0.3 .1 |
||||||||||||||
|
WEALTH |
(6%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dow Jones Index |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
+0.96% |
8/6/26 |
400.43 |
410.82 |
400.18 |
299.80 |
400.68 |
300.17 |
394.27 |
295.37 |
398.06 |
298.21 |
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/ 52,900.07 52,487.41 52,552.97 51,711.65 52,208.06 |
||||||||||||||
|
Home (Sales) (Valuation) |
1% 1% |
150 150 |
7/24/26 |
-1.92% +2.63% |
8/6/26 |
137.08 |
137.08 |
137.08 |
155.60 154.17 |
134.49 140.69 |
152.61 158.23 |
134.49 140.69 |
152.61 158.23 |
134.49 140.69 |
152.61 158.23 |
https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics Sales (M): 4.17
4.09 Valuations (K): 429.3
440.6 |
||||||||||||||
|
Millionaires
(New Cat,) |
1% |
150 |
7/24/26 |
+0.066% |
8/6/26 |
137.58 |
137.65 |
137.72 |
150.15 |
137.81 |
150.25 |
137.88 |
150.32 |
137.97 |
150.42 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 24,315 328 344 356 372 |
||||||||||||||
|
Paupers (New Category) |
1% |
150 |
7/24/26 |
+0.039% |
8/6/26 |
134.77 |
134.73 |
134.69 |
149.92 |
134.64 |
149.86 |
134.61 |
149.82 |
134.56 |
149.76 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 36,955 966 980 989 003 |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GOVERNMENT |
(10%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue (trilns.) |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
-0.083% |
8/6/26 |
484.29 |
484.99 |
485.69 |
300.85 |
486.56 |
301.39 |
487.17 |
301.77 |
485.91 |
301.61 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 5,572 580 590 587 565 |
||||||||||||||
|
Expenditures (tr.) |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
+0.083% |
8/6/26 |
287.56 |
287.40 |
287.16 |
299.59 |
286.92 |
299.34 |
286.44 |
298.86 |
286.20 |
298.61 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
7,225 231 237 242
248 |
||||||||||||||
|
National Debt (tr.) |
3% |
450 |
7/24/26 |
+0.244% |
8/6/26 |
345.28 |
345.05 |
344.44 |
448.90 |
344.15 |
488.49 |
343.17 |
486.23 |
342.33 |
485.04 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 39,357 427 460 616 713 |
||||||||||||||
|
Aggregate Debt (tr.) |
3% |
450 |
7/24/26 |
+0.240% |
8/6/26 |
354.13 |
353.42 |
352.67 |
448.15 |
351.82 |
447.07 |
350.33 |
445.20 |
349.49 |
444.13 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 112,648 887 3,159 3,365 3,638 |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
TRADE |
(5%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Foreign Debt (tr.) |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
+0.084% |
8/6/26 |
253.65 |
253.52 |
252.18 |
295.57 |
251.07 |
294.27 |
248.81 |
293.90 |
248.60 |
293.65 |
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
9,497 502 544 550
558 |
||||||||||||||
|
Exports (in billions) |
1% |
150 |
7/24/26 |
-2.87% |
8/26 |
203.57 |
150 |
197.73 |
145.70 |
197.73 |
145.70 |
197.73 |
145.70 |
197.73 |
145.70 |
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 327.1
317.7 |
||||||||||||||
|
Imports (in billions)) |
1% |
150 |
7/24/26 |
+3.12% |
8/26 |
134.69 |
150 |
130.49 |
145.32 |
130.49 |
145.32 |
130.49 |
145.32 |
130.49 |
145.32 |
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 383.0
395.3 |
||||||||||||||
|
Trade Surplus/Deficit (blns.) |
1% |
150 |
7/24/26 |
+27.96% |
8/26 |
253.48 |
150 |
182.61 |
108.06 |
182.61 |
108.06 |
182.61 |
108.06 |
182.61 |
108.06 |
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 55.9 77.6 |
||||||||||||||
|
|
-69 |
-329 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SOCIAL INDICES
|
(40%) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ACTS of MAN |
|
(12%) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
World Affairs |
3% |
450 |
7/24/26 |
-0.2% |
8/6/26 |
468.20 |
468.20 |
466.24 |
448.20 |
466.24 |
448.20 |
466.71 |
448.65 |
465.88 |
447.76 |
Eurofires cause
130K evacuations in France where the Tour de France is shortened and
expensive vineyards destroyed, 70K in Spain.
Pride Festival in Berlin rammed, a Polish woman killed, 31 injured –
suspect... |
||||||||||||||
|
War and terrorism |
2% |
300 |
7/24/26 |
-0.2% |
8/6/26 |
281.19 |
280.63 |
280.07 |
298.80 |
280.07 |
298.80 |
279.45 |
298.22 |
278.89 |
297.62 |
... described as Islamic militant who hates the
queers and is killed by the police.
Seattle Space Needle shootings called a gang dispute with collateral
damage, but Upper West Side NYC stabbings called “hate crimes”. Resumption of Iran war raises oil prices to
$85.47
per barrel (WTI) or $90.12 (Brent), gas to $4.11/gal. |
||||||||||||||
|
Politics |
3% |
450 |
7/24/26 |
-0.1% |
8/6/26 |
451.95 |
451.95 |
450.15 |
448.20 |
450.15 |
448.20 |
449.70 |
447.75 |
449.25 |
447.30 |
Crime, war and the kitchen table in play as
the midterms are now less than 100 days off; rich students in Madison protest
killing of black police stabber and SC chooses Lindsey Graham’s sister as
successor while OK Maine lumberJackson replaces oyster farmer Platner. Senate confirms Jay Clayton as Intel Chief
on 51-47 party line vote but defiant ‘Pubs stall Blanche bid to stop
“Acting”. While Dems destroy
themselves with infighting, ‘Pubs fear a blue wave due to unpopular actions
like... |
||||||||||||||
|
Economics |
3% |
450 |
7/24/26 |
-0.2% |
8/6/26 |
426.64 |
427.49 |
426.64 |
450.00 |
426.64 |
450.00 |
426.21 |
449.55 |
425.36 |
448.65 |
...President
Trump starting tariff war with Canada that imposes stiff penalities on hockey
sticks, canceling green grants to blue states, but not red, declaring Museum
War on the Smithsonian for not being “inspiring enough”, “untrue” and “insane”. “Cracker Barrel” replaces the CEO who tried to purge Uncle Herschel,
BuzzFeed cuts 35% of worksorce and VISA fires 2,600. |
||||||||||||||
|
Crime |
1% |
150 |
7/24/26 |
+0.1% |
8/6/26 |
201.94 |
201.74 |
201.34 |
149.55 |
201.34 |
149.55 |
201.14 |
149.40 |
200.94 |
149.25 |
Son of KC
Chiefs’ offensive coach Eric Bienemy shoots mom to death. Nasty nurse molests two teen boys in Boston
who complain to parents and police. NC
Dirty Devils stab man (women) and woman (man) in different locations with
(different) pitchforks. |
||||||||||||||
|
ACTS of GOD |
(6%) |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Environment/Weather |
3% |
450 |
7/24/26 |
-0.1% |
8/6/26 |
277.49 |
276.96 |
275.85 |
447.30 |
275.57 |
446.85 |
275.57 |
446.85 |
275.29 |
446.40 |
Worldwide heat
dome broils USA, Europe and more.
Tornadoes batter Wisconsin and Illinois, heat records broken from
Denver to Memphis; 108° in
Minneapolis, and flashflooding in NYC metro.
Apiaries denounce popular pesticides that are exterminating
honeybees. |
||||||||||||||
|
Disasters |
3% |
450 |
7/24/26 |
+0.1% |
8/6/26 |
463.09 |
462.16 |
463.08 |
450.00 |
462.62 |
449.55 |
462.62 |
449.55 |
463.06 |
450.00 |
Two more strong hurricanes in Pacific as Atlantic
remains quiet. Death toll from
Japanese EQ passes two dozen. Hero 16
year old lifeguard rescues 10 year old from rough surf in Santa Cruz,
CA. Diddy in jailhouse brawl; sent to
solitary as his chances of a Trump pardon wither. |
||||||||||||||
|
LIFESTYLE/JUSTICE INDEX |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Science, Tech, Education |
4% |
600 |
7/24/26 |
nc |
8/6/26 |
617.97 |
617.35 |
617.35 |
599.40 |
617.97 |
600.00 |
617.97 |
600.00 |
617.97 |
600.00 |
Space X breaks losing streak with successful test
launch and return to prepare for 2028 moonshot but telescopic robot flies out
of order. Schools begin Monday;
administrators removing AI tech robots made by sex toy manufacturers. |
||||||||||||||
|
Equality (econ/social) |
4% |
600 |
7/24/26 |
-0.1% |
8/6/26 |
671.70 |
672.37 |
673.71 |
601.80 |
675.06 |
603.00 |
675.06 |
603.00 |
674.40 |
602.40 |
Record in-person
and media turnout for WNBA all star game and Barack Obama meets and greets
the playets. ICE to open four more
superprisons which critics say means more racial profiling, hunting, locking
up and killing just as protected status sends America on a Haitian hunt. |
||||||||||||||
|
Health |
4% |
600 |
7/24/26 |
-0.1% |
8/6/26 |
412.58 |
411.75 |
440.90 |
595.69 |
440.46 |
595.06 |
440.46 |
595.06 |
440.02 |
594.46 |
Climate change increasing mosquitoes, hence West
Nile Virus that joins Cyclo, Bird Flu, monkeypox, Legionnaire’s and Lyme
disease, @, @ and @ as Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci debate past plague. Cancer survivors Bill & Melanie Shat
start podcast as TV docs say losing weight raises chances of sex &
pregnancy and doctors and police unite to merch “Habit Control” safes that
lock up unhealthy and/or sinful fatty foods, videogames and other instruments
of decadence. FDA approves single pain
relief combining naproxen and tylenol.
Add to Cyclo lettuce recall (12K cases, 98 hospitalized) 19M
salmonellic eggs and 318M BMWs with fiery starters. |
||||||||||||||
|
Freedom and Justice |
3% |
450 |
7/24/26 |
-0.1% |
8/6/26 |
478.24 |
478.24 |
478.24 |
450 |
477.76 |
449.55 |
477.76 |
449.55 |
477.28 |
449.10 |
In the
courts, old cases (Nancy Guthrie, Salman Rushdie, Kohberger, Nolan Wells )
and new (pedo manfluencer Tate Bros., child strangler Lindsay Clancy in
Mass., trunk musician D4VD) while killer (but acquitted murder) Karen Read,
merches her biobook. Father son
killer/gunbuyers Colt (life without for four in Apalachee school and Colin
(15 years) Gray sentences |
||||||||||||||
|
CULTURAL and MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENTS |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cultural incidents |
3% |
450 |
7/24/26 |
+0.1% |
8/6/26 |
595.25 |
595.85 |
595.85 |
450.45 |
595.85 |
450.45 |
595.85 |
450.45 |
596.45 |
450.90 |
Ariana
Grande releases new album but it’s already been hacked and stolen; the Olding
Stones “Foreign Tongues” with Sir Paul McCartney who also sings on SNL. On Broadway, get ready for Prince
impersonators in “Purple Rain” while, at the movies, B.O. champ “Odyssey”
will be challenged by the latest Spider Man; more sequels like “Black Panther
Jr.” will pounce in 2027. Box office receipts up; still lower than
pre-plague but merchers are rolling in dough (or, rather, kernels) selling
themed popcorn buckets that collectors paying $70 for as origian Batman, Iron
Man and Travolta costumes go up to auction.
MLB HoFame inducts Andrus Jones, Carlos Beltran and Jeff Kent while
ICE deports Colts’ linebacker Daniel Ogama Adongo back to Kenya and 42 year
old Lebron James signs to play for Philly.
RIP: Irish songwriter Glen Hansard, NFL
Chargers’ Billy Ray Smith. |
||||||||||||||
|
Miscellaneous incidents |
4%/3% |
450 |
7/24/26 |
+0.1% |
8/6/26 |
553.95 |
554.50 |
554.50 |
450.45 |
555.05 |
450.90 |
555.05 |
450.90 |
555.61 |
451.35 |
“Chatfishing”
is latest dating app – promising talk, but no action. Deer overpopulation in Massachusetts
engenders an obvious solution – venison stew (with baked beans). Dog missing in time and space returns after
five years and 600 miles. And lucky
lotto winner in Florida cashes in on $800M jackpot. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
feedme@generisis.comspeak@donjonesindex.com
ATTACHMENT ONE
– FROM
TIME
|
WHERE DOES INDIA’S COCKROACH MOVEMENT
GO FROM HERE? |
|
India’s burgeoning youth-led protest movement won
a key victory over the weekend with the resignation of the country’s
Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan. |
|
The Cockroach Movement, which took its name from a
derogatory remark made by India’s Chief Justice comparing young
unemployed people to “cockroaches” and “parasites,” has quickly established
itself as a formidable political force. |
|
To discuss the movement and its future, TIME
caught up with Mukul Kesavan, a historian, novelist, and one of India’s
best-known writers. |
|
Q: What is
your view of the Cockroach Movement, and what do you think is unique about
it? |
|
MK: I’ve spent my life in Delhi. I’ve been to hundreds
of demos because Jantar Mantar is the place where you go off and shout your
slogans from the time I was an undergraduate, and I have to say, I’d never
seen anything like this—not necessarily in terms of its size, though it was
very large—but because it was so young. |
|
I don’t mean to sound condescending, but it just
seemed that these people had turned up because they felt there was a kind of
existential crisis in their young lives. |
|
The Modi juggernaut is generally seen as sinister
but efficient at what it does, and the entire tenor of the taunting, the
calling out, is that you’re an old, dysfunctional guy, that’s unusual because
it seems to open the possibilities of this movement. Not because there’s a
constructive program that’s been put forward, but simply because it seems to
be open season on a man who, up to now, has seemed sort of inevitable. |
|
MK: I’m so bewildered by the scale, intensity, and
coming-from-nowhere part of this movement that it’s not clear to me how it
sustains itself or where it goes. I’m not saying it won’t, but it surprised
everybody, including its organizers. |
|
To read the full interview,
click here. |
READ 8/1 update here…
REPRINTED
from DJI.260724, including attachments from 1440, “X” and the NEW YORK TIMES
ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN – FROM 1440
|
THE COCKROACH UPRISING |
|
Tens of thousands of
protesters marched
toward India's Parliament in New Delhi yesterday before
police fired tear gas to disperse the crowd. The self-described Cockroach
Janta Party is demanding the education minister's resignation following
repeated leaks of a medical entrance exam that millions of students see as
determining their futures. See
clashes unfold (w/photos). The movement emerged in May
after India's chief justice compared unemployed young people to
"parasites" and "cockroaches" during a Supreme Court
hearing. The party has since focused on India's medical entrance exam, where
more than 2 million students compete annually for roughly 130,000 medical
school spots. Families borrow money or even sell land to pay for years of
private tutoring, while the competitive exam culture has also raised concerns
about students' mental health. Go inside India's high-stakes exam
system here. India is home to the world's
largest youth population, with about half its 1.5 billion people under age
30. Explore
India's population pyramid. |
ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN.A – FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES
POLICE IN INDIA USE TEAR GAS AND BATONS ON CROWDS PROTESTING EXAM
SCANDAL
Young people angry about frequent leaks of college
entrance tests present one of the biggest challenges in years to Prime Minister
Narendra Modi.
By Mujib Mashal and Pragati K.B.
Reporting from New Delhi July 20, 2026
Chaotic scenes played out on the streets of New
Delhi on Monday, as security forces used tear gas and batons to disperse tens
of thousands of people marching on the Parliament in one of the largest
protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in years.
The protest in the Indian capital, largely fueled by
young people, was called to demand the resignation of the country’s education
minister after botched college entrance exams that have disrupted the lives of
millions of students.
A smiling Mr. Modi, who arrived to open a session of
the Parliament, tried to project an image of calm. He did not address the
protesters’ demands directly, even as security forces struggled to hold back
the crowds spilling onto the roads leading to the building.
By day’s end, the police crackdown, in which
protesters were beaten up, appeared to have dispersed much of the crowd. The
exact number of protesters injured was not clear, but Indian media reported that
over 100 people had been brought to two hospitals in Delhi.
Police officials told Indian news outlets that at
least 50 of their personnel were also injured.
Over 60 protesters were arrested, according to
lawyers who were rallying legal help for them.
Mr. Modi’s response has so far remained consistent
with his decade-old position that his ministers are not answerable to public
pressure.
But the size and force of the protests may indicate
that his ruling party has underestimated the raw anger among young people in
India, particularly after recent student movements in neighboring Bangladesh
and Nepal toppled governments.
His image as a strongman may also be showing cracks.
Television channels friendly to Mr. Modi, which had
largely ignored the buildup to Monday’s protest, broadcast footage of panic
around the Parliament as security guards ran around holding the line with water
cannons and tear gas. On social media, a space where Mr. Modi’s ruling party
has enjoyed outsize influence, the Gen-Z protesters appeared to be breaking
through, with memes and livestreams of the protests and the police crackdown.
“The apathy the government is showing us is
shameful,” said Anshul Yadav, 20, who attended the protests on Monday with two
friends. “The government should come talk,” he said. “Education is important.”
Public anger over the exam scandal has been
simmering since May, when more than two million students who took India’s
biggest entrance exam for medical school found out that the results would be
scrapped because the questions had been leaked and that they would have
to retake the test.
Such leaks have become a frequent problem in
recent years, and news reports in India that some students have died by suicide
because of the stress have intensified the outrage. The movement has since
grown into broader discontent over the failings of the Indian education system
and the lack of accountability in governance.
The movement gained momentum over the weekend
after the police forcibly removed Sonam Wangchuk, a prominent activist who had
been on hunger strike at the protest site for more than 20 days. The police
said that they had moved him to a hospital for court-ordered essential medical
care, despite opposition from his family and fellow protesters.
Running the Barricades
On Monday morning, crowds chanting slogans against
Mr. Modi poured into the Jantar Mantar area, a protest site not far from the
Parliament. The streets were jammed with mostly young people, many saying that
they had come from other parts of India. They tried to push their way to the
site through heavy barricades. In some areas, the police welded tall barricades
to stop the protesters from moving toward the Parliament.
By Monday afternoon, a senior member of Mr. Modi’s
cabinet, J.P. Nadda, met with representatives of the movement, the first such
outreach since the protests began. The movement’s leaders have issued three
specific demands: the immediate resignation of the education minister,
Dharmendra Pradhan; the discharge from the hospital of Mr. Wangchuk; and
compensation for the families those students who died by suicide.
Mr. Pradhan is seen as close to Mr. Modi, having
played an important role in recent victories by his Bharatiya Janata Party, or
B.J.P., in key state elections. The education minister has previously brushed the
protesters aside, calling them “the B-team of terrorists.”
Mr. Nadda, in a statement, confirmed having met “in
a cordial atmosphere,” but offered no sign of what the government response to
the demand would be. “I have requested all the protesters to end their sit-in
and assist the administration in restoring normalcy,” he said.
On the streets, the police continued to chase away
protesters.
“Seeing the brutality with which peacefully
protesting youth are being dealt with, I have decided to continue my fast,” Mr.
Wangchuk, who has been held at a hospital against his will, said in a
statement.
Protest leaders said that the police had destroyed
the stage where Mr. Wangchuk lay during his fast and which had become their
gathering point, but that they were regrouping again late in the evening. “We
won’t leave Jantar Mantar until education minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigns,”
said one of the leaders, Ashutosh Ranka.
Angry Students
The protesters accuse Mr. Pradhan of doing little to
fix an education system that can be corrupt, lax and inefficient. The latest
example — the cancellation of the entrance exams to medical school because the
question papers were leaked and sold — affected millions of students.
Such tests can be a ticket to a better life, whether
for higher education or for a coveted government job. Many families sell land
or borrow money to pay for private tutoring to give students a chance of
success.
One doctoral student, Priyam Dubey, 26, said he had
been in schoolin 2024 when exam questions were leaked. After taking an entrance
exam for a fellowship that could fund his graduate degree, he was told that it
had been scrapped and that he had to sit for it again.
“I gave in the paper, it went really well and next
morning when I woke up, the paper got leaked and they canceled the
examination,” he said. “I didn’t want to prepare again.”
He said no one was being held accountable for what
young people like him often go through.
As the crowds built up, the internet became
inaccessible in the protest area.
Sreelakshmi Sreevalsam, 37, traveled to Delhi from
Bengaluru to “make things audible to the government,” she said. Ms. Sreevalsam,
a project manager at a financial technology company, met up with two friends on
Monday morning for the protests.
“I want to be on the right side of history,” she
said.
Bharati Ghosh, a B.J.P. spokeswoman, said on Sunday
night that the police had arrested those responsible for the leaks and that the
law would take its course. “The B.J.P. government senses, understands and
responds to its people,” she said. “We are not sensing that the entire country
is angry or frustrated.”
Amit Malviya, who is in charge of the ruling party’s
social media wing, tried to downplay the scale of the protest.
“This hardly looks like a protest that enjoys
support beyond professional agitators and ideological groups,” he said on X.
Rare Dissent
The space for protest and dissent in India’s
traditionally raucous democracy has shrunk significantly during Mr. Modi’s 12
years in office. His government has cracked down on dissent and put activists
behind bars, creating a chilling effect on public opposition.
The current protest was started by the Cockroach
Janta Party, a grass-roots movement founded just two months ago that has come to
symbolize the anger among India’s youth. It started in response to a rant by
India’s chief justice comparing the country’s unemployed youth with cockroaches
and parasites. In June, the party announced a sit-in demanding accountability
over the exam leaks.
When the crowds filled the area around the protest
site on Monday morning, the movement’s social media handles posted: “A flood of
hundreds of thousands of cockroaches.”
Mujib Mashal is the South Asia bureau chief for The Times, helping to lead
coverage of India and the diverse region around it, including Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan.
Pragati K.B. is a reporter for The Times based in New Delhi, covering news from
across India.
A version of this article appears in print on July 21, 2026, Section A, Page 10 of the New
York edition with the headline: After Exam Scandal In India, Protests
Draw Tear Gas and Batons.
ATTACHMENT
FIFTEEN.B – FROM X
Indian Chief Justice Surya Kant says there are
"parasites" attacking the system. "There are youngsters like
cockroaches, who don't get any employment and don't have any place in the
profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some
of them become RTI activists, some of them become other activists, and they
start attacking everyone." - CJI.
A2X03 FROM
VISUAL CAPITALIST
Ranked: How Wealthy the Top 1% Are in Each Major
Economy
by Dorothy Neufeld February 24, 2026
See visuals like this from many other data
creators on our Voronoi app.
Download it for free on iOS or Android and
discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Key Takeaways
·
The U.S. has the wealthiest top 1%, with
average per capita wealth of $16.4 million, far ahead of other major economies.
·
In America, the top 1% control 35% of all
wealth, while the bottom 50% hold just $9,000 per person.
·
Mexico has the highest wealth concentration
in this group, with the top 1% holding 37% of national wealth.
In the United States, the average member
of the top 1% holds $16.4 million in wealth.
In Japan, that figure is less than half.
In Mexico, it’s $2.7 million.
The “top 1%” may sound like a global tier
of wealth, but how rich that group actually is depends heavily on where they
live.
Using the latest data from McKinsey, we rank the
world’s major economies by the per capita wealth of their top 1%, adjusted for
purchasing power. The results reveal a startling gap: while American elites
lead the pack with $16.4 million in wealth, others see a net worth of less than
a third of this.
Top 1% Net Worth Per
Capita in Major Economies
Below, we show how the top 1% compares by
country, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). This shows the true buying
power across economies relative to the U.S. dollar:
|
Country |
Top 1%
Average Per Capita Wealth (PPP) |
Bottom 50%
Average Per Capita Wealth |
Top 1%
Share of Wealth |
|
U.S. |
$16.4M |
$9K |
35% |
|
Australia |
$10.6M |
$36K |
24% |
|
Canada |
$9.1M |
$30K |
24% |
|
Germany |
$9.1M |
$23K |
28% |
|
France |
$8.5M |
$31K |
27% |
|
Italy |
$7.2M |
$17K |
22% |
|
South Korea |
$7.2M |
$10K |
26% |
|
Japan |
$6.9M |
$22K |
25% |
|
UK |
$5.0M |
$22K |
21% |
|
China |
$3.2M |
$13K |
30% |
|
Mexico |
$2.7M |
$3K |
37% |
The U.S. has the highest average per
capita wealth for their top 1%, surpassing second-ranked Australia by $5.8
million.
In stark contrast, U.S. national per
capita wealth sits at $470,000, while the bottom 50% holds a net worth of just
$9,000, on average. Overall, the American top 1% controls 35% of the nation’s
total wealth, a share that is steadily rising.
When adjusted for purchasing power, this
share accounts for 5% of global wealth, rising to 9% when measured in absolute
U.S. dollar terms.
While Australia holds the second-highest
average at $10.6 million, its internal wealth gap is notably less extreme.
Australia’s per capita wealth is comparable at $450,000, yet its bottom 50%
holds a significantly higher average net worth of $36,000.
Similarly, this distribution pattern is
broadly mirrored across Canada and major European economies.
In China, average per capita wealth of the
top 1% stands at $3.2 million, against a national per capita wealth of
$110,000. In fact, China’s bottom 50% holds more wealth per person than the
bottom half in the U.S., when adjusted for purchasing power.
A3X04 FROM AI OVERVIEW
TOP
ONE PERCENT
AI Overview
The global net worth threshold to enter the top 1%
worldwide is approximately $870,000 to $1 million, though requirements
vary drastically by country.
Global vs. Country Thresholds
Wealth Control and Holdings
THE RICHEST AMERICAN PEOPLE
A4X55 FROM FORBES
Elon Musk’s Wealth Sinks Below $700 Billion As SpaceX Rout Extends
By Ty Roush Jul 27, 2026, 11:04am EDTJul 27, 2026, 12:17pm EDT
A further decline in SpaceX shares on Monday cut Elon
Musk’s net worth by more than $20 billion, lowering his fortune below the $700 billion threshold for
the first time since December, as Musk falls further from his
trillionaire status.
Shares of SpaceX dropped 4.8% to around $109.50 as of
10:50 a.m. EDT Monday, extending a 50% plunge for the stock since hitting an
all-time high on June 16.
Musk, whose SpaceX holdings include 4.8 billion shares
and another 350 million stock options, saw his net worth cut by $29.5 billion
to $695.7 billion, yet he still ranks well ahead of Google co-founders Larry
Page ($268.5 billion) and Sergey Brin ($247.1 billion) as the world’s richest
person.
Musk’s fortune last ended a trading session below $700
billion on Dec. 18, 2025 ($680.6 billion).
SpaceX’s declining stock value comes even after the
firm’s successful test launch of its Starship rocket on Friday, as Wall Street
appeared to express caution ahead of the test: JPMorgan analyst Seth Seifman
wrote in a note earlier in the week there would be “plenty of analyze” from the
latest Starship launch, though the firm expected “progress and setbacks” across
dozens of more launches through 2027.
An aborted Starship launch on July 16 also pushed
SpaceX shares lower and reduced Musk’s fortune by more than $45 billion to
below $800 billion.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“(Former) trillionaire,” Musk wrote on X last week in
an apparent nod to his declining fortune in recent weeks.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR
Whether SpaceX shares fall below $100. Morgan Stanley
analysts wrote Friday that threshold would imply investors would see no value
in the rocket maker’s AI business. Still, some already see “zero or negative
value” as the firm accelerates its spending on space and connectivity and
“largely uncertain economics,” the analysts wrote.
BIG NUMBER
About $750 billion. That’s how much Musk’s net worth
has declined since hitting a peak of $1.45 trillion on June 16. Around $116
billion of the decline is because Forbes removed Tesla options based on new
vesting conditions agreed to by Musk and his automaker.
KEY BACKGROUND
Musk saw his net worth reach multiple milestones
throughout 2025, culminating in his trillionaire status following SpaceX’s
initial public offering last month. He first crossed the $700 billion threshold
in December, just days after reaching $600 billion, and hit $800 billion in
February. A now-monthlong rout in SpaceX shares comes despite optimism from
analysts, including former Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives, who argued
Musk’s rocket maker is “well-positioned to become a major hyperscaler” across
connectivity, rocket launches and AI infrastructure. Other analysts have
pointed to the possible value of Starship’s potential: UBS analyst Gavin
Parsons wrote the latest launch was important because it was “intended to
validate” capabilities required of the rocket’s launch ramp, including booster
engine relight ability.
A5X05
FROM AI OVERVIEW (obsolete)
USA
RICHEST
AI Overview
The richest person in the United States is Elon
Musk, leading top American billionaires like Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
Richest Individuals in the U.S.
·
Elon Musk:
Estimated over $1 trillion* (Tesla, SpaceX)
(No longer: See Attachment Four above – DJI)
·
Larry Page:
Estimated at roughly $257 billion to $291 billion (Google)
·
Sergey Brin:
Estimated at roughly $237 billion to $269 billion (Google)
·
Jeff Bezos:
Estimated at roughly $224 billion to $249 billion (Amazon)
A6
X54 From wiki
List
of current members of the United States Congress by wealth
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Obsolete)
This
article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent
events or newly available information. (January 2021)
This
list of members of the United States Congress by wealth includes the fifty
richest members of Congress as of 2018. It displays the net worth (the
difference between assets and liabilities) for the member and their immediate
family, such as a spouse or dependent children. These figures offer only an
estimation of wealth, as the Congressional financial disclosure rules use value
ranges instead of exact amounts.[1] As an upper range is not specified for
values over $50 million (or over $1 million for a spouse), large assets are not
represented accurately. Additionally, government salaries and personal
residences are not typically included in disclosures.[2] Furthermore, several
members of Congress do not use a standardized electronic format, but instead
file reports that range from vague to indecipherable.[3] As of 2020, over half
of the members of Congress were millionaires and the median net worth of
members was approximately $1 million.[4]
The
original documents for each member's disclosure are publicly available on a
database website, maintained by OpenSecrets.[5]
Since
2009, the salaries per annum of members of the United States Congress have been
as follows:[6]
Position Salary
Speaker
of the House of Representatives $223,500
Majority
leader and minority leader of the House of Representatives $193,400
President
pro tempore of the Senate $193,400
Senators
and representatives $174,000
Non-voting
members of the United States House of Representatives $174,000
The
wealthiest members of the United States Congress are as follows:
Source:
OpenSecrets (2018 and 2019)
Name Party State Chamber Net worth Source
of wealth
Jim
Justice Republican West Virginia Senate
(since 2025) $664.2 million Owner of The Greenbrier, owner of
several coal mines
Jefferson
Shreve Republican Indiana House
(since 2025) $599.8 million Founder of Storage Express
Rick
Scott Republican Florida Senate
(since 2019) $503.2 million[9] Co-founder of HCA Healthcare, attorney
Darrell
Issa Republican California House (2001–2019, since 2021) Up
to $460 million[10] Former CEO of
Directed Electronics
Kevin
Hern Republican Oklahoma House (since 2018) $361.0
million Owner of several
McDonald's franchises, founder of KTAK Corporation, hog farm owner
Tim
Sheehy Republican Montana Senate
(since 2025) $297.06 million Founder of Bridger Aerospace
Michael
McCaul Republican Texas House
(since 2005) $294 million[11] His father-in-law founded iHeartMedia
Nancy
Pelosi Democratic California House (since 1987) $287
million[5] Investments
Dan
Goldman Democratic New York House (since 2023) $64 to
253 million[12] Heir to Levi's
Mark
Warner Democratic Virginia Senate (since 2009) $214.1
million[5] Early investor in Nextel,
founder of Columbia Capital
Pete
Ricketts Republican Nebraska Senate (since 2023) $206.39
million[13] Family owns TD
Ameritrade, stake in the Chicago Cubs
Dave
McCormick Republican Pennsylvania Senate (since 2025) $165.3
million Former Co-CEO of Bridgewater
Vernon
Buchanan Republican Florida House
(since 2007) $157.2 million Co-founder of American Speedy Printing,
Honda distributor
April
McClain Delaney Democratic Maryland House (since 2025) $152.7
million[14] Real estate investments,
hedge fund holdings
Don
Beyer Democratic Virginia House
(since 2015) $124.9 million[5] Auto dealer
Jay
Obernolte Republican California House (since 2021) $97.76
million[15] Former owner and director
of FarSight Studios
Sara
Jacobs Democratic California House (since 2021) $87.29
million[16] Her grandfather
founded Qualcomm
Richard
Blumenthal Democratic Connecticut Senate (since 2011) $85.2
million[17] Son-in-law of Peter L.
Malkin
Suzan
DelBene Democratic Washington House (since 2012) $79.4
million[5] Microsoft executive
Ron
Johnson Republican Wisconsin Senate (since 2011) $78.5
million Former CEO of Bemis
Company
Markwayne
Mullin Republican Oklahoma Senate (since 2023)
House
(2013–2023)
$31.6
million to $75.6 million[18] Owner
of Mullin Properties, Mullin Farms, and Mullin Services
Doris
Matsui Democratic California House (since 2005) $73.8
million[19] Her husband founded
AES Corporation
Roger
Williams Republican Texas House
(since 2013) $66.9 million[20] His father's auto dealerships
Buddy
Carter Republican Georgia House
(since 2015) $66.5 million Pharmacist, investments
Scott
Peters Democratic California House (since 2013) $60.5
million Attorney, economist,
investments
Bernie
Moreno Republican Ohio Senate (since
2025) $55.6 million Auto dealer, investor in Ownum
Marlin
Stutzman Republican Indiana House
(2010–2017, since 2025) $54.3
million[21] Stake in a farm, owner
of Stutzman Farms Trucking, his wife owns a tourist attraction
Bill
Hagerty Republican Tennessee Senate (since 2021) $52.8
million[22] Investment firm
director
Rick
W. Allen Republican Georgia House
(since 2015) $52.1 million Founder of R.W. Allen and Associates
Robert
Bresnahan Republican Pennsylvania House (since 2025) $48
million[23] Former CEO of
Kuharchik Construction, owner of RPB Ventures
John
Hoeven Republican North Dakota Senate (since 2011) $46.6
million[24] Shareholder in First
Western Bank & Trust
Ro
Khanna Democratic California House (since 2017) $45.7 million[25] Attorney, energy services executive
Jim
Risch Republican Idaho Senate
(since 2009) $41.8 million Attorney, investments
Shri
Thanedar Democratic Michigan House (since 2023) $40.9
million[26] Former owner of
Chemir, founder of Avomeen
Maria
Cantwell Democratic Washington Senate (since 2001)
House
(1993–1995)
$40
million (peak, pre-2003)[27] Former
Vice-President and shareholder in RealNetworks
Mitch
McConnell Republican Kentucky Senate (since 1985) $34.1
million Attorney, investments
Steve
Daines Republican Montana Senate
(since 2015) $32.9 million Procter & Gamble executive
Dan
Meuser Republican Pennsylvania House (since 2019) $31.7
million[28] Former President of
Pride Corporation
Lloyd
Doggett Democratic Texas House
(since 1995) $29.7 million Attorney, investments
Chellie
Pingree Democratic Maine House
(since 2009) $28.58 million[29] Ex-wife of financier Donald Sussman
Brad
Schneider Democratic Illinois House (2013–2015, since 2017) $27.2
million Management consultant,
industrial engineer
French
Hill Republican Arkansas House (since 2015) Up to
$25.7 million[30] Financial
services executive
John
Rose Republican Tennessee House (since
2019) $23.3 million[31] Co-founder of Transcender Corporation
Dan
Newhouse Republican Washington House (since 2015) $21.2
million Farmer
Ralph
Norman Republican South Carolina House (since 2017) $20.6
million[32] Construction executive
Cynthia
Lummis Republican Wyoming Senate
(since 2021)
House
(2009–2017)
$20
to 75 million (peak in 2007)[33] Real
estate holdings, cryptocurrency, co-owner of Hammond Hardware Company
See
also
List
of richest American politicians
Stop
Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act
References
"Wealth of Congress". Roll Call.
Retrieved May 17, 2020.
"About the Personal Finances Data &
CRP's Methodology". OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Retrieved January 12, 2021.
Marquette, Chris (October 1, 2020).
"Several lawmakers disclose opaque financial records". Roll Call.
Evers-Hillstrom, Karl (April 23, 2020).
"Majority of lawmakers in 116th Congress are millionaires".
OpenSecrets.
"Nancy Pelosi- financial holdings".
Quiver Quantitative. QuiverQuantitative. May 19, 2026. Retrieved May 19, 2026.
Brudnick, Ida A. (April 11, 2018).
"Congressional Salaries and Allowances: In Brief" (PDF).
Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on November
10, 2016. Retrieved November 10, 2016.
Hankins, Taylor (September 2, 2025). "Jim
Justice is the richest U.S. Senator, data shows". WHSV.
"Jefferson Shreve Net Worth | Quiver
Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"Rick Scott Net Worth | Quiver
Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"Mitt Romney, Rick Scott and 3 More of
the Richest Members of Congress". Yahoo Finance.
"The 50 Richest Members of Congress —
112th : Roll Call". www.rollcall.com. Archived from the original on
September 17, 2011. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"Levi Strauss Heir Would Join Congress's
Richest With NYC Win". Bloomberg.com. Archived from the original on June
18, 2025. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"Pete Ricketts Net Worth | Quiver
Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"April McClain Delaney Net Worth | Quiver
Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"Jay Obernolte Net Worth | Quiver
Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"Sara Jacobs Net Worth | Quiver
Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
Middleton, Chris. "The 25 wealthiest
members of the US Congress". Moneywise. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
Krehbiel, Randy (November 13, 2023) [October
8, 2022]. "Mullin's and Hern's net worth jump with sale of
businesses". Tulsa World. Updated. Archived from the original on December
17, 2024.
Middleton, Chris. "The 25 wealthiest
members of the US Congress". Moneywise. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"Roger Williams- Net Worth - Personal
Finances". OpenSecrets. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"Marlin A. Stutzman Net Worth | Quiver
Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 28, 2025.
"Bill Hagerty Net Worth | Quiver
Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 28, 2025.
Terruso, Makenzie Kerneckel | Julia (August
10, 2025). "Rob Bresnahan's stock trades fuel doubts about GOP hold on key
Pa. swing seat". Inquirer.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"John Hoeven- Net Worth - Personal
Finances". OpenSecrets. Retrieved September 30, 2025.
"Ro Khanna- Net Worth - Personal
Finances". OpenSecrets. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"Shri Thanedar Net Worth | Quiver
Quantitative". www.quiverquant.com. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
Keller, Amy (September 4, 2003). "The
Roll Call 50 Richest: Gainers and Losers". Roll Call. Retrieved September
30, 2025.
"Dan Meuser- Net Worth - Personal
Finances". OpenSecrets. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
"The
15 Richest Members of Congress 2012". CNBC. October 23, 2012. Retrieved
September 30, 2025.
"How slaveholding families reasserted
themselves after the Civil War". Reuters. December 13, 2023. Retrieved
September 27, 2025.
Middleton, Chris. "The 25 wealthiest
members of the US Congress". Moneywise. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
Middleton, Chris. "The 25 wealthiest
members of the US Congress". Moneywise. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
Nickerson,
Gregory (December 13, 2011). "Wyoming Delegation: Rep. Cynthia Lummis
among Richest Members of Congress". WyoFile. Retrieved September 27, 2025.
THE RICHEST AMERICAN CONGRESSPEOPLE
A7 X52 FROM BALLOTPEDIA (2012) (OBSOLETE)
|
Net worth of United States Senators and Representatives Definitions Classes
of United States Senators • President
Pro Tempore of the Senate • United
States Speaker of the House • Filibuster • Reconciliation • Vote-a-ramas • Parliamentarian • Christmas tree bill |
|
Notable events Key votes • Presidential addresses |
|
Elections Election
dates • Filing requirements for congressional candidates • Filling
vacancies in Senate • Filling vacancies in House |
|
Campaign finance Federal
Election Commission • Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee • National
Republican Congressional Committee • Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee • National
Republican Senatorial Committee |
|
Sessions 119th
Congress |
This page was last updated
in its entirety in 2012. The figures below reflect net worth information for
members of Congress based on data OpenSecrets.org calculated.
As of June 2025, Ballotpedia did not identify any other organizations that
tracked congressional net worth across the years. One resource, investment
research platform Quiver Quantitative, estimated real time congressional net
worth as of June 2025. Click here to view its dataset.
In 2018, 229 of 535 (43%) members
of Congress had an average net worth of at least $1 million.[1] According to analysis conducted
by Politifact, 5% to 12% of U.S. citizens had a net worth of at
least $1 million.[2] In 2012, a majority (50%) of
Congress had an average net worth of at least $1 million, an historic first.[3]
Congressional net worth differs
depending on how it is calculated. For example, OpenSecrets said of its
methodology, "It is difficult to gauge what a lawmaker is worth because
disclosure forms do not require exact values. Instead, lawmakers report the
value of assets and liabilities within a range. ... To calculate net worth,
therefore, we added a lawmaker's ranges of assets and subtracted their range of
liabilities. Next, we calculated the midpoint of the resulting range and used
this figure for [our rankings]."[1] News outlet Roll Call,
on the other hand, looked at minimum net worth, finding only 39% of Congress
had a net worth of at least $1 million.[2] Quiver Quantitative's live
estimates, unlike OpenSecrets, did not include outstanding liabilities.[4]
Analysis provided on this page
includes:
·
A
complete list of the average net worth of Congress from 2004 to 2011/12
·
The
ten wealthiest (and poorest) members of both the House and Senate from 2010 to 2012
·
The
net worth of new members of Congress from
2005 to 2015
·
How
much the congressional delegations of each state were worth from 2004 to 2011
·
A
complete list of the net worth averages for individual congressional members
from 2004 to 2011
For information on which members
saw the highest change during their tenure, please see Ballotpedia's page on
the Changes in Net Worth of U.S.
Senators and Representatives (Personal Gain Index).
Average
worth
|
Year |
# of Reports |
Total Net Worth |
Average |
|
2011 |
627 |
$4,946,090,771 |
$7,888,502 |
|
2010 |
641 |
$4,680,278,853 |
$7,301,527 |
|
2009 |
652 |
$4,271,710,652 |
$6,551,703 |
|
2008 |
600 |
$3,834,468,090 |
$6,390,780 |
|
2007 |
603 |
$4,633,904,377 |
$7,684,750 |
|
2006 |
594 |
$3,979,189,252 |
$6,698,972 |
|
2005 |
542 |
$3,459,576,717 |
$6,382,983 |
|
2004 |
580 |
$3,533,674,470 |
$6,092,542 |
Note: Report numbers may reflect
incoming and outgoing members of congress.
|
|
Note: Report numbers may reflect
incoming and outgoing members of congress.
Democrats
|
|
Note: Report numbers may reflect
incoming and outgoing members of congress.
Republicans
|
|
Note: Report numbers may reflect
incoming and outgoing members of congress.
Independents
|
|
Note: Report numbers may reflect
incoming and outgoing members of congress.
Top
and bottom
Senators
Mark Warner (D-VA) was the wealthiest senator in 2012,
with an estimated net worth of $257,481,658.
Mark Pryor (D-AR) was the least wealthy senator in 2012,
with an estimated net worth of $8,500
|
Senator |
Average Net Worth |
|
|
$257,481,658 |
||
|
$103,803,192 |
||
|
$101,290,514 |
||
|
$68,446,578 |
||
|
$53,517,527 |
||
|
$49,114,509 |
||
|
$37,115,538 |
||
|
$24,442,007 |
||
|
$24,069,791 |
||
|
$22,841,026 |
||
|
Senator |
Average Net Worth |
|
|
$291,002 |
||
|
$248,001 |
||
|
$243,504 |
||
|
$171,007 |
||
|
$129,503 |
||
|
$111,002 |
||
|
$83,001 |
||
|
$82,502 |
||
|
$32,500 |
||
|
$8,500 |
||
|
|
REPRESENTATIVES
Darrell Issa (R-CA) was the wealthiest representative
in 2012, with an estimated net worth of $464,115,018
David Valadao (R-CA) was the least wealthy
representative in 2012, with an estimated net worth of -$12,167,002
|
Representative |
Average Net Worth |
|
$464,115,018 |
|
|
$197,945,705 |
|
|
$154,601,580 |
|
|
$143,153,910 |
|
|
$112,467,040 |
|
|
$88,802,066 |
|
|
$87,997,030 |
|
|
$69,569,042 |
|
|
$64,314,955 |
|
|
$59,104,518 |
|
|
Representative |
Average Net Worth |
|
-$99,999 |
|
|
-$101,498 |
|
|
-$129,973 |
|
|
-$162,501 |
|
|
-$175,001 |
|
|
-$472,502 |
|
|
-$510,000 |
|
|
-$2,303,473 |
|
|
-$4,732,002 |
|
|
-$12,167,002 |
|
|
PREVIOUS YEARS
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
CONGRESSIONAL
FRESHMEN
Below are average net worth
numbers for first year freshman members for each recent session of Congress.
109th Congress
|
Year[5] |
Number of Freshmen Reports |
Average Net Worth |
Change from previous year |
|
2004 |
44 |
$3,133,813 |
-- |
|
2005 |
45 |
$3,219,896 |
2.75% |
|
2006 |
45 |
$3,233,137 |
0.41% |
|
2007 |
40 |
$4,209,184 |
30.19% |
|
2008 |
40 |
$3,854,689 |
-8.42% |
|
2009 |
39 |
$6,047,795 |
56.89% |
|
2010 |
38 |
$12,939,172 |
113.95% |
110th Congress
|
Year[5] |
Number of Freshmen Reports[6] |
Average Net Worth |
Change from previous year |
|
2006 |
58 |
$5,386,525 |
-- |
|
2007 |
75 |
$5,840,167 |
8.42% |
|
2008 |
75 |
$4,719,385 |
-19.19% |
|
2009 |
69 |
$5,058,388 |
7.18% |
|
2010 |
68 |
$5,192,922 |
2.66% |
111th Congress
|
Year[5] |
Number of Freshmen Reports[6] |
Average Net Worth |
Change from previous year |
|
2007 |
59 |
$12,876,803 |
-- |
|
2008 |
72 |
$10,209,940 |
-20.71% |
|
2009 |
81 |
$9,666,020 |
-5.33% |
|
2010 |
79 |
$8,913,200 |
-7.79% |
113th Congress
|
Year[5] |
Number of Freshmen Reports[6] |
Average Net Worth |
Change from previous year |
|
2011 |
90 |
$7,835,242 |
|
State
averages by year
|
State |
Senate Average |
Senate Rank |
Senate Report Count |
House Average |
House Rank |
House Report Count |
Congressional Average |
Congressional Rank |
|
Alaska |
$1,045,021 |
44 |
2 |
$872,504 |
43 |
1 |
$987,515 |
47 |
|
Alabama |
$7,360,029 |
19 |
2 |
$1,649,225 |
36 |
7 |
$2,918,292 |
32 |
|
Arkansas |
$1,489,503 |
41 |
2 |
$267,505 |
49 |
2 |
$878,504 |
48 |
|
Arizona |
$3,301,081 |
29 |
3 |
$4,710,291 |
20 |
9 |
$4,357,988 |
25 |
|
California |
$36,994,314 |
6 |
2 |
$13,487,344 |
7 |
60 |
$14,245,633 |
11 |
|
Connecticut |
$34,055,238 |
7 |
3 |
$4,810,621 |
19 |
5 |
$15,777,353 |
10 |
|
Colorado |
$6,791,773 |
20 |
2 |
$44,918,951 |
2 |
5 |
$34,025,472 |
1 |
|
Delaware |
$4,476,637 |
24 |
2 |
$485,015 |
46 |
1 |
$3,146,096 |
31 |
|
Florida |
$1,693,505 |
37 |
2 |
$6,831,237 |
12 |
27 |
$6,476,910 |
18 |
|
Georgia |
$6,193,537 |
21 |
2 |
$2,763,447 |
29 |
13 |
$3,220,793 |
30 |
|
Hawaii |
$2,113,843 |
34 |
3 |
$1,334,757 |
40 |
2 |
$1,802,208 |
40 |
|
Iowa |
$9,288,549 |
16 |
2 |
$1,434,839 |
38 |
5 |
$3,678,756 |
29 |
|
Idaho |
$27,139,022 |
8 |
2 |
$1,895,563 |
35 |
1 |
$18,724,536 |
7 |
|
Illinois |
$671,783 |
46 |
2 |
$2,968,056 |
28 |
21 |
$2,768,380 |
36 |
|
Indiana |
$2,451,176 |
31 |
3 |
$1,252,584 |
41 |
8 |
$1,579,473 |
42 |
|
Kansas |
$1,285,264 |
42 |
2 |
$367,342 |
47 |
3 |
$734,511 |
49 |
|
Kentucky |
$14,085,268 |
11 |
2 |
$5,351,390 |
17 |
6 |
$7,534,860 |
17 |
|
Louisiana |
$1,734,519 |
36 |
2 |
$3,212,840 |
27 |
6 |
$2,843,260 |
35 |
|
Massachusetts |
$82,250,150 |
1 |
3 |
$4,985,001 |
18 |
11 |
$21,541,819 |
5 |
|
Maryland |
$1,543,023 |
39 |
2 |
$16,629,790 |
6 |
9 |
$13,886,741 |
12 |
|
Maine |
$10,133,703 |
13 |
3 |
$44,480,020 |
3 |
2 |
$23,872,230 |
4 |
|
Michigan |
$826,103 |
45 |
2 |
$2,335,343 |
32 |
17 |
$2,176,476 |
39 |
|
Minnesota |
$4,555,271 |
23 |
2 |
$613,395 |
45 |
9 |
$1,330,100 |
44 |
|
Missouri |
$12,465,308 |
12 |
2 |
$1,995,109 |
34 |
10 |
$3,740,142 |
27 |
|
Mississippi |
$1,135,519 |
43 |
2 |
$1,602,177 |
37 |
3 |
$1,415,514 |
43 |
|
Montana |
$661,502 |
47 |
2 |
$9,230,505 |
9 |
2 |
$4,946,003 |
23 |
|
Nebraska |
$4,643,352 |
22 |
3 |
$327,009 |
48 |
2 |
$2,916,815 |
33 |
|
North Carolina |
$9,992,394 |
14 |
2 |
$4,602,323 |
22 |
15 |
$5,236,449 |
22 |
|
North Dakota |
$9,348,198 |
15 |
3 |
$46,438,414 |
1 |
1 |
$18,620,752 |
8 |
|
New Hampshire |
$2,115,688 |
33 |
2 |
$2,354,059 |
31 |
4 |
$2,274,602 |
38 |
|
New Jersey |
$44,027,806 |
5 |
2 |
$6,250,476 |
14 |
11 |
$12,062,373 |
14 |
|
New Mexico |
$4,397,869 |
26 |
3 |
$6,993,337 |
11 |
3 |
$5,695,603 |
21 |
|
Nevada |
$3,775,436 |
27 |
2 |
$5,377,818 |
16 |
4 |
$4,843,691 |
24 |
|
New York |
$368,506 |
49 |
2 |
$6,182,855 |
15 |
32 |
$5,840,834 |
20 |
|
Ohio |
$7,409,025 |
18 |
2 |
$3,339,310 |
26 |
20 |
$3,709,284 |
28 |
|
Oklahoma |
$7,571,041 |
17 |
2 |
$2,139,021 |
33 |
4 |
$3,949,694 |
26 |
|
Oregon |
$20,135,518 |
10 |
2 |
$3,910,103 |
25 |
6 |
$7,966,457 |
16 |
|
Pennsylvania |
$1,806,771 |
35 |
2 |
$2,491,321 |
30 |
18 |
$2,422,866 |
37 |
|
Rhode Island |
$4,440,568 |
25 |
2 |
$1,363,505 |
39 |
2 |
$2,902,036 |
34 |
|
South Carolina |
$1,506,330 |
40 |
3 |
$667,639 |
44 |
4 |
$1,027,078 |
46 |
|
South Dakota |
$575,012 |
48 |
2 |
N/A |
N/A |
0 |
$627,513 |
50 |
|
Tennessee |
$26,977,516 |
9 |
2 |
$10,169,035 |
8 |
8 |
$13,530,731 |
13 |
|
Texas |
$2,872,526 |
30 |
3 |
$17,855,000 |
5 |
36 |
$16,702,502 |
9 |
|
Utah |
$1,578,767 |
38 |
2 |
$906,841 |
42 |
3 |
$1,175,611 |
45 |
|
Virginia |
$78,455,068 |
2 |
3 |
$4,419,740 |
23 |
10 |
$21,504,816 |
6 |
|
Vermont |
$218,754 |
50 |
2 |
$4,602,548 |
21 |
1 |
$1,680,019 |
41 |
|
Washington |
$2,444,007 |
32 |
2 |
$6,579,204 |
13 |
10 |
$5,890,005 |
19 |
|
Wisconsin |
$65,256,839 |
3 |
3 |
$7,579,123 |
10 |
7 |
$24,882,438 |
2 |
|
West Virginia |
$55,178,031 |
4 |
2 |
$4,223,358 |
24 |
3 |
$24,605,227 |
3 |
|
Wyoming |
$3,533,020 |
28 |
2 |
$18,918,517 |
4 |
1 |
$8,661,519 |
15 |
Data
and methodology
Data
Every year members of congress
are required by law to disclose certain financial information regarding
personal assets and liabilities. OpenSecrets.org (The
Center for Responsive Politics), a self-proclaimed "nonpartisan guide to
money's influence on U.S. elections and public policy," tracks the
financial information, and posts it publicly under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike
3.0 United States License. That data, currently available for the
years 2004 to 2010, is listed in part below in the section Individual data.
Congressional financial
disclosure forms use value ranges, rather than precise amounts, when reporting
assets and liabilities. OpenSecrets gathers this information to build a range
of potential values. For instance, if three assets are listed at a value range
of $1,001-$15,000, the total range of assets would be listed as a minimum of
$3,003 (3 X $1,001) and a maximum value would be $45,000 (3 X $15,000).
OpenSecrets combines all assets and liability to form a total potential range
of values, and then provides an average value as the best guess of each
individual's net worth.[7]
Analysis
Ballotpedia staff took
OpenSecrets predicted net worth averages for all reported members of congress
and using statistical software calculated yearly averages and changes for
various congressional subsets.
Limitations
OpenSecrets notes some important
limitations to the data:[7]
·
Data
is not available for a limited number of congressional members.
·
The
top range for item valuation is listed as "Over $50 million" on
forms. When possible OpenSecrets tried to determine a more accurate figure.
·
The
top range for Senate spousal assets is listed as Over $1 million." When
possible OpenSecrets tried to determine a more accurate figure.
·
Property
(such as personal residences) and non-income producing investments are not
required to be reported under ethics laws. However, all mortgages are required
to be disclosed.
Individual
data
Senate
ARE BILLIONAIRES EVIL?
A8X06 FROM THE ECONOMIST
|
X Inside Economics: Are
billionaires a policy failure? |
||||
|
||||
|
THE FIRST and SECOND GILDED AGES
A9
X58 FROM HISTORY.COM
THE FIRST GILDED AGE
Published: February
13, 2018 Last
Updated: May 28, 2025
“The
Gilded Age” is the term used to describe the tumultuous years between the Civil
War and the turn of the 20th century. The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today
was a famous satirical novel by Mark Twain set in the late 1800s, and was its
namesake. During this era, America became more prosperous and saw unprecedented
growth in industry and technology. But the Gilded Age had a more sinister side:
It was a period where greedy, corrupt industrialists, bankers and politicians
enjoyed extraordinary wealth and opulence at the expense of the working class.
In fact, it was wealthy tycoons, not politicians, who inconspicuously held the
most political power during the Gilded Age.
Transcontinental Railroad
Before
the Civil War,
rail travel was dangerous and difficult, but after the war, George Westinghouse
invented the air brake, which made braking systems more dependable and safe.
Soon,
the development of Pullman sleeping cars and dining cars made rail travel
comfortable and more enjoyable for passengers. It wasn’t long before trains
overtook other forms of long-distance travel such as the stagecoach and riding
horseback.
In
1869, the Transcontinental
Railroad was finished and led to rapid settlement of the western
United States. It also made it much easier to transport goods over long
distances from one part of the country to another.
This
enormous railroad expansion resulted in rail companies and their executives
receiving lavish amounts of money and land—up to 200 million acres, by some
estimates—from the United States government. In many cases, politicians cut
shady backroom deals and helped create railroad and shipping tycoons such as Cornelius Vanderbilt and Jay Gould.
Meanwhile, thousands of African American—many of them former slaves—were hired
as Pullman porters
and paid a pittance to cater to riders’ every need.
Robber Barons
Railroad
tycoons were just one of many types of so-called robber barons that emerged in
the Gilded Age.
These
men used union busting, fraud, intimidation, violence and their extensive
political connections to gain an advantage over any competitors. Robber barons
were relentless in their efforts to amass wealth while exploiting workers and
ignoring standard business rules—and in many cases, the law itself.
They
soon accumulated vast amounts of money and dominated every major industry
including the railroad, oil, banking, timber, sugar, liquor, meatpacking,
steel, mining, tobacco and textile industries.
Some
wealthy entrepreneurs such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Henry
Frick are often referred to as robber barons but may not exactly fit the mold.
While it’s true they built huge monopolies, often by crushing any small
business or competitor in their way, they were also generous philanthropists
who didn’t always rely on political ploys to build their empires.
Some
tried to improve life for their employees, donated millions to charities and
nonprofits and supported their communities by providing funding for everything
from libraries and hospitals to universities, public parks and zoos.
Industrial Revolution
The
Gilded Age was in many ways the culmination of the Industrial Revolution, when
America and much of Europe shifted from an agricultural society to an
industrial one.
Millions
of immigrants and struggling farmers arrived in cities such as New York, Boston,
Philadelphia, St. Louis and Chicago,
looking for work and hastening the urbanization of America. By 1900, about 40
percent of Americans lived in major cities.
Most
cities were unprepared for rapid population growth. Housing was limited, and tenements and slums sprung up
nationwide. Heating, lighting, sanitation and medical care were poor or
nonexistent, and millions died from preventable disease.
Many
immigrants were unskilled and willing to work long hours for little pay. Gilded
Age plutocrats considered them the perfect employees for their sweatshops,
where working conditions were dangerous and workers endured long periods of
unemployment, wage cuts and no benefits.
Gilded Age Homes
Homes
of the Gilded Age elite were nothing short of spectacular. The wealthy
considered themselves America’s royalty and settled for nothing less than
estates worthy of that distinction. Some of America’s most famous mansions were
built during the Gilded Age such as:
Biltmore,
located in Asheville, North Carolina, was the family
estate of George and Edith Vanderbilt. Construction started on the 250-room
chateau in 1889, prior to the couple’s marriage, and continued for six years.
The home had 35 bedrooms, 43 bathrooms, 65 fireplaces, a dairy, a horse barn
and beautiful formal and informal gardens.
The
Breakers in Newport, Rhode Island, is another
Vanderbilt mansion. It was the summer home of railroad mogul Cornelius
Vanderbilt. The Italian-Renaissance style home has 70 rooms, a stable and a
carriage house.
Rosecliff,
also in Newport, was completed in 1902. The oceanfront home was contracted by
Theresa Fair Oelrichs and built to resemble the Grand Trianon of Versailles.
Today, it’s best known as the backdrop for movie scenes in The Great Gatsby,
High Society, 27 Dresses and True Lies.
Whitehall,
located in Palm Beach, Florida, was the neoclassical
winter retreat of oil tycoon Henry Flagler and his wife Mary. The 100,000
square foot, 75-room mansion was completed in 1902 and is now a popular museum.
Income Inequality in the Gilded Age
The
industrialists of the Gilded Age lived high on the hog, but most of the working
class lived below poverty level. As time went on, the income inequality between
wealthy and poor became more and more glaring.
While
the wealthy lived in opulent homes, dined on succulent food and showered their
children with gifts, the poor were crammed into filthy tenement apartments,
struggled to put a loaf of bread on the table and often accompanied their
children to a sweatshop each morning where they faced a 12-hour (or longer)
workday.
Some
moguls used Social Darwinism to justify the inequality between the classes. The
theory presumes that the fittest humans are the most successful and poor people
are destitute because they’re weak and lack the skills to be prosperous.
Muckrakers
Muckrakers
is a term used to describe reporters who exposed corruption among politicians
and the elite. They used investigative journalism and the print revolution to
dig through “the muck” of the Gilded Age and report scandal and injustice.
In
1890, reporter and photographer Jacob Riis brought the horrors of
New York slum life to light in his book, How the Other Half Lives,
prompting New York politicians to pass legislation to improve tenement
conditions.
In
1902, McClure Magazine journalist Lincoln Steffens took on city corruption when
he penned the article, “Tweed Days in St. Louis.” The article, which is widely
considered the first muckracking magazine article, exposed how city officials
deceitfully made deals with crooked businessmen to maintain power.
Another
journalist, Ida Tarbell,
spent years investigating the underhanded rise of oilman John D. Rockefeller.
Her 19-part series, also published in McClure in 1902, led to the breakup of
Rockefeller’s monopoly, the Standard Oil Company.
In
1906, activist journalist and novelist Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle
to expose horrendous working conditions in the meatpacking industry. The book
and ensuing public outcry led to the passing of the Meat Inspection Act and the
Pure Food and Drug Act.
Labor Unions Rise
Labor Day's Railroad Strike Roots
Congress
passed legislation in 1894—amid a railroad workers' strike—to create the
holiday honoring labor.
1:02m watch
It
soon became obvious that the huge disparity between the wealthy and poor
couldn’t last, and the working class would have to organize to improve their
working and living conditions. It was also obvious this wouldn’t happen without
some degree of violence.
Much
of the violence, however, was between the workers themselves as they struggled
to agree on what they were fighting for. Some simply wanted increased wages and
a better working environment, while others also wanted to keep women,
immigrants and blacks out of the workforce.
Although
the first labor unions occurred around the turn of the nineteenth century, they
gained momentum during the Gilded Age, thanks to the increased number of
unskilled and unsatisfied factory workers.
Railroad Strikes
On
July 16, 1877, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company announced a 10-percent
pay cut on its railroad workers in Martinsburg, West Virginia, the second cut in
less than eight months.
Infuriated
and fed up, the workers—with the support of the locals—announced they’d prevent
all trains from leaving the roundhouse until their pay was restored.
The
mayor, the police and even the National Guard couldn’t stop the strike. It
wasn’t until Federal troops arrived that one train finally left the station.
The
strike spread among other railroads, sparking violence across America between
the working class and local and federal authorities. At its peak, over 100,000
railroad workers were on strike. Many of the Robber Barons feared an
aggressive, all-out revolution against their way of life.
Instead,
the strike—later known as the Great Upheaval—ended abruptly and was labeled a
dismal failure. Yet it showed America’s tycoons there was strength in numbers
and that organized labor had the potential to shut down entire industries and
inflict major economic and political damage.
As
the working class continued to use strikes and boycotts to fight for higher
wages and improved working conditions, their bosses staged lock-outs and
brought in replacement workers known as scabs.
They
also created blacklists to prevent active union workers from becoming employed
elsewhere. Even so, the working class continued to unite and press their cause
and often won at least some of their demands.
Gilded Age Cities
Innovations
of the Gilded Age helped usher in modern America. Urbanization and
technological creativity led to many engineering advances such as bridges and
canals, elevators and skyscrapers, trolley lines and subways.
The
invention of electricity brought illumination to homes and businesses and
created an unprecedented, thriving night life. Art and literature flourished, and
the rich filled their lavish homes with expensive works of art and elaborate
décor.
In
1876, Alexander Graham Bell
invented the telephone and made the world a much smaller place for both
individuals and businesses. Advances in sanitation and housing, and the
availability of better quality food and material goods, improved quality of
life for the middle class.
But
while the middle and upper classes enjoyed the allure of city life, little
changed for the poor. Most still faced horrific living conditions, high crime
rates and a pitiable existence.
Many
escaped their drudgery by watching a vaudeville show or a spectator sport such
as boxing, baseball or football, all of which enjoyed a surge during the Gilded
Age.
Women in the Gilded Age
Upper-class
women of the Gilded Age have been compared to dolls on display dressed in
resplendent finery. They flaunted their wealth and endeavored to improve their
status in society while poor and middle-class women both envied and mimicked
them.
Some
wealthy Gilded Age women were much more than eye candy, though, and often
traded domestic life for social activism and charitable work. They felt a new
degree of empowerment and fought for equality, including the right to vote
through women’s suffrage groups.
Some
created homes for destitute immigrants while others pushed a temperance agenda,
believing the source of poverty and most family troubles was alcohol. Wealthy
women philanthropists of the Gilded Age include:
Louise
Whitfield Carnegie, wife of Andrew Carnegie, who created Carnegie Hall and
donated to the Red Cross, the Y.W.C.A., and other charities.
Abby
Aldrich Rockefeller, wife of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who helped create hotels
for women and solicited funds to create the New York Museum of Modern Art.
Margaret
Olivia Sage, wife of Russell Sage, who after the death of her miserly husband
gave away $45 million of her $75 million inheritance to support women’s causes,
educational institutions and the creation of the Russell Sage Foundation for
Social Betterment, which directly helped poor people.
Many
women during the Gilded Age sought higher education. Others postponed marriage
and took jobs such as typists or telephone switchboard operators.
Thanks
to a print revolution and the accessibility of newspapers, magazines and books,
women became increasingly knowledgeable, cultured, well-informed and a
political force to be reckoned with.
Jane Addams
Jane Addams is arguably the
best-known philanthropist of the Gilded Age. In 1889, she and Ellen Gates Star
established a secular settlement house in Chicago known as Hull-House.
The
neighborhood was a melting pot of struggling immigrants, and Hull-House
provided everything from midwife services and basic medical care to
kindergarten, day care and housing for abused women. It also offered English
and citizenship classes. Addams received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931.
Carrie Nation
Temperance
leader Carrie Nation
gained notoriety during the Gilded Age for smashing up saloons with a hatchet
to bring attention to her sobriety agenda. She was also a strong voice for the
suffrage movement.
Nation’s
belief that alcohol was the root of all evil was partially due to her difficult
first marriage to an alcoholic, and her work with women and children displaced
or abused by over-imbibing husbands.
Convinced
God had instructed her to use whatever means necessary to close bars throughout
Kansas, she was often beaten,
mocked and jailed but ultimately helped pave the way for the 18th Amendment (prohibiting the
sale of alcohol) and the 19th Amendment
(giving women the right to vote).
Limits to Power
Many
other pivotal events happened during the Gilded Age which changed America’s
course and culture. As muckrakers exposed corrupt robber barons and
politicians, labor unions and reformist politicians enacted laws to limit their
power.
The
western frontier saw violent conflicts between white settlers and the United
States Army against Native Americans. The Native Americans were eventually
forced off their land and onto reservations with often disastrous results. In
1890, the western frontier was declared closed.
Populist Party
As
drought and depression struck rural America, farmers in the west—who vilified
railroad tycoons and wanted a political voice—organized and played a key role
in forming the Populist Party.
The
Populists had a democratic agenda that aimed to give power back to the people
and paved the way for the progressive movement, which still fights to close the
gap between the wealthy and poor and champion the needy and disenfranchised.
End of the Gilded Age
In
1893, both the overextended Philadelphia and Reading Railroad and the National
Cordage Company failed, which set off an economic depression unlike any seen
before in America.
Banks
and other businesses folded, and the stock market plunged, leaving millions
unemployed, homeless and hungry. In some states, unemployment rose to almost 50
percent.
The
Panic of 1893 lasted four years and left lower and even middle-class Americans
fed up with political corruption and social inequality. Their frustration gave
rise to the Progressive Movement which took hold when President Theodore Roosevelt
took office in 1901.
Although
Roosevelt supported corporate America, he also felt there should be federal
controls in place to keep excessive corporate greed in check and prevent
individuals from making obscene amounts of money off the backs of immigrants
and the lower class.
Helped
by the muckrackers and the White House,
the Progressive Era ushered in many reforms that helped shift away power from
robber barons, such as:
By
1916, America’s cities were cleaner and healthier, factories safer, governments
less corrupt and many people had better housing, working hours and wages. Fewer
monopolies meant more people could pursue the American Dream and start their
own businesses.
When
America entered World War I
in 1917, the Progressive Era and any remnants of the Gilded Age effectively
ended as the country’s focus shifted to the realities of war. Most robber
barons and their families, however, remained wealthy for generations.
Even
so, many bequeathed much of their wealth, land and homes to charity and
historical societies. And progressives continued their mission to close the gap
between the wealthy and poor and champion the needy and disenfranchised.
Sources
Chicago
Workers During the Long Gilded Age. The Newberry.
Gilded Age Reform. University of Virginia.
The Doll House: Wealth and Women in the Gilded Age. Journeys Into the Past:
An Online Journal of Miami University’s History Department. The
Gilded Age. Scholastic.
About Jane Addams. Jane Addams Hull-House
Museum. Carrie A. Nation (1846-1911). The State Historical Society
of Missouri: Historic Missourians. Lincoln Steffens Exposes “Tweed Days in St.
Louis.” History Matters. The Breakers. The Preservation Society of Newport County.
The Progressive Era (1890-1920). The Eleanor Roosevelt
Papers Project. Biltmore Estate History. Biltmore.
Margaret Olivia Sage. Philanthropy Roundtable.
A10X10 FROM LIBERATION NEWS (SOCIALIST)
AI
Overview
The
Gilded Age in America was a period of rapid industrialization, extreme wealth
inequality, and political corruption lasting from the 1870s to about 1900. Coined by Mark Twain and Charles
Dudley Warner in their 1873 novel [The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today], the
term describes an era that looked glittering and prosperous on the outside but
was flawed underneath by poverty and greed. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Economy
and Technology
Society
and Labor
Politics
and Civil Rights
A NEW GILDED AGE: SUPREME COURT RULING SAYS ERA OF REGULATED
CAPITALISM IS OVER
Jeffrey
Green July 23, 2026
Six Supreme Court Justices decided to virtually
eliminate the capacity of government regulatory agencies to act independently
of whoever sits in the White House. By invalidating the “for cause” removal
protections of their commissioners and board members, the Trump v. Slaughter decision means that now the president can, whenever
he wants, fire the top federal regulators who don’t do his bidding.
This
end of June decision stems from President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner of
the Federal Trade Commission, without reason. The Court went far beyond
allowing that firing to go through; it ruled that Congress had violated the
Constitution in 1914 when it limited the president’s ability to fire FTC
leaders.
The
Court also overruled a previous Supreme Court ruling on this same issue — a
case called Humphrey’s Executor in 1935.
In essence, the conservative-dominated Court is proclaiming there is no such
thing as an “independent” agency; they are all subordinates to the president
and “the President may remove his subordinates at will.”
CAPITALISTS WANTS TO ROLL BACK THE NEW DEAL
The
stakes for the working class in this ruling go way beyond the job protections
of the individual high-paid agency executives and commissioners who will be
fired more easily. The
ruling paves the way for a whole new level of direct corruption in Washington,
the further erosion of safety standards, assaults on union rights, and the
deregulation of Wall Street and Corporate America as a whole.
It
is part and parcel of “Project 2025,” the overall vision of the far-right
section of the ruling class to eliminate the liberal reforms of the
progressive, New Deal and Civil Rights eras and reinstall a form of governance
of unregulated and unrestrained corporate power. A core feature of that vision
is unrestrained presidential power.
The
ruling will accelerate the post-2020 redistribution of wealth from workers to
billionaires in a range of new ways. Because almost every multi-billion dollar
project requires government approval at some level, it will create limitless
opportunities for the president and his staff and family members to cash in
directly — as they already have been under both the Biden and Trump
administrations.
The
agencies now functionally put under the direct control of the president are not
all household names, but their decisions have a huge impact on the entire
population. Those agencies include the main regulators of financial markets,
including the Federal Trade Commission, the Security and Exchange Commission,
the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board.
Together,
these agencies are responsible for stopping insider trading, Ponzi schemes,
market manipulation, abusive trade practices, excessive speculation in basic
committees, while monitoring financial disclosures, stocks, bonds, derivatives,
the authenticity of audits, and compliance with a whole range of financial
rules. Almost all of those rules — however insufficient — were developed as a
consequence of previous financial crises and corruption scandals, as a way to
guard against their recurrence.
A compliant SEC chair
could, for instance, selectively enforce insider trading rules, allow
politically connected companies to obscure financial disclosures, or greenlight
new financial products that benefit administration donors at the risk of
millions of people’s retirement savings. Whether in a pension or a 401(k), most
working people’s retirement savings are invested in the stock market.
With
regards to free speech and the media, the Federal Communications Commission could now be
ordered, at the risk of their job, to eliminate the broadcast licenses of
outlets that the president disapproves of.
Or,
consider the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which control
pipeline approvals, electricity transmission rates, natural gas exports,
licenses for nuclear reactors and regulation of nuclear waste. Their
decisions, although largely invisible to the public, steer the investment of
hundreds of billions of dollars, while impacting the safety, water and land of
the whole country. Their leaders too are now at-will employees of the
President.
The
National Transportation
Safety Board investigates railway accidents, such as the one that
devastated East Palestine, Ohio, a few years ago. The federal response was
already criminal, but now just a phone call to the Oval Office from the rail
tycoons — all of which are ingratiated with Wall Street hedge funds — could
make such problems disappear.
CAPITALIST REFORMS CAN ALWAYS BE REVERSED
In
2008, as part of the response to the Great Recession, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau was created by the Obama administration. The purpose of the
Bureau has been to limit some of the most egregious forms of greed and
exploitation in capitalism. Since the CFPB’s founding, it has returned
over $21 billion dollars to consumers hit by financial
fraud.
Emboldened
by Slaughter, the President can fire CFPB directors of
this independent agency at will until he gets someone who will do his bidding.
Doing the bidding of billionaire presidents could look like ignoring obvious crypto scams, letting buy-now-pay-later systems
send workers deeper into debt, and failing to do anything about the massive
student-loan debt crisis. Bit-by-bit, what workers have done to try to regulate
capitalism and make their lives marginally easier is being negated.
The
most immediate impact for workers will likely be felt with the National Labor Relations Board
and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. Since the 1935 passage of the National Labor
Relations Act, rules for organizing unions have been set by an independent
regulatory agency, the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB also polices
when employers violate those rules. While the workers’ struggle is the most
important determinant, and the NLRB is not a final fix, the agency has held
back some of the worst forms of strikebreaking and allowed workers to
successfully organize in conditions where they might otherwise have
failed.
The
five Board members serve five-year terms, staggered so that no single president
could immediately install a majority. Combined with for-cause removal protection,
a new president had to wait for vacancies to arise before shifting the board’s
ideological balance. Now an anti-labor president can immediately gut the NLRB
on their first day of office without reason — which means all the pending cases
before the Board can immediately flip in the other direction.
Why
would an employer respect a union election, stop committing an Unfair Labor
Practice, or come to a settlement with their workers, if all they have to do is
wait for Inauguration Day to get a new Board to rule in their favor? A
hypothetical pro-labor president could now do the same thing with expanded
executive authority, but since virtually all U.S. presidents have been owners, not workers,
and all solicit huge corporate donations to run their campaigns, it is not hard
to predict which class their NLRB appointees will favor.
The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the federal agency created out of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to investigate and prosecute cases of employment
discrimination on the basis of race, gender, national origin, age and
disability. It has the right to investigate all companies with over 15
employees. The EEOC already has received far more claims of discrimination than
it can fully investigate, so its leadership choices about which cases to pursue
define what the law actually means in practice.
Already
the EEOC had been hollowed out; Trump fired its Democratic-appointed
commissioners too, dropped many discrimination cases, and converted the agency
into an instrument to attack diversity hiring programs as “anti-white.” After
the Slaughter ruling, the EEOC’s former vice chair
voluntarily dropped the lawsuit challenging her termination, seeing it as
hopeless.
Direct attack on the very idea of regulating
capitalism
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent
correctly states that without functional independence from political pressure,
regulatory agencies cannot perform the core functions given to them by
Congress. It’s also why Congress originally gave the leaders of
the Federal Trade Commission just-cause protection from being fired, similar to
the protections unionized workers have. The majority didn’t have an error of
logic; it is precisely the point.
Rather
than trying to understand this legal dispute on the basis of the original
intent of the Constitution’s writers, or the intent of Congress back in 1914
when it founded the FTC, the real question is: what does this say about the
intent of the ruling class now? The war on independent regulatory agencies can
only be understood in the trajectory of U.S. capitalism and the creation of a
New Gilded Age.
Independent
regulatory agencies first developed as a response to the unmediated social
conflict, turmoil and crisis created by the Second Industrial Revolution in the
late 19th century — sometimes known as the Gilded Age. The first target were
the railway companies, which developed monopoly power over other sectors of the
economy, while periodically producing financial panics, environmental
destruction and intense labor wars. The rail tycoons had their counterparts in
all other spheres of industrialized capitalism and in finance. A broad-based,
cross-class “Progressive” movement developed to rein in their power, regulate
their operations and if necessary break up their enterprises.
This
especially took off in the state of Wisconsin, which became a laboratory for
new independent commissions and agencies to limit the power of the giant
corporations, and respond to the unchecked inequality and unregulated working
conditions which killed and maimed so many workers. From 1901 to 1906, Wisconsin had a progressive
Republican Governor Robert LaFollete (then Senator from 1906 to 1925),
who pioneered the “Wisconsin Idea,” calling upon professors and other
outside experts, not politicians, to help craft legislation and staff
regulatory agencies headed by experts in their fields. While a new crop of
technocrats brought their specialized knowledge, it was Wisconsin’s strong
labor union and socialist movement that brought the political power and
pressure to make it happen. Of course, progressives like LaFollete were not
socialists; they wanted not to overturn capitalism, but to regulate it, so it
would be less unequal, chaotic and unstable.
In
the general capitalist crisis of the Great Depression in the 1930s, the federal
government under President Franklin D. Roosevelt essentially copied this
“Wisconsin Idea” to create the independent regulatory agencies of the New Deal.
This is where the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) come from.
Many
of the labor and anti-trust laws, as well as unemployment insurance and
consumer protection laws to govern the marketplace that were pioneered as part
of the “Wisconsin idea” were given federal form.
The
idea of independent regulation of industry did not pop out of nowhere, nor was
it handed down by benevolent capitalists. It was a product of the class
struggle, and in many cases these agencies institutionalized hard-fought gains
of the working class, and created a new state mechanism that could be pressured
to make changes.
But these agencies were never in
the hands of the working class itself. They were designed to save capitalism
from itself, to insulate policymaking from direct political
pressure, regulate volatile industries and stave off a larger collapse. Many economic historians credit the financial
regulatory apparatus of the New Deal for helping stabilize the capitalist state
and financial markets during the Great Depression.
The
major corporations initially hated these progressive-era agencies, and later
the New Deal as a whole, as an infringement on their rights to control their
property, businesses and workers. But in a time of generalized and ongoing
depression, the political authority of the business elite was temporarily
weakened. Over time, many titans of industry came to see the benefits of regulation
– that it added stability into their otherwise ruthless competition, making it
easier to predict costs, gain labor peace, and keep out new competitors.
PUT THE WORKING CLASS IN THE DRIVERS SEAT!
As
the decades wore on, these agencies became more and more captured by the
industries they were designed to regulate; there was a rotating door of
personnel and lawyers from the private sector to the regulators, and it became
quite common for the company to write the rules that the agencies then
rubber-stamped. Where direct bribery did not do the trick, a new legal form —
“lobbying” — was more than sufficient. The form of direct capitalist control
over all relations of production was replaced with a more masked, indirect
form.
Justice
Sotomayor’s dissent explains that this decision, “reshapes our [g]overnment.”
That is true, but the new “shape” of the government has to be presented in
class terms. The era of the capitalist ruling class accepting a level of
administrative regulation for the sake of economic stability and a degree of
class peace is over. Trump and a group of elite, unelected lawyers in the
Supreme Court have scored a massive victory in the ultra-right program to an even more open and undisguised
dictatorship of the rich — a form not seen since the Gilded Age.
But
the history of independent regulatory agencies, which ends with Slaughter, shows two things. The first is that working people, when united, can
make huge things happen. The late 19th Century Gilded Age produced a
period of intense class battles and working-class organization, which moved all
of society to consider the fundamental question of what sort of society was
being built, and challenged the authority of capitalist power altogether.
The second is that the capitalist
class will always work to take all reforms away, no matter how modest.
They might be briefly held back or beaten, but in the long run they view every
infringement on their power and wealth as sacrilege. Any time they are in
crisis — and they are in crisis now due to the perceived relative decline of
the U.S. Empire — a section of that capitalist class will step forward and
locate the source of their problems in previous reforms.
It
does not matter if the whole ruling class is pro-Trump or MAGA supporters as
individuals. Many likely have unease about this Supreme Court decision, because
without stable regulation all their industries could be made more challenging
by ping-ponging regulatory decisions every four years. But, as with Trump’s
great tax giveaways, the liberal sections of the ruling class has put up no
great fight.
That
is why we can’t be satisfied with a more regulated capitalism or more regulated
billionaires. They have to be removed from power altogether, and the working
class — not just subject-matter experts or politicians who say pro-worker
things— must be put in the driver’s seat.
The
Second Gilded Age is a term used
by historians, economists, and analysts to describe modern society—stretching
from the late 20th century into the present day—because it mirrors the extreme
wealth, vast technological changes, and political influence of the original
late-19th-century Gilded Age. [1, 2]
KEY
PARALLELS TO THE FIRST GILDED AGE
DRIVING
ECONOMIC FACTORS
AI
Overview
During
the Gilded Age, the Republican
Party supported high protective tariffs, the gold standard, and [railroad
and industrial expansion](- GBH). [1,
2,
3,
4]
Economic
Policies
Social
and Political Support
A11 X@
FROM E&R overview
@
productive v. degenerate capital
A12X12 FROM THE GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE
AI Overview
Billionaires are defended through arguments centered
on economic innovation, philanthropic
impact, and property rights. Supporters claim that extreme wealth rewards
risk-taking, drives technological progress, and funds diverse social causes
more efficiently than centralized government spending.
Core Arguments for Defense
Counterarguments and Criticism
Fall
2025 Issue36
In defense of billionaires
By
James Pethokoukis
Attacking
the uberwealthy is cheap and easy. But many billionaires enrich the whole
economy – and the wrong restrictions could make all of us poorer.
Billionaires
make easy villains. And no wonder. To quote the historian Bernard Lewis, “It is
not possible to be rich, strong, and successful and be loved by those who are
none of these things.”
Attacking
the uberwealthy makes for vivid campaign soundbites.
Billionaires serve as handy populist punching bags, reliable targets for
social-media outrage. To rail against inequality, all a politician or activist
has to do is tick off a few big names known to all: Elon Musk. Jeff Bezos. Mark
Zuckerberg. A simple morality tale follows: In a world of need, no individual
should command 10-digit fortunes. And if any of them do, society should force
their fortunes through a filter of heavy wealth taxation.
This
story is alluring in its simplicity and intuitiveness: “Who really needs that
much dough? You can only live in one mansion at a time, right?” But it is also dangerous,
because it ignores how such wealth is created in America, who actually benefits
from it, and the negative consequences of demonizing private fortune.
Rather than condemn all
billionaires, we would be far better off broadly distinguishing between two
different types: productive billionaires, who build enterprises that generate
widespread prosperity; and rent-seeking billionaires, who extract gains through
political favoritism, resource monopolies, or financial gimmickry.
The former can be paragons
of economic dynamism; the latter, parasites on it. Lazily lumping the
two together and treating them the same obscures reality and invites policies
that would imperil innovation-driven economic growth.
@
pivot to how 400 made it
INNOVATING
FOR EVERYONE
The claim that all billionaires
are inherently immoral rests on a false premise: that wealth and virtue cannot
coexist. To make this case, critics point to jarring
juxtapositions – like the existence of superyachts moored in Monaco while
homelessness festers in San Francisco – and argue they prove that the system is
badly askew. Yet the
persistence of inequality does not prove that the wealthy are necessarily
immoral or their wealth illegitimate.
Take Bill Gates. Software
produced by Microsoft, the firm Gates cofounded in 1975, helped power the PC
revolution in the 1980s, enabling productivity gains that reshaped business and
daily life – not to mention pouring money into millions of worker retirement
accounts. The social gains Gates produced long predated his philanthropy. To
suggest that he and his vast wealth only became moral once Gates became a
philanthropist is to misunderstand how U.S.-style entrepreneurial capitalism
works. Societies benefit not merely from big-dollar donations but from the
goods and services that entrepreneurs bring into being.
Indeed,
as the economist and Nobel laureate William Nordhaus has calculated, innovators capture a mere 2% of the value their
inventions generate; the rest goes to consumers, in the form of lower prices,
better products, and higher living standards. If Gates (or Musk or Bezos)
pocket a fortune in the process, that fortune is still is a small fraction of
the overall value to society – and millions or billions of individuals –
that they generate. Banishing billionaires would mean banishing the
positive-sum process that is essential to sustained and dispersed economic
growth in the United States.
Capitalism, in its best form,
should reward bold risk-taking. In embarking on uncertain ventures,
entrepreneurs wager their personal wealth and the security offered by more
conventional career paths. Many of them fail. Those who succeed may reap
extraordinary gains. But that is not an aberration; it is a feature of a system
designed to encourage experimentation. Wealth caps or confiscatory taxation would alter these powerful
incentives. If the potential payoff to taking entrepreneurial risks shrinks,
fewer people will take the plunge. This would result in fewer companies being
founded, fewer technologies being invented and commercialized, and fewer jobs
being created.
Consider
the case of Elon Musk.
Having made a fortune from PayPal, he then risked most of that money on Tesla
and SpaceX – both of which teetered on the edge of bankruptcy in 2008. Few
investors were willing to underwrite such long shots. As an analysis by the University of Chicago economist Steven
Kaplan shows, had tax authorities confiscated a chunk of Musk’s PayPal windfall
in the way some proponents of wealth taxes have advocated, neither company
might have survived. But they did not,
and today, Tesla produces advances not just in autonomous electric cars but
also in robotics, batteries, and energy storage. SpaceX’s reusable rockets have
cut launch costs to a fraction of their former level, unleashing a boom in
satellites, bolstering U.S. space defense, and edging humanity closer to
becoming a multiplanetary species.
Or
take Jeff Bezos. In 1994, Bezos walked away from a lucrative Wall Street career
to launch an online
bookstore out of his garage. For years, Amazon bled red ink and was ridiculed
as a relic of the earlier dot-com boom. Yet Bezos persisted, patiently
building a logistics and cloud-computing behemoth that today underpins vast
swathes of commerce and even the government. As Amazon grew, consumers enjoyed
lower prices and faster delivery, and programmers and developers gained cheap
access to storage and computing power. The personal fortune Bezos ended up
amassing is inextricable from all that social value – even as the company has
weathered union drives and antitrust scrutiny that some see as the inevitable
tensions of its market dominance. Kaplan, the University of Chicago economist,
estimates that a wealth
tax might have forced Bezos to dump a quarter of Amazon stock right after the
year 2000 dot-com crash, potentially crippling the firm.
In
both cases, the trade-offs are stark: a marginally fairer distribution of wealth would
have come at the cost of dynamic enterprises that employ thousands and
seed entire industries.
BOOTSTRAP
BILLIONAIRES
The
United States is not unusual for having billionaires; what makes it extraordinary is the type of
billionaire it produces. Roughly 70% of American billionaires are self made, compared
with fewer than half in Western
Europe, where fortunes tend to accrue through inheritance or luxury brands.
The American economic system – which is characterized by high levels of venture
capital, flexible labor markets, and a tax system that rewards big
entrepreneurial swings – channels talent into company-building. Europe’s warier
stance towards wealth, combined with heavier taxation and regulation, yields
fewer entrepreneurial fortunes and more sclerosis.
Emerging
markets illustrate another divide. Russia’s oligarchs or Mexico’s telecom magnates amassed fortunes via
one-time privatization deals, political protection, or monopolies on certain
natural resources. Such fortunes, which stem from appropriation, not
innovation, breed cynicism, anger, and disaffection in the countries where they
exist. They represent what the scholars Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson call “extractive” systems, in which the elites can
enrich themselves by capturing the state or monopolizing its resources,
stifling innovation and broad-based prosperity. Citizens of such countries
understandably conflate “capitalism” with corruption. Yet the existence of rent-seekers
abroad is no reason to hobble productive entrepreneurs in the United States.
Indeed,
a glance at the global picture reveals some truths to which we should all pay attention. Today the
most dynamic economic sectors in the world – digital platforms, biotech, space,
and artificial intelligence – are disproportionately shaped by U.S. firms led
and backed by American billionaires. Europe, for all its social democracy, has
produced no equivalents to Tesla, SpaceX, or Amazon. China has minted plenty of
tycoons, but only under its one-party system, and accruing and maintaining
private wealth requires absolute loyalty to the regime.
Still,
some critics argue that great fortunes can undermine democracy. As they point
out, vast resources allow billionaires to lobby, shape media narratives, and
tilt the rules in their favor. These are all genuine concerns. Yet the remedy to such problems lies
in creating transparent campaign finance rules, in the robust enforcement of
antitrust regulations, and in curbs on cronyism – not in blanket hostility to
wealth. The danger of equating all billionaires with malign political
influence is that it confuses cause and effect: The problem is the capture of
state power, not the existence of rich entrepreneurs.
It
is also wrong to suggest, as some critics do, that
American billionaires do nothing productive with their money. It’s true that some of the 0.01%
spend some of their cash on elaborate doomsday bunkers in
Hawaii or New Zealand. But they plow much more money back into their
businesses, and a hefty chunk into philanthropy as well. According to data from
Altrata and the Wall Street Journal, U.S. billionaires have given
away or pledged some $185 billion since 2015, and nearly half of that money has
gone to education and medical research. The pattern is patchy – a quarter of American
billionaires have given away less than $1 million in philanthropic donations
over the past decade – but the broader picture contradicts the cartoon-image of
Scrooge McDucks hoarding their loot in vaults. Billionaires often allow
people with deep knowledge of industries and causes to funnel large portions of
their money into universities, laboratories, and civic bodies. This messy
pluralism of philanthropy fosters experimentation and diversity in ways that
centralized state spending rarely manages.
THE BLADE
RUNNER FALLACY
Perhaps
the most imaginative
indictment of billionaire wealth is the idea that today’s tycoons are plotting
to abandon the rest of us and our problems – that Jeff Bezos wants to escape to
colonies on the moon and that Elon Musk is heading for Mars. Popular culture
has primed audiences for this dystopia. In Blade Runner, Ridley
Scott’s 1982 classic film, the Earth of 2019 is a ravaged, rain-soaked husk.
Floating above a bleak, smog-choked Los Angeles, advertisements invite those
rich enough to move to the “off-world colonies.” In recent years,
real-world critics have repurposed this imagery to warn that billionaires plan
to decamp for the heavens, where they will cackle from above as the earth-bound
masses linger in polluted slums.
It
is a powerful narrative device, and one Elon Musk has done more than a little
to encourage through his public ruminations and his tongue-in-cheek T-shirts.
Yet it is also a delusion. Call it the Blade Runner Fallacy. The idea that billionaires are
planning to abandon the rest of us depends on the belief that technological
progress can coexist with economic collapse so severe that only a handful of
people would manage to benefit. The reality is the reverse. The kind of
civilization that could build viable lunar bases or terraform Mars would, by
definition, command such abundant energy and advanced engineering that it could also remediate
climate change, desalinate oceans, and feed billions. To be sure, that doesn’t guarantee it would choose
to do so–history is full of examples, like America’s costly Afghanistan Bush on Biden, not Iran??? - DJI misadventure, where
vast resources might have been redirected toward more socially productive ends.
But the capacity would exist. A society capable of off-world colonization and
machine superintelligence is one capable of solving terrestrial problems many
times over.
Nor
does history support the notion of exclusive techno-privilege. Billionaires do not own better
iPhones. They do not enjoy premium versions of mRNA vaccines. Consumer
technologies diffuse broadly. Even cutting-edge breakthroughs – self-driving
electric cars, AI assistants, weight-loss drugs – swiftly move from luxury to
mass market. Technological progress, when spurred by entrepreneurial
risk, tends to trickle down the income ladder.
The
cinematic caricature of billionaires as sci-fi villains fleeing a ruined Earth
reveals less about plausible futures than about cultural anxieties. It makes
for potent cinema and convenient rhetoric, but as a guide to policy, it is
useless. Better to focus on ensuring that the fruits of innovation spread
widely than to indulge dystopian fantasies of plutocrats on planetary
lifeboats.
If Elon Musk or anyone else
reaches a trillion-dollar net worth, it will be because their companies created
technologies people wanted on a massive scale. Fortunes at that
level are possible only when innovations spread widely – when electric cars
become mainstream, rockets lower the cost of accessing space, or algorithms
reshape entire industries. In each of these cases, the real story is the
millions of consumers whose lives are changed by such breakthroughs.
Societies
obsessed with leveling down risk stifling the very dynamism that generates
broad prosperity. Better to see large fortunes – when built through invention,
not favoritism – as markers of progress. As a society, we should not seek to
eradicate the rich, but to expand the circle of opportunity and ensure that as
many of us benefit from innovation as possible. Billionaires, at their
best, are not evidence of capitalism gone wrong. They are evidence that
capitalism is working.
James
Pethokoukis is a senior fellow and the DeWitt Wallace Chair at the American
Enterprise Institute, editor of the AEIdeas blog, and writes the Faster,
Please! newsletter. He is also the author of The Conservative Futurist: How to
Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised.
The Catalyst believes that ideas matter. We aim
to stimulate debate on the most important issues of the day, featuring a range
of arguments that are constructive, high-minded, and share our core values of
freedom, opportunity, accountability, and compassion. To that end, we seek out
ideas that may challenge us, and the authors’ views presented here are their
own; The Catalyst does not endorse any particular policy, politician,
or party.
A13 FROM REDDIT
RE: GEORGE
W. BUSH INSTITUTE via REDDIT
Why capital become less productive?
I have always wondered how to measure the contribution of capitalists to
economic growth, because workers, scientists, entrepreneurs (I differentiate
entrepreneurs from capitalists in my research), the government, and other
actors all help drive growth.
Earlier, I found research showing a constant decrease in capital utilization. Capital
utilization reflects how efficiently capitalists allocate capital. It is
important to analyze this over long periods, like 30–40 years, because our
economy is cyclical; otherwise, the data will be biased.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLB50001SQ
https://www.epi.org/publication/american_factories_operating_near_record_low_utilization/
In 1967, the U.S. economy used 88% of its capital capacity, while in
2022, this number decreased to 78%. This means capitalists are performing their
role less effectively. Currently, 22% of
capacity is unused. It would be acceptable if this number at least stagnated,
but the slow, constant fall suggests that capitalists are performing worse over
time.
The situation is similar for U.S. return on capital, defined as:
Return on capital=Capital income (profits, rents, interest, corporate earnings)/Total capital stock (physical + financial + some intangible assets).
Return on capital decreased from 10% to 4% in 40 years.
It represents the average productivity of capital. This implies
that capital accumulation is
outpacing productive opportunities, causing a financialization effect where
more capital is tied up in debt and financial instruments rather than in
productive investment. As a result, new investments produce less output per
dollar.
In other words, capital is abundant, but profitable opportunities are
limited. This suggests that capital owners are underperforming.
It seems capital owners underperform.
Workers on other side. Workers’ productivity is still growing; however,
real wages are slightly lower than productivity.
ResearchGate
So, how do capitalists plan to solve these problems?
And how do socialists plan to solve these problems?
A14 From Taylor and Francis
The degeneration of capitalism from a system of production to a
speculative orgy
Review by Jonathan Michie
Pages 147-151 | Published online: 29 Jan 2020
As an economic system, capitalism took root and developed globally
because of its success in driving production, promoting the accumulation of
capital, and delivering economic growth. Marx’s Capital analyses
and describes its success as an economic system in driving capitalists to
out-compete each other, insatiably re-investing their surpluses to generate
ever-greater profits to accumulate still further, extending the working day,
using child labour, and bringing workers together in factories and mills so
that modern machinery could be utilised to its fullest potential, and the work
which had previously been performed by artisans could be subsumed within and
tied to the workplace’s ever faster work rate:
One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralisation,
or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending
scale, the co-operative form of the labour process, the conscious technical
application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the
transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only
usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as
the means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all
peoples in the net of the world market, and with this, the international
character of the capitalistic regime. (Marx Citation1867, 714–15)
That fundamental driving force of the system to produce more and more,
on an ever-expanding scale, to out-compete your rivals lost its primacy long
ago. Today, a large part of that energy and action goes on speculation and
deal-making, trying to grab a bigger size of the existing pie – baked by
someone else – rather than contribute towards the production or creation of new
goods and services. There have been historic attempts to create more
sustainable models of economic activity, still based on the capitalist system,
most notably out of the wreckage of the speculative frenzy that led to the 1929
Wall Street Crash and the global Great Depression of the 1930s that amongst
other things contributed to the rise of Nazism and the path to World War Two.
The post-war era, to which much is owed to John Maynard Keynes – from his
critique of the post-World War One settlement (Keynes, Citation1919), to his magnum opus on how to tackle recession
and unemployment (Keynes Citation1936), through to his role in the Bretton Woods
planning for new economic institutions and policies for a regulated and
co-operative economic regime.
When that ‘golden age of capitalism’ broke down in the 1970s, it paved
the way for the Thatcher and Reagan era of deregulation, privatisation and
free-market globalisation, which led ultimately to the 2007–2008 international
financial crisis and the subsequent global recession of 2009. But instead of a
new direction, the subsequent decade has seen the costs of the speculative
failures transferred to the mass of the population via the politics of
austerity, whilst corporate leaders have continued along the trajectory of
speculation and deal making, with no serious attempt to realign the economy to
focus on what today needs to be a Green New Deal. Instead, a major focus
continues to be the ‘rent seeking’ search for new areas of society where existing
activities can be monetised, with the anticipated revenues and profits
speculated on through bond and share sales. There is less focus on the
intrinsic merits of the new ‘product’, and more on the likely movement of the
newly issued shares, with money to be made from the process of speculating on
such movements, quite apart from the gains to be made from those who guess
right. (The costs of guessing wrong are often passed on to others, through
‘limited liability’, or being ‘too big to fail’.)
Share buy-backs represent another aspect of this unproductive
deal-making speculative model for today’s corporate sector.Footnote1 Rather than a company’s profits
being invested in research and development or new facilities, they are used to
buy their own company’s shares, hence boosting the price, and benefiting the
shareholders – both those who sell, and those who haven’t sold and hence enjoy
their increased wealth, caused by a rise in the value of the shares they
retain. Opportunities for insider dealing and other corrupt practices are
fostered and fester.
In ‘Do corporate insiders use stock buybacks for personal gain?’, Lenore
Palladino investigates whether corporate insiders sell their own personal
shareholdings more frequently when they are executing stock buybacks using
corporate funds. Examining transactions for nonfinancial corporations with
publicly traded stock from 2005 to 2017, Palladino finds that net insider sales
of over $100k are nearly twice as common in quarters when stock buy-backs are
also occurring than in non-buyback quarters. Palladino conducts an empirical
analysis of the relationship between stock buybacks and insider transactions –
and finds that a ten percent change in stock buy-backs is associated with a
half-percent change in corporate insiders selling their personal shareholdings,
holding other factors constant. This suggests that executives may indeed be
taking advantage of the regulatory loophole left in the regulation of stock
buybacks, and that policymakers should reform the regulations governing stock
buybacks and corporate insider share-selling.
1. Capitalism
unleashed
Just as the drive of capitalist firms to continually expand led them to
expand overseas and globally, so the new era of speculative capitalism has done
likewise. Indeed, Thatcher in Britain followed by others across the world
deliberately took off the leash that Keynes and others had placed on the
ability of capital to roam the world looking for nothing more than a
speculative opportunity to make some money for its owners at the expense of
others.Footnote2 In ‘Empirical evidence on
international capital immobility: a consumption-based approach’, Sulaiman
Al-Jassar and Imad A. Moosa propose a measure of capital mobility based on
consumption patterns and consumption-income correlation, and find that capital
mobility is actually surprisingly low. And that it is lower for low-income than
high-income countries. This is because while capital mobility provides benefits
to some, it can be detrimental to the recipient country, which encourages them
to impose capital controls. Capital mobility is thus being impeded by this
‘home bias’, which is to be welcomed, as it derives from the failure of the
supposed benefits of international capital mobility to materialise.
While these speculative funds that swirl around the globe on the look
out for opportunities to exploit may have no intention to assist anyone but
their financial owners, there is another type of financial flow that does have
a positive intent, namely remittances. In ‘Disentangling the relationship
between remittances and financial development: evidence from Jamaica’, Regan
Deonanan, Benjamin Ramkissoon, Dana Ramkissoon and Roger Hosein examine the
relationship between remittances and financial development – meaning the
development of the banking and financial system – in Jamaica using annual data
from 1976 to 2016. They find that in the short run remittances actually
substitute for financial development, whilst promote financial development in
the long run. They also find that it is remittances rather than financial
development that is the driver. Thus, the focus shouldn’t be on the financial
sector, but rather on practical ways of assisting the process of receiving
remittances. In the longer term, if financial development can help direct any
resulting savings into productive uses, then so much the better.
In ‘Savings and the informal sector’, Stephen Dobson, Carlyn
Ramlogan-Dobson and Eric Strobl note that in many countries the informal sector
is a vital source of employment and income, yet little is known about the
impact of this sector on savings, which are crucial in promoting investment and
growth. Through the research reported in their paper, they find an inverse
relationship between savings rates and the informal sector when the informal
sector is small, but that once the informal sector reaches a certain size,
further growth in the size of the informal sector boosts savings rates. This is
positive, but they argue that rather than allowing the informal sector to grow
unchecked, it is in everyone’s interests – not least those otherwise stuck in
the informal sector – for policy to focus on removing barriers for successful
operation of business in the formal sector, thus enabling people and productive
operations to move from the informal to the formal sector of the economy.
In ‘The first job and occupational trajectories: young workers in Brazil
between 2002 and 2016ʹ Bárbara Christina Pereira
Da Silva Carrijo, Sandro Eduardo Monsueto and Larissa Barbosa Cardoso analyze
the impact of the first job on the occupational trajectory of young people in
Brazilian metropolitan regions between 2002 and 2016. The main model estimated
the probability of a young person obtaining a job of higher socio-economic
status in comparison with the first job obtained one year prior. Results
indicate that the first job was predominantly in activities of lower
socio-economic status, mainly for young women, although no important
differences were observed regarding the level of qualification between genders.
The type of occupation taken to enter the labour market has important
consequences on a person’s occupational trajectory. In other words, a
dependency relation was detected. The article offers empirical evidence of a
dependency relation between the quality of the position obtained as a first job
and the future trajectory of young people in the Brazilian labour market. This
impact tended to be greater among women. The immediate policy implications are
the greater need to address the quality of positions created as points of entry
to the market.
In ‘The economic and social determinants of participation in physical
activity in Brazil’, Luan Vinicius Bernardelli, Camila Pereira and Michael A.
Kortt examine the economic and social factors that influence the frequency of
participation in physical activity in Brazil. Employing a modified allocation
of time framework, they use data from the 2015 Brazilian National Household
Sample Survey to analyse the frequency of participation in physical activity
for men and women between the age of 18 and 64. They find that household income
has a very small but positive effect on the frequency of participation in
physical activity while, in contrast, full-time employment and caring for
dependent children have a larger negative for both men and women. Thus, they
argue, social policies such as those designed to make physical activity more
convenient in the workforce may help to facilitate more frequent participation
in physical activity.
In ‘Specialization and KIBS in the Euro area: a vertically integrated
sector perspective’, Davide Antonioli, Claudio Di Berardino and Gianni Onesti
note that the imbalances among countries belonging to the European Monetary
Union (EMU) have been analysed under several angles in recent years, but often
neglecting the evolution of economic and productive structures. They fill this
gap by analysing country specialization through the differences in the
inter-industrial linkages that affect economic systems competitiveness and
production processes. They use the input-output subsystem approach exploiting
the latest WIOD release (2018) to investigate the role of business services,
with a special focus on knowledge business services (KIBS), in shaping the EMU
countries’ productive structures through their integration in the manufacturing
sectors. The results show that disparities are growing in the composition of
productive structure, and that these are even more pronounced when considering
inter-sectoral dynamics.
2. Conclusion:
the need for an economics of human wellbeing
In his review article ‘A Man for a Crisis: Keynesianism, economic theory
and the future of civilization’, Vishnu Padayachee touches on many of these
issues, as well as the problem of increased income and wealth inequality that
capitalism unleashed has created. Padayachee quotes the argument of Skidelsky (Citation2018) that:
The reinvention of macroeconomics requires inserting society into
the study of economics. Marx understood this just as much as Keynes – and in
some respects better, because he understood that individuals were members of
classes, and their behaviour needed to be explained in terms of their class
membership. (Skidelsky Citation2018, 386).
In different ways, but across the board, the economy needs to be
redirected, away from financial speculation, monetisation of as many activities
as can be profitably exploited, and deal making, towards a focus on human
wellbeing and environmental and social sustainability. This means a return to a
focus on actual outcomes, in terms of goods and services, within the context of
the climate crisis whereby production needs to be sustainable, so that the
focus shifts to the quality of life and human wellbeing, rather than increased
economic growth for its own sake.
Notes
1. See the various critiques from William Lazonick, including Lazonick,
Sakinç, and Hopkins (Citation2020).
2. Hence Andrew Glyn’s characterisation of this era of free-market
globalisation as ‘capitalism unleashed’ (Glyn Citation2007).
References
Glyn, A. 2007. Capitalism Unleashed: Finance, Globalisation, and
Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VIEW
Keynes, J. M. 1919. The Economic Consequences of the Peace.
London: Macmillan & Co., Limited. VIEW
Keynes, J. M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest
and Money. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
VIEW
Lazonick, W., M. E. Sakinç, and M. Hopkins. 2020. “Why Stock Buybacks
are Dangerous for the Economy.” Harvard Business Review,
January. VIEW
Marx, K. 1867. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy.
Volume 1: The Process of Production of Capital; (1st English Edition 1887,
published by Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1954). VIEW
Skidelsky, R. 2018. Money and Government, a Challenge to
Mainstream Economics. New York: Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Books.
A DUPE FROM
Necessary
The rule of 3s (air, water, food)
The Rule of Threes is
a simple guideline that lists human survival limits in order of priority: 3
minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter in a harsh environment, 3 days
without water, and 3 weeks without food. [1, 2]
The Survival Priorities
·
3 Minutes
Without Air: Oxygen is your most urgent need. Severe bleeding or a
blocked airway will cause death or brain damage very fast. [1,
2, 3]
·
3 Hours Without
Shelter: Extreme cold, wind, sun, or rain can kill you through
hypothermia or heat stroke before you get thirsty. Clothing and proper gear act
as your first line of shelter. [1, 2, 3]
·
3 Days Without
Water: Dehydration quickly leads to confusion, organ
failure, and death. Finding a clean drinking source is vital early on. [1, 2, 3]
·
3 Weeks Without
Food: While hunger drains your energy and mood, your body
can go a long time using stored fat and calories before starvation becomes
fatal. [1, 2]
A15 FROM DJI (As Above)
Discretionary (tech)
Service
(retail, medical, police.fire, transport
Extraction
Consumer
finance/insurance
Parasitic
Get
old docs... E&R, @
Google
Workers
v. Administrators
AND – from GUK: SOME PEOPLE HAVE A WAY OUT; SOME WAY OUTS are
WAY WAY OUT
Given the escalating prosecutorial appetites
of the current three-tiered regime for prohibiting or even criminalizing speech
(as, for example, Minnesota professor Erik Davis, facing six years for
allegedly joining antifa
protests, calling ICE SLAPP prosecutions “petty revenge”), let’s just associate
the following AI overview with remarks by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards;
controversial – but they can hardly be described as proletarian. They just play in a rock and roll band...
A16
AI Overview on That Prospect...
Whether
a (redacted) will happen in the U.S. is uncertain, but analysts note growing
political polarization, institutional distrust, and executive overreach as key
risk factors. While some think tanks warn of systemic political transformation,
most experts view a traditional violent uprising as unlikely. [1, 2,
3, 4]
Risk
Factors and Concerns
Countervailing
Factors
A17 x16 FROM KATIE COURIC MEDIA
Be Careful When You Talk About
Revolution
History is full of movements that ended somewhere no
one expected.
By Glenn Sonnenberg, Lawyer, Businessman, Writer
Published: July 13, 2026
| Updated: July 23, 2026
Today is Bastille Day, France's national holiday
commemorating the 1789 storming of the Bastille and the beginning of the end of
Bourbon monarchy. What many people don’t realize is that the revolutionaries
weren't attacking a government office or military barracks. The Bastille was a
prison holding captives by order of the king for their politics,
rather than for “traditional” crimes.
What followed the Bastille was more than a simple
adjustment of the political structures: It unleashed radicalism that led to the
execution of the King and the Reign of Terror, during which over 40,000 people
were executed or died in prison. Eventually, the Terror gave way to the
Directory, then the Empire of Napoleon, the Napoleonic Wars, and the eventual
restoration of the monarchy. The 19th century did not bring respite to the
French people, who suffered through more revolution and successive wars that
didn't abate until after the Second World War. All of this began because those
in power didn't seize the opportunity to address fundamental flaws in their
system. Imagine if the King had paid heed to the protestors. (For a great
history of the revolution, Citizens by Simon Schama is the
definitive work.)
As is the case with most revolutions, once they begin,
there's no predicting how they'll end. Certainly, Robespierre, among the more
radical of the French revolutionaries, didn’t expect that the Revolution
ultimately would call for his head. History suggests that most revolutions
don't follow a neat template. They’re perhaps the ultimate example of the
maxim, “Be careful what you wish for,” because the wish and the reality don’t
neatly track.
WHEN PEOPLE STOP TRUSTING THE SYSTEM
Some fear that there is a revolution coming to
America. I don’t think a violent revolution is coming but there is a
revolution — of expectations, ideas, feelings about institutions, and
disappointment with government’s failures — happening before our eyes. Sure,
the polarization of our politics is an issue, as is the pernicious expansion of
executive power. That's coupled with a seeming indifference of Congress, and
the Supreme Court’s novel theories to support it. But I maintain that all of
this is background noise to more fundamental issues that we face.
The rise of the radical right and of the Democratic
Socialists, while seemingly divergent in their political philosophies, are
rooted in the same zeitgeist. There's broad sentiment in America that the
system has failed, that it's broken beyond an easy fix, and that it's rigged
against the working class and the middle class. As the wealth divide has
widened — with wildly unimaginable fortunes being made and multiplying by the
day, mostly benefiting the already-wealthy, while jobs are being replaced
through AI, and with the rising costs of goods, services, and housing — the
mood is right for populism. The recent emergence of white Christian nationalism,
Democratic Socialists, and many of the politicians and commentators of the left
and the right that are the loudest voices in the news and social media all are
products of a bubbling populism across
our nation.
I believe populism, and a sense of not having a stake
in the broader successes of America and its economy, increasingly drives the
right and the left. And the problem with populism is that,
like revolutions, no one can really predict where it will go, and when and how
it achieves its ends.
Often, populism strikes quickly and harshly, capturing
the mood of the moment with horrific results. As Volker Ullrich, in his highly
recommended book Fateful Hours, quotes a commentator from 1933,
Hitler had “won the game with little effort…All he had to do was huff and puff
— and the edifice of German politics collapsed like a house of cards.” Are the
United States’s political institutions, party apparatus, economy, and governing
documents as fragile as Weimar Germany’s? Of course not. Yet it all is fragile.
The institutions of our democracy didn't appear fully formed; they're the
result of centuries of human experience, endeavor, trial, and error. They are
constructs that can prop up the most abundant and innovative nation the world
has known, but they easily can be torn down, given the right circumstances.
Today, we seem stuck in a rut of competing extremes,
rather than practical compromise. President Trump is right that other
nations have taken advantage of global economic systems to our detriment. But
that doesn’t justify enacting punishing tariffs. He's right that a country
can't have an open border for anyone to step across. But that doesn’t justify
the mass incarceration and deportation of those who've resided here for
decades.
Similarly, NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani is right that the
system has left many New Yorkers in economic binds. But I believe that the
solution to rising housing costs is found in building more housing — not in
freezing rents or assessing penalties on property owners. Others suggest
abolishing prisons, when rehabilitating the criminal justice system might be
necessary instead. Defunding the police makes little sense to me, particularly
when police reform, better training, and body cameras could address the
problem. Practical solutions are within our grasp.
France vs. America
The American Revolution is
a curious one, different from the French Revolution and most others. It wasn't
an uprising of the working class, ŕ la Russia. And it wasn't an uprising of the
peasant class, ŕ la China. It was an uprising of the elites in America against
the elites and the monarchy of Great Britain. As such, it was in many ways a
“conservative revolution” — one that employed the philosophy and governing
principles of the very nation from whom it sought separation.
Ours is a nation that was created by revolution only
in part. Certainly, there was a war. But America is a nation born of evolution
— of ideas and systems and local control. As Condorcet noted in comparing the
American Revolution to the French: “The Americans were satisfied with the code
of civil and criminal legislation which they had derived from England...They
had only to direct their attention to the establishment of new powers, to be
substituted in the place of those exercised over them by the British
government.” The alternative was not nearly as productive for humanity.
As Albert Camus noted in 1957, “The French Revolution gave birth to no great
artists…The only poet of the times was the guillotine.” And as Robespierre
observed, “Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible…” Hardly words
upon which to build a just future.
I think both the Democratic and Republican parties are
missing the moment. They should be working to address the inequities in
our society before some of the disaffected folks take matters into their own
hands. If they fail, there won’t be an evolution of systems, but a revolution
of principles. That revolution, while perhaps not violent, will yield paroxysms
of destructive ideas drawn from the dustbin of history, rather than imagining a
better world.
There are lessons to be learned from past revolutions.
In 1963, Hannah Arendt had this to say: “One of the main consequences of the
revolution in France was, for the first time in history, to bring the people
into the streets and make them visible.” Populism in America today capitalizes
upon the desire for visibility among those who feel invisible. If we take
their frustrations seriously, we can choose reform over revolution — and spare
ourselves the cost that history so often demands after the latter.
When he isn’t writing his column Thinking Things
Through, Glenn Sonnenberg heads a real estate investment company and serves on
several nonprofit boards. A graduate of the University of Southern California,
B.A. 1977 (history, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa), Mr. Sonnenberg also
received his J.D. in 1980 from USC. He began his career as an attorney
specializing in real estate and finance. Follow him on Substack here.
A18X09 FROM DEMOCRACY w/o BORDERS
X09 FROM DEMOCRACY WITHOUT BORDERS
Extreme wealth inequality is
threatening democracy, reports warn
Feb 2026
Recent
assessments warn that the global concentration of wealth keeps increasing and
threatens democracy.
According
to a report by
Oxfam, “The world is not
approaching a crucial tipping point: we are in it.” Global billionaire wealth
has reached 18.3 trillion US dollars, the report says, an 81% increase in real
terms since 2020. Over the past year alone, billionaire fortunes grew by 16.2%,
three times faster than the average annual rate since 2020.
An expert
committee mandated by the South African G20 presidency last year
described inequality as an emergency. A report it presented in November 2025
states that between 2000
and 2024, the richest 1% increased their wealth 2,655 times more than the
bottom 50%. The number of billionaires now exceeds 3,000 globally and they hold
wealth equivalent to 14.1% of global GDP, up from 2.5% in 1990, the
committee noted.
Billionaires
increased their wealth by over 80% in five years
The
World Inequality Report 2026, published shortly
after the G20 committee report, reaches a similar conclusion about the
persistence of extreme disparities. It finds that global income inequality
remains at very high levels and emphasizes that these outcomes are shaped by
political and institutional choices rather than economic inevitability. The
report warns that such concentration risks undermining democratic
accountability and social cohesion.
The
G20 committee confirms that global income inequality remains extremely high, with
a global income Gini coefficient of 0.61. It reports that 83% of countries,
accounting for 90% of the world’s population, have high income inequality,
defined as a Gini above 0.4.
Oxfam
emphasized that the wealth surge at the top coincides with widespread hardship.
For instance, one in four people globally faces moderate or severe food
insecurity, and 2.6 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet. The G20
committee report notes that food insecurity is up by 335 million people since
2019.
INTERNATIONAL
PANEL ON INEQUALITY RECOMMENDED
All three reports
link these wealth imbalances to democratic challenges. Oxfam cites research showing that more
unequal countries are up to seven times more likely to experience democratic
erosion. The G20
committee similarly finds that countries with high inequality are more likely
to experience democratic decline. It warns that inequality erodes trust in
institutions, fuels political polarization, and translates into political
inequality through concentrated media ownership and campaign finance power.
Oxfam argues that extreme wealth has become “a direct threat to political
freedom.”
The
G20 committee recommended
in its report the creation of an International Panel on Inequality,
modeled on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The proposed
body would provide governments with independent assessments of inequality
trends, policy impacts and recommendations.
Last
month, the World Economic
Forum’s Global
Risks Report 2026 identified inequality as one of the most
interconnected global risks, linking it to social fragmentation, political
instability, and weakened governance.
Lawmakers urge UN to establish independent democracy mandate
Civil society declaration warns UN goals are off track, urges reforms
A”A”X56 FROM GINI (world worst to first) Rename
“A”
X56 FROM GINI
The
Gini index (or coefficient) is a statistical metric used to measure economic
inequality, primarily focusing on income or wealth distribution within a
population. Scores range from 0 (perfect equality, where everyone earns the
exact same amount) to 1 (perfect inequality, where one person holds all the
wealth). [1, 2, 3, 4]
How
the Gini Index is Calculated
Global
Comparison and Context
To
explore the Gini index and compare inequality metrics across different
countries, check the World Population Review or
the official OECD Income Inequality Data.
[1, 2]
From
Our World in Data
What you should know about this indicator
International
Countries
ranked by GINI coefficient (worst to first) and date of last ranking
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A”B”X57 FROM GINI (US states worst to first)
The
Gini coefficient for the United States is approximately 0.49 (or 41.8 to 49 depending on whether macro disposable income or
standard Census household metrics are used), reflecting a high level of income
inequality compared to other developed nations. [1, 2, 3]
Understanding
the U.S. Gini Index
From
WIKI
The United
States has
the greatest income
disparity among developed
nations.[1] However,
the inequality indicators vary considerably from state to state. States that
have a high concentration of skilled jobs, implement regressive tax policies,
or have weaker worker protections in general tend to have greater income
inequalities. As of 2019, the highest inequality may be observed in Puerto
Rico, around the New
York City and Washington,
D.C. metropolitan
areas, across much of the Southern United States, in California, and in Massachusetts.
The
uncertainties are not shown in the table. The ACS gives a much higher estimate
of the Gini coefficient for the United States than other sources.[15][16][19]
|
# |
Entity[a] |
Gini coefficient (2019)[18] |
Gini coefficient
(2015–2019)[20] |
|
0.4811 |
0.4823 |
||
|
1 |
0.5509 |
0.5486 |
|
|
2 |
0.5149 |
0.5142 |
|
|
3 |
0.5115 |
0.5269 |
|
|
4 |
0.5024 |
0.4963 |
|
|
5 |
0.4978 |
0.4953 |
|
|
6 |
0.4964 |
0.4907 |
|
|
7 |
0.4866 |
0.4886 |
|
|
8 |
0.4808 |
0.4862 |
|
|
9 |
0.4803 |
0.4826 |
|
|
10 |
0.4800 |
0.4821 |
|
|
11 |
0.4795 |
0.4819 |
|
|
12 |
0.4782 |
0.4814 |
|
|
13 |
0.4768 |
0.4784 |
|
|
14 |
0.4764 |
0.4786 |
|
|
15 |
0.4753 |
0.4791 |
|
|
16 |
0.4750 |
0.4765 |
|
|
17 |
0.4749 |
0.4788 |
|
|
18 |
0.4747 |
0.4740 |
|
|
19 |
0.4745 |
0.4720 |
|
|
20 |
0.4743 |
0.4760 |
|
|
21 |
0.4741 |
0.4791 |
|
|
22 |
0.4739 |
0.4689 |
|
|
23 |
0.4710 |
0.4620 |
|
|
24 |
0.4690 |
0.4689 |
|
|
25 |
0.4651 |
0.4654 |
|
|
26 |
0.4644 |
0.4667 |
|
|
27 |
0.4634 |
0.4669 |
|
|
28 |
0.4633 |
0.4641 |
|
|
29 |
0.4628 |
0.4702 |
|
|
30 |
0.4597 |
0.4594 |
|
|
31 |
0.4591 |
0.4664 |
|
|
32 |
0.4584 |
0.4526 |
|
|
33 |
0.4577 |
0.4573 |
|
|
34 |
0.4558 |
0.4535 |
|
|
35 |
0.4558 |
0.4537 |
|
|
36 |
0.4548 |
0.4566 |
|
|
37 |
0.4509 |
0.4545 |
|
|
38 |
0.4500 |
0.4563 |
|
|
39 |
0.4500 |
0.4586 |
|
|
40 |
0.4490 |
0.4511 |
|
|
41 |
0.4471 |
0.4484 |
|
|
42 |
0.4434 |
0.4494 |
|
|
43 |
0.4422 |
0.4416 |
|
|
44 |
0.4406 |
0.4384 |
|
|
45 |
0.4400 |
0.4442 |
|
|
46 |
0.4397 |
0.4414 |
|
|
47 |
0.4391 |
0.4448 |
|
|
48 |
0.4376 |
0.4284 |
|
|
49 |
0.4360 |
0.4440 |
|
|
50 |
0.4345 |
0.4361 |
|
|
51 |
0.4337 |
0.4462 |
|
|
52 |
0.4268 |
0.4265 |
RICHEST AMERICAN CORPORATIONS
A”C”X60
FROM WIKI – United States
List of largest companies in the United States by revenue
The first list includes the largest companies in the United States by revenue as of 2024, according to the Fortune 500 and Forbes rankings. The Fortune 500
list of companies includes only publicly traded companies, also including tax inversion companies. There are also corporations
having foundation in the United States, such as corporate headquarters,
operational headquarters and independent subsidiaries. However, this list does
include several government-sponsored enterprises that
were created by acts of Congress and
later became publicly traded.
The
second list used 2024 data and includes large privately held companies such
as Cargill and Koch Industries.
List of the largest public / publicly traded companies
Below
are the 100 largest companies by revenue in 2025 (mostly for fiscal year 2024), according to the Fortune 500 list.[1]
|
Rank |
Name |
Industry |
Revenue |
Revenue growth |
Employees |
Headquarters |
|
1 |
Retail |
680,985 |
|
2,100,000 |
||
|
2 |
Retail and cloud computing |
637,959 |
|
1,556,000 |
||
|
3 |
Healthcare |
400,278 |
|
400,000 |
||
|
4 |
Technology |
391,035 |
|
164,000 |
||
|
5 |
Healthcare |
372,809 |
|
259,500 |
||
|
6 |
Conglomerate |
371,433 |
|
392,400 |
||
|
7 |
Technology and cloud computing |
350,018 |
|
183,323 |
||
|
8 |
Petroleum |
349,595 |
|
60,900 |
||
|
9 |
Healthcare |
308,951 |
|
48,000 |
||
|
10 |
Pharmacy wholesale |
293,959 |
|
44,000 |
||
|
11 |
Financials |
278,906 |
|
317,233 |
||
|
12 |
Retail |
254,453 |
|
333,000 |
||
|
13 |
Health insurance |
247,121 |
|
72,398 |
||
|
14 |
Technology and cloud computing |
245,122 |
|
228,000 |
||
|
15 |
Healthcare |
226,827 |
|
48,411 |
||
|
16 |
Petroleum |
202,792 |
|
45,298 |
||
|
17 |
Financials |
192,434 |
|
213,193 |
||
|
18 |
Automotive |
187,442 |
|
162,000 |
||
|
19 |
Automotive |
184,992 |
|
171,000 |
||
|
20 |
Healthcare |
177,011 |
|
103,679 |
||
|
21 |
Financials |
170,757 |
|
227,855 |
||
|
22 |
Technology |
164,501 |
|
74,067 |
||
|
23 |
Healthcare |
163,071 |
|
60,500 |
||
|
24 |
Retail |
159,514 |
|
470,100 |
||
|
25 |
Financials |
152,670 |
|
8,200 |
||
|
26 |
Pharmaceutical |
147,658 |
|
252,500 |
||
|
27 |
Retail |
147,123 |
|
409,000 |
||
|
28 |
Petroleum |
145,496 |
|
13,200 |
||
|
29 |
Petroleum |
140,412 |
|
18,300 |
||
|
30 |
Telecommunications |
134,788 |
|
99,600 |
||
|
31 |
Technology |
130,497 |
|
36,000 |
||
|
32 |
Financials |
126,853 |
|
46,500 |
||
|
33 |
Financials |
125,397 |
|
217,502 |
||
|
34 |
Petroleum |
123,974 |
|
9,910 |
||
|
35 |
Telecommunications |
123,731 |
|
182,000 |
||
|
36 |
Financials |
122,951 |
|
67,381 |
||
|
37 |
Conglomerate and telecommunications |
122,336 |
|
140,990 |
||
|
38 |
Financials |
122,052 |
|
8,090 |
||
|
39 |
Health insurance |
117,761 |
|
65,680 |
||
|
40 |
Financials |
107,285 |
|
80,478 |
||
|
41 |
Retail |
106,566 |
|
440,000 |
||
|
42 |
Financials |
99,888 |
|
4,500 |
||
|
43 |
Automotive and energy |
97,690 |
|
125,665 |
||
|
44 |
Technology |
95,567 |
|
108,000 |
||
|
45 |
Beverage |
91,854 |
|
319,000 |
||
|
46 |
Media |
91,361 |
|
205,040 |
||
|
47 |
Transportation |
91,070 |
|
372,180 |
||
|
48 |
Pharmaceutical |
88,821 |
|
138,100 |
||
|
49 |
Transportation |
87,693 |
|
422,100 |
||
|
50 |
Food industry |
85,530 |
|
43,213 |
||
|
51 |
Consumer products manufacturing |
84,039 |
|
108,000 |
||
|
52 |
Retail |
83,674 |
|
215,500 |
||
|
53 |
Petroleum |
82,671 |
|
16,248 |
||
|
54 |
Aerospace and defense |
80,739 |
|
186,000 |
||
|
55 |
Retail |
79,238 |
|
196,650 |
||
|
56 |
Food processing |
78,844 |
|
76,000 |
||
|
57 |
Insurance |
75,372 |
|
66,308 |
||
|
58 |
Financials |
74,201 |
|
75,100 |
||
|
59 |
Aerospace and defense |
71,043 |
|
121,000 |
||
|
60 |
Financials |
70,986 |
|
45,000 |
||
|
61 |
Healthcare |
70,603 |
|
271,000 |
||
|
62 |
Financials |
70,405 |
|
37,936 |
||
|
63 |
Aerospace and defense |
66,517 |
|
172,000 |
||
|
64 |
Machinery |
64,809 |
|
112,900 |
||
|
65 |
Pharmaceutical industry |
64,168 |
|
74,000 |
||
|
66 |
Insurance |
64,106 |
|
55,200 |
||
|
67 |
Pharmaceutical industry |
63,627 |
|
81,000 |
||
|
68 |
Technology and cloud computing |
62,753 |
|
284,500 |
||
|
69 |
Insurance |
62,639 |
|
15,131 |
||
|
70 |
Airline |
61,643 |
|
103,000 |
||
|
71 |
Retail |
60,177 |
|
255,000 |
||
|
72 |
Financials |
58,646 |
|
22,453 |
||
|
73 |
Information Technology |
58,452 |
|
25,750 |
||
|
74 |
Airline |
57,063 |
|
107,300 |
||
|
75 |
Petroleum |
56,953 |
|
11,800 |
||
|
76 |
Retail |
56,360 |
|
364,000 |
||
|
77 |
Pharmaceutical |
56,334 |
|
55,000 |
||
|
78 |
Petroleum |
56,219 |
|
7,800 |
||
|
79 |
Telecommunications |
55,085 |
|
94,500 |
||
|
80 |
Food processing |
54,681 |
|
36,815 |
||
|
81 |
Airline |
54,211 |
|
133,300 |
||
|
82 |
Financials |
53,938 |
|
52,600 |
||
|
83 |
Telecom hardware manufacturing |
53,803 |
|
90,400 |
||
|
84 |
Technology |
53,559 |
|
58,000 |
||
|
85 |
Food processing |
53,309 |
|
138,000 |
||
|
86 |
Technology |
53,101 |
|
108,900 |
||
|
87 |
Technology |
52,961 |
|
159,000 |
||
|
88 |
Technology |
52,432 |
|
37,000 |
||
|
89 |
Agriculture manufacturing |
51,716 |
|
55,524 |
||
|
90 |
Apparel |
51,361 |
|
78,400 |
||
|
91 |
Insurance |
50,429 |
|
40,000 |
||
|
92 |
Petroleum |
50,073 |
|
4,200 |
||
|
93 |
Insurance |
48,560 |
|
38,018 |
||
|
94 |
Pharmaceutical |
48,300 |
|
34,100 |
||
|
95 |
Technology |
47,984 |
|
26,125 |
||
|
96 |
Aerospace and defense |
47,716 |
|
117,000 |
||
|
97 |
Beverage |
47,061 |
|
69,700 |
||
|
98 |
Financials |
46,946 |
|
15,623 |
||
|
99 |
Insurance |
46,423 |
|
34,000 |
||
|
100 |
Pharmaceutical |
45,043 |
|
47,000 |
List
of largest private companies
|
Rank |
Name |
Industry |
Revenue |
Employees |
Headquarters |
|
1 |
Food & Drink |
154 |
155,000 |
||
|
2 |
Multicompany |
125 |
120,000 |
||
|
3 |
Food Markets |
59.7 |
260,000 |
||
|
4 |
Food & Drink |
55 |
150,000 |
||
|
5 |
Food Markets |
49.57 |
175,000 |
||
|
6 |
Food, Drink & Tobacco |
44 |
36,000 |
||
|
7 |
Services |
38 |
100,000 |
||
|
8 |
Insurance |
32.7 |
78,000 |
||
|
9 |
Food, Drink & Tobacco |
25 |
24,000 |
||
|
10 |
Media |
23.5 |
50,000 |
|
Rank |
Name |
Industry |
Profits |
Headquarters |
|
1 |
Technology and cloud computing |
100,118 |
||
|
2 |
Technology |
93,736 |
||
|
3 |
Conglomerate |
88,995 |
||
|
4 |
Technology and cloud computing |
88,136 |
||
|
5 |
Technology |
72,880 |
||
|
6 |
Technology |
62,360 |
||
|
7 |
Retail and cloud computing |
59,248 |
||
|
8 |
Financials |
58,471 |
||
|
9 |
Petroleum industry |
33,680 |
||
|
10 |
Financials |
27,132 |
ATTACHMENT “D” FROM FORBES
“d” X51 FROM FORBES
THE TOP 400
The wealthiest people in America have
never been wealthier. Here's who's up, who's down and who's new.
Tariffs. Inflation. Slowing employment.
None of it has hit the fortunes of America’s billionaires. The 400 richest
people in the U.S. are worth a record $6.6 trillion after getting $1.2 trillion
richer over the past year amid surging stock markets and AI mania. A decade
ago, when it took $1.7 billion to make The Forbes 400, a net worth of $3.8
billion was comfortably within the top half of the ranking—now that lofty sum
is the minimum required. Still, 14 newcomers, including four worth $10 billion
or more, have muscled their way into America’s most elite club.
AI OVERVIEW
Elon
Musk's net worth is measured in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions.
The figure of $428 billion was a milestone he passed in late 2024, and his
wealth has since fluctuated heavily between roughly $695 billion and over $900
billion. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Current
Wealth Status
ATTACHMENT “D” @TO DO:
sort by Productive (consumer), Tech, Service (medical,
retail etc.), AIM (Amusement, Information and
Media), Extractive (oil, gas, coal, diamonds)
and Degenerate (money manipulative, @,
surveillance) enterprises
|
|
Name |
Net Worth |
Age |
Location |
Source (sorted by genre) |
Philanthropy Score |
|
1 |
Elon Musk |
$428 B |
54 |
Texas |
Tesla, SpaceX P |
1 |
|
2 |
Larry Ellison |
$276 B |
81 |
Hawaii |
Oracle D |
1 |
|
3 |
Mark Zuckerberg |
$253 B |
41 |
California |
Facebook AIM |
2 |
|
4 |
Jeff Bezos |
$241 B |
61 |
Florida |
Amazon AIM |
2 |
|
5 |
Larry Page |
$179 B |
52 |
California |
Google AIM |
1 |
|
6 |
Sergey Brin |
$166 B |
52 |
California |
Google AIM |
2 |
|
7 |
Steve Ballmer |
$153 B |
69 |
Washington |
Microsoft T |
2 |
|
8 |
Jensen Huang |
$151 B |
62 |
California |
Semiconductors T |
1 |
|
9 |
Warren Buffett |
$150 B |
95 |
Nebraska |
Berkshire Hathaway |
5 |
|
10 |
Michael Dell |
$129 B |
60 |
Texas |
Dell Technologies T |
2 |
|
11 |
Rob Walton & family |
$118 B |
80 |
Arkansas |
Walmart S |
1 |
|
12 |
Jim Walton & family |
$115 B |
77 |
Arkansas |
Walmart S |
2 |
|
13 |
Michael Bloomberg |
$109 B |
83 |
New York |
Bloomberg LP |
4 |
|
14 |
Bill Gates |
$107 B |
69 |
Washington |
Microsoft T |
5 |
|
15 |
Alice Walton |
$106 B |
75 |
Texas |
Walmart S |
2 |
|
17 |
Charles Koch & family |
$73.8 B |
89 |
Kansas |
Koch, Inc. P |
2 |
|
18 |
Thomas Peterffy |
$73.3 B |
80 |
Florida |
Discount brokerage |
1 |
|
19 |
Jeff Yass |
$65.7 B |
67 |
Pennsylvania |
Trading, investments D |
1 |
|
20 |
Stephen Schwarzman |
$51.9 B |
78 |
New York |
Investments |
2 |
|
21 |
Ken Griffin |
$50.4 B |
56 |
Florida |
Hedge funds |
2 |
|
22 |
Jacqueline Mars |
$42.2 B |
85 |
Virginia |
Candy, pet food P |
|
|
22 |
John Mars |
$42.2 B |
89 |
Wyoming |
Candy, pet food P |
|
|
24 |
Lukas Walton |
$39.8 B |
38 |
Illinois |
Walmart S |
2 |
|
25 |
Miriam Adelson & family |
$37.9 B |
79 |
Nevada |
Casinos AIM |
2 |
|
26 |
Phil Knight & family |
$35.7 B |
87 |
Oregon |
Nike P |
4 |
|
27 |
Abigail Johnson |
$35 B |
63 |
Massachusetts |
Fidelity |
1 |
|
28 |
MacKenzie Scott |
$33.9 B |
55 |
Washington |
Amazon AIM |
5 |
|
29 |
Marilyn Simons & family |
$32.5 B |
74 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
5 |
|
30 |
Thomas Frist, Jr. & family |
$32.4 B |
87 |
Tennessee |
Hospitals S |
2 |
|
31 |
Len Blavatnik |
$31 B |
68 |
|
Music, chemicals AIM |
2 |
|
32 |
Elaine Marshall & family |
$30.9 B |
83 |
Texas |
Koch Inc. P |
1 |
|
33 |
Melinda French Gates |
$29 B |
61 |
Washington |
Microsoft T |
5 |
|
34 |
Henry Samueli |
$27.7 B |
70 |
California |
Semiconductors T |
2 |
|
35 |
Lyndal Stephens Greth & family |
$27.4 B |
50 |
Texas |
Oil, gas E |
|
|
36 |
Eric Schmidt |
$26.8 B |
70 |
California |
Google AIM |
3 |
|
37 |
Daniel Gilbert |
$26.7 B |
63 |
Michigan |
Rocket Mortgage |
2 |
|
38 |
Rupert Murdoch & family |
$24.1 B |
94 |
New York |
Newspapers, TV network AIM |
1 |
|
39 |
Robert Pera |
$24 B |
47 |
California |
Wireless networking T |
1 |
|
40 |
Peter Thiel |
$23.9 B |
57 |
California |
Facebook, investments T |
1 |
|
41 |
David Tepper |
$23.7 B |
67 |
Florida |
Hedge funds |
2 |
|
42 |
Ernest Garcia, II. |
$23.1 B |
68 |
Arizona |
Used cars R |
1 |
|
43 |
Steve Cohen |
$23 B |
69 |
Connecticut |
Hedge funds |
3 |
|
44 |
Diane Hendricks |
$22.3 B |
78 |
Wisconsin |
Building supplies P |
1 |
|
45 |
Rick Cohen & family |
$22.1 B |
73 |
New Hampshire |
Warehouse automation |
1 |
|
46 |
Todd Graves |
$22 B |
53 |
Louisiana |
Fast food S |
2 |
|
47 |
Stanley Kroenke |
$21.3 B |
78 |
Texas |
Sports, real estate AIM |
1 |
|
48 |
John Menard, Jr. |
$20 B |
85 |
Wisconsin |
Home improvement stores S |
1 |
|
49 |
Christy Walton |
$19.7 B |
76 |
Wyoming |
Walmart S |
1 |
|
50 |
Jerry Jones & Family |
$19.6B |
82 |
Texas |
Dallas Cowboys AIM |
1 |
|
51 |
Henry
Nicholas, III. |
$19.6 B |
65 |
California |
Semiconductors T |
1 |
|
52 |
Philip
Anschutz |
$19.4 B |
85 |
Colorado |
Energy, sports, entertainment AIM |
3 |
|
53 |
Donald Bren |
$19.2 B |
93 |
California |
Real estate |
3 |
|
54 |
Israel Englander |
$18.9 B |
76 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
1 |
|
55 |
Edwin Chen |
$18 B |
37 |
New York |
Artificial intelligence T |
1 |
|
56 |
Eric Smidt |
$17.9 B |
65 |
California |
Hardware stores S |
1 |
|
57 |
Adam Foroughi |
$17.4 B |
45 |
California |
Advertising technology AIM |
1 |
|
57 |
Jan Koum |
$17.4 B |
49 |
California |
WhatsApp AIM |
2 |
|
59 |
Stephen Ross |
$17 B |
85 |
Florida |
Real estate |
2 |
|
60 |
George Roberts |
$16.8 B |
81 |
California |
Private equity |
2 |
|
61 |
Lin Bin |
$16.5 B |
57 |
|
Smartphones T |
1 |
|
62 |
Arthur Dantchik |
$16.3 B |
67 |
Pennsylvania |
Trading, investments |
2 |
|
63 |
John Doerr |
$16.1 B |
74 |
California |
Venture capital |
2 |
|
64 |
Harold Hamm & family |
$16 B |
79 |
Oklahoma |
Oil & gas E |
2 |
|
65 |
Jay Chaudhry |
$15.7 B |
66 |
Nevada |
Security software T, D |
1 |
|
66 |
Nancy Walton Laurie |
$15.6 B |
74 |
Nevada |
Walmart S |
1 |
|
66 |
Donald Newhouse |
$15.6 B |
96 |
New York |
Media AIM |
2 |
|
68 |
Robert Duggan |
$15.4 B |
81 |
Florida |
Pharmaceuticals S |
|
|
68 |
Ray Dalio |
$15.4 B |
76 |
Connecticut |
Hedge funds |
3 |
|
68 |
Brad Jacobs |
$15.4 B |
69 |
Connecticut |
Logistics |
|
|
68 |
Henry Kravis |
$15.4 B |
81 |
New York |
Private equity |
2 |
|
72 |
James Goodnight |
$15.3 B |
82 |
North Carolina |
Software T |
1 |
|
73 |
George Kaiser |
$14.4 B |
83 |
Oklahoma |
Oil & gas, banking E |
4 |
|
74 |
Alexander Karp |
$14.3 B |
57 |
New Hampshire |
Software firm T |
1 |
|
74 |
Shahid Khan |
$14.3 B |
75 |
Florida |
Auto parts P |
1 |
|
76 |
Edward Johnson, IV. |
$14.2 B |
60 |
Massachusetts |
Fidelity |
2 |
|
77 |
Jack Dangermond |
$14.1 B |
80 |
California |
Mapping software T |
2 |
|
78 |
Leon Black |
$13.8 B |
74 |
New York |
Private equity |
2 |
|
78 |
Antony Ressler |
$13.8 B |
64 |
California |
Finance |
1 |
|
78 |
Robert Kraft |
$13.8 B |
84 |
Massachusetts |
Manufacturing, New England Patriots P, AIM |
3 |
|
78 |
John Tu |
$13.8 B |
84 |
California |
Computer hardware T |
1 |
|
78 |
David Sun |
$13.8 B |
73 |
California |
Computer hardware T |
1 |
|
83 |
Bubba Cathy |
$13.7 B |
71 |
Georgia |
Chick-fil-A S |
1 |
|
83 |
Dan Cathy |
$13.7 B |
72 |
Georgia |
Chick-fil-A S |
1 |
|
83 |
Trudy Cathy White |
$13.7 B |
69 |
Georgia |
Chick-fil-A S |
1 |
|
86 |
Ken Fisher |
$13.2 B |
74 |
Texas |
Money management |
1 |
|
87 |
J. Christopher Reyes |
$13.1 B |
71 |
Florida |
Food distribution S |
1 |
|
87 |
Jude Reyes |
$13.1 B |
69 |
Florida |
Food distribution S |
1 |
|
87 |
Charles Schwab |
$13.1 B |
88 |
California |
Discount brokerage |
3 |
|
90 |
Brian Armstrong |
$12.9 B |
42 |
California |
Cryptocurrency |
|
|
91 |
Orlando Bravo |
$12.8 B |
54 |
Florida |
Private equity |
1 |
|
91 |
David Duffield |
$12.8 B |
84 |
Nevada |
Business software T |
3 |
|
91 |
Ann Walton Kroenke |
$12.8 B |
76 |
Texas |
Walmart |
1 |
|
91 |
Robert Pender |
$12.8 B |
72 |
Virginia |
Oil & gas P |
1 |
|
91 |
Michael Sabel |
$12.8 B |
58 |
District of Columbia |
Oil & gas P |
1 |
|
96 |
Ralph Lauren & Family |
$12.7 B |
85 |
New York |
Apparel P |
1 |
|
96 |
Laurene Powell Jobs |
$12.7 B |
61 |
California |
Apple, Disney AIM |
3 |
|
98 |
David Steward |
$12.4 B |
74 |
Missouri |
IT provider T |
2 |
|
99 |
Elizabeth Johnson |
$12.3 B |
62 |
Massachusetts |
Fidelity |
2 |
|
100 |
Pierre Omidyar |
$12.2 B |
58 |
Hawaii |
EBay, PayPal S |
4 |
|
Rank |
Name |
Net Worth |
Age |
State |
Source |
Philanthropy Score |
|
101 |
Andrew Beal |
$12 B |
72 |
Texas |
Banks, real estate |
1 |
|
101 |
Dustin Moskovitz |
$12 B |
41 |
California |
Facebook |
5 |
|
101 |
Carl Cook |
$11.7 B |
63 |
Indiana |
Medical devices |
1 |
|
103 |
Chris Larsen |
$11.5 B |
65 |
California |
Cryptocurrency |
2 |
|
104 |
Arthur Blank |
$11.4 B |
82 |
Georgia |
Home Depot |
3 |
|
105 |
Ernest Garcia III |
$11.4 B |
43 |
Arizona |
Used cars |
1 |
|
105 |
John Malone |
$11.3 B |
84 |
Colorado |
Cable television AIM |
3 |
|
107 |
Richard Kinder |
$11.1 B |
80 |
Texas |
Pipelines P |
3 |
|
108 |
Josh Harris |
$11 B |
60 |
Florida |
Private equity |
1 |
|
109 |
Gabe Newell |
$11 B |
62 |
Washington |
Video games AIM |
1 |
|
109 |
Tilman Fertitta |
$11 B |
68 |
Texas |
Entertainment, Houston Rockets AIM |
2 |
|
109 |
Riley Bechtel & family |
$10.8 B |
73 |
California |
Engineering, construction |
1 |
|
112 |
Ramzi Musallam |
$10.8 B |
56 |
New York |
Private equity |
|
|
112 |
Pamela Mars |
$10.5 B |
65 |
Virginia |
Candy, pet food P |
|
|
114 |
Marijke Mars |
$10.5 B |
61 |
California |
Candy, pet food |
|
|
114 |
Valerie Mars |
$10.5 B |
66 |
New York |
Candy, pet food |
|
|
114 |
Victoria Mars |
$10.5 B |
68 |
Pennsylvania |
Candy, pet food |
|
|
114 |
Mark Stevens |
$10.5 B |
65 |
Colorado |
Venture capital |
2 |
|
114 |
Jonathan Gray |
$10.4 B |
55 |
New York |
Investments |
2 |
|
119 |
Charles Butt |
$10.3 B |
87 |
Texas |
Supermarkets |
4 |
|
120 |
Micky Arison |
$10.1 B |
76 |
Florida |
Carnival Cruises AIM |
2 |
|
121 |
Tom Gores |
$10.1 B |
61 |
California |
Private equity |
1 |
|
121 |
Jeffery Hildebrand |
$10 B |
66 |
Texas |
Oil & gas P |
2 |
|
123 |
Patrick Ryan |
$10 B |
88 |
Illinois |
Insurance |
2 |
|
123 |
Robert F. Smith |
$10 B |
62 |
Texas |
Private equity |
2 |
|
123 |
Harry Stine & family |
$9.9 B |
83 |
Iowa |
Agriculture P? |
1 |
|
126 |
Vinod Khosla |
$9.9 B |
70 |
California |
Sun Microsystems, venture capital |
2 |
|
126 |
Dan Friedkin |
$9.7 B |
60 |
Texas |
Toyota dealerships |
3 |
|
128 |
Michael Rubin |
$9.6 B |
53 |
Pennsylvania |
Online retail |
1 |
|
129 |
Mat Ishbia |
$9.5 B |
45 |
Michigan |
Mortgage lender |
1 |
|
130 |
Michael Kim |
$9.5 B |
61 |
|
Private equity |
1 |
|
130 |
Blair Parry-Okeden |
$9.5 B |
75 |
|
Media, automotive P, AIM |
2 |
|
130 |
Jim Kennedy |
$9.5 B |
77 |
Georgia |
Media, automotive P, AIM |
3 |
|
130 |
Randa Duncan Williams |
$9.5 B |
64 |
Texas |
Pipelines P |
1 |
|
130 |
Dannine Avara |
$9.4 B |
61 |
Texas |
Pipelines |
1 |
|
135 |
Milane Frantz |
$9.4 B |
56 |
Texas |
Pipelines |
1 |
|
135 |
Todd Boehly |
$9.3 B |
51 |
Florida |
Finance |
2 |
|
137 |
Ken Langone |
$9.3 B |
89 |
New York |
Investments |
2 |
|
137 |
Terrence Pegula |
$9.3 B |
74 |
Florida |
Natural gas P |
2 |
|
137 |
Les Wexner & family |
$9.3 B |
88 |
Ohio |
Retail |
3 |
|
137 |
Brian Chesky |
$9.2 B |
44 |
California |
Airbnb |
2 |
|
141 |
Scott Duncan |
$9.2 B |
42 |
Texas |
Pipelines P |
1 |
|
141 |
William Ackman |
$9.1 B |
59 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
2 |
|
143 |
Marc Benioff |
$9.1 B |
60 |
California |
Business software |
4 |
|
143 |
Douglas Leone |
$9.1 B |
68 |
California |
Venture capital |
2 |
|
143 |
Elisabeth DeLuca & family |
$9 B |
78 |
Florida |
Subway P |
2 |
|
146 |
Jeff Greene |
$9 B |
70 |
Florida |
Real estate, investments |
1 |
|
146 |
Bruce Kovner |
$9 B |
80 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
2 |
|
146 |
Robert Rowling |
$8.8 B |
71 |
Texas |
Hotels, investments
AIM |
2 |
|
149 |
David Geffen |
$8.8 B |
82 |
California |
Movies, record labels AIM |
3 |
|
Rank |
Name |
Net Worth |
Age |
State |
Source |
Philanthropy Score |
|
149 |
Michael Saylor |
$8.8 B |
60 |
Florida |
Cryptocurrency |
|
|
149 |
David Shaw |
$8.8 B |
74 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
2 |
|
153 |
Nathan Blecharczyk |
$8.7 B |
42 |
California |
Airbnb |
1 |
|
153 |
Neil Bluhm |
$8.7 B |
87 |
Illinois |
Real estate |
2 |
|
153 |
Lynsi Snyder |
$8.7 B |
43 |
California |
In-N-Out Burger P |
2 |
|
153 |
Jimmy Haslam |
$8.7 B |
71 |
Tennessee |
Gas stations, retail P |
2 |
|
157 |
Ronda Stryker |
$8.6 B |
71 |
Michigan |
Medical equipment P |
3 |
|
158 |
Stephen Bisciotti |
$8.5 B |
65 |
Florida |
Staffing, Baltimore Ravens AIM |
2 |
|
158 |
Michael Dorrell |
$8.5 B |
52 |
New York |
Investing |
|
|
158 |
John Brown |
$8.5 B |
90 |
Georgia |
Medical equipment P |
2 |
|
158 |
Tamara Gustavson |
$8.5 B |
63 |
Kentucky |
Self storage S |
1 |
|
158 |
Pauline MacMillan Keinath |
$8.5 B |
91 |
Missouri |
Cargill P |
1 |
|
163 |
J. Joe Ricketts & family |
$8.4 B |
84 |
Wyoming |
TD Ameritrade |
2 |
|
163 |
Charles Simonyi |
$8.4 B |
76 |
Washington |
Microsoft T |
2 |
|
163 |
Denise York & family |
$8.4 B |
74 |
Ohio |
San Francisco 49ers AIM |
1 |
|
168 |
Charles Ergen |
$8.2 B |
72 |
Colorado |
Satellite TV AIM |
1 |
|
168 |
Don Hankey |
$8.2 B |
82 |
Nevada |
Auto loans |
1 |
|
168 |
Steven Rales |
$8.2 B |
74 |
California |
Manufacturing, investments |
2 |
|
171 |
Paul Tudor Jones, II. |
$8.1 B |
70 |
Florida |
Hedge funds |
2 |
|
172 |
Joe Gebbia |
$8 B |
44 |
Texas |
Airbnb S |
2 |
|
172 |
Igor Olenicoff |
$8 B |
82 |
Florida |
Real estate |
1 |
|
172 |
John Overdeck |
$8 B |
55 |
New Jersey |
Hedge funds |
3 |
|
172 |
David Siegel |
$8 B |
64 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
2 |
|
176 |
Gayle Benson |
$7.9 B |
78 |
Louisiana |
New Orleans Saints AIM |
2 |
|
176 |
George Kurtz |
$7.9 B |
54 |
Arizona |
Security software T |
1 |
|
176 |
Philippe Laffont |
$7.9 B |
57 |
New York |
Hedge fund |
1 |
|
176 |
John Morris |
$7.9 B |
77 |
Missouri |
Sporting goods retail AIM, R |
3 |
|
176 |
Marc Rowan |
$7.9 B |
63 |
New York |
Private equity |
2 |
|
181 |
Stanley Druckenmiller |
$7.8 B |
72 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
4 |
|
181 |
Judy Faulkner |
$7.8 B |
82 |
Wisconsin |
Healthcare software T |
2 |
|
181 |
Sami Mnaymneh |
$7.8 B |
64 |
Florida |
Private equity |
|
|
181 |
Leonid Radvinsky |
$7.8 B |
43 |
Florida |
OnlyFans T |
|
|
181 |
Tony Tamer |
$7.8 B |
67 |
New York |
Private equity |
|
|
181 |
Dennis Washington |
$7.8 B |
91 |
Montana |
Construction, mining P |
3 |
|
187 |
Andrew Cherng |
$7.7 B |
78 |
Nevada |
Fast food S |
1 |
|
187 |
Peggy Cherng |
$7.7 B |
77 |
Nevada |
Fast food S |
1 |
|
187 |
Jim Kavanaugh |
$7.7 B |
62 |
Missouri |
IT provider T |
1 |
|
187 |
Roger Penske |
$7.7 B |
88 |
Michigan |
Cars P |
1 |
|
191 |
Jeffrey Lurie |
$7.6 B |
74 |
Pennsylvania |
Philadelphia Eagles AIM |
2 |
|
192 |
Tench Coxe |
$7.5 B |
67 |
California |
Venture capital |
|
|
192 |
Min Kao & family |
$7.5 B |
76 |
Kansas |
Navigation equipment P |
1 |
|
192 |
Thai Lee |
$7.5 B |
66 |
Texas |
IT provider T |
1 |
|
192 |
Michael Milken |
$7.5 B |
79 |
California |
Investments |
3 |
|
192 |
John Sall |
$7.5 B |
77 |
North Carolina |
Software T |
2 |
|
192 |
George Soros |
$7.5 B |
95 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
5 |
|
192 |
Kelcy Warren |
$7.5 B |
69 |
Texas |
Pipelines E |
2 |
|
199 |
Gary Rollins & family |
$7.4 B |
81 |
Georgia |
Pest control S |
2 |
|
199 |
Edward Roski, Jr. |
$7.4 B |
86 |
California |
Real estate |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
201 |
Janice McNair & family |
$7.3 B |
88 |
Texas |
Energy, sports AIM |
2 |
|
201 |
Donald Trump |
$7.3 B |
79 |
Florida |
Real estate |
1 |
|
201 |
Mark Walter |
$7.3 B |
65 |
Illinois |
Finance, asset management |
2 |
|
204 |
James Clark |
$7.2 B |
81 |
Florida |
Netscape, investments |
2 |
|
204 |
Daniel Ziff |
$7.2 B |
53 |
New York |
Investments |
1 |
|
204 |
Dirk Ziff |
$7.2 B |
61 |
Florida |
Investments |
1 |
|
204 |
Robert Ziff |
$7.2 B |
59 |
New York |
Investments |
1 |
|
208 |
Chase Coleman, III. |
$7.1 B |
50 |
New York |
Investments |
2 |
|
208 |
Li Ge |
$7.1 B |
58 |
|
Pharmaceuticals P |
|
|
208 |
Steven Spielberg |
$7.1 B |
78 |
California |
Movies AIM |
2 |
|
211 |
David Baszucki |
$7 B |
62 |
California |
Online games AIM |
2 |
|
211 |
Edythe Broad & family |
$7 B |
89 |
California |
Homebuilding, insurance P |
5 |
|
211 |
Scott Cook |
$7 B |
73 |
California |
Software T |
3 |
|
214 |
Marian Ilitch & family |
$6.9 B |
92 |
Michigan |
Little Caesars Pizza S |
2 |
|
214 |
Doug Meijer & family |
$6.9 B |
71 |
Michigan |
Supermarkets S |
1 |
|
214 |
Hank Meijer & family |
$6.9 B |
73 |
Michigan |
Supermarkets S |
1 |
|
214 |
Mark Meijer & family |
$6.9 B |
67 |
Michigan |
Supermarkets S |
1 |
|
218 |
Michael Moritz |
$6.8 B |
70 |
California |
Venture capital |
4 |
|
219 |
Thomas Hagen & family |
$6.7 B |
89 |
Pennsylvania |
Insurance |
2 |
|
219 |
Michael Intrator |
$6.7 B |
56 |
New York |
Technology T |
1 |
|
219 |
Karen Pritzker |
$6.7 B |
67 |
Connecticut |
Hotels, investments AIM |
2 |
|
219 |
Paul Singer |
$6.7 B |
81 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
2 |
|
223 |
Joseph Liemandt |
$6.6 B |
57 |
Texas |
Software T |
|
|
224 |
Ron Baron |
$6.5 B |
82 |
New York |
Money management |
1 |
|
224 |
Tom Golisano |
$6.5 B |
83 |
Florida |
Payroll services |
3 |
|
224 |
Ray Lee Hunt |
$6.5 B |
82 |
Texas |
Oil, real estate E |
2 |
|
224 |
H. Ross Perot, Jr. |
$6.5 B |
66 |
Texas |
Real estate |
2 |
|
224 |
Robert Rich, Jr. |
$6.5 B |
84 |
Florida |
Frozen foods P |
1 |
|
224 |
Herb Simon |
$6.5 B |
90 |
Indiana |
Real estate |
2 |
|
224 |
Ty Warner |
$6.5 B |
81 |
Illinois |
Plush toys, real estate P,D |
2 |
|
231 |
Matthew Prince |
$6.4 B |
50 |
Utah |
Cybersecurity T |
1 |
|
232 |
James Chambers |
$6.3 B |
68 |
New York |
Media, automotive AIM |
1 |
|
232 |
Reed Hastings |
$6.3 B |
64 |
California |
Netflix AIM |
5 |
|
232 |
Steve Lavin & family |
$6.3 B |
70 |
Illinois |
Meat processing P |
|
|
232 |
Katharine Rayner |
$6.3 B |
80 |
New York |
Media, automotive AIM, R |
1 |
|
232 |
John A. Sobrato & family |
$6.3 B |
86 |
California |
Real estate |
4 |
|
232 |
Margaretta Taylor |
$6.3 B |
83 |
New York |
Media, automotive AIM,R |
1 |
|
232 |
Vincent Viola |
$6.3 B |
69 |
New York |
Electronic trading |
2 |
|
239 |
William Berkley & family |
$6.2 B |
79 |
Florida |
Insurance |
1 |
|
239 |
Justin Ishbia |
$6.2 B |
47 |
Illinois |
Private equity |
1 |
|
239 |
Annette Lerner & family |
$6.2 B |
95 |
Maryland |
Real estate |
1 |
|
239 |
Elizabeth Uihlein |
$6.2 B |
80 |
Illinois |
Packaging materials P |
2 |
|
239 |
Richard Uihlein |
$6.2 B |
80 |
Illinois |
Packaging materials P |
2 |
|
244 |
Robert Bass |
$6.1 B |
77 |
Texas |
Oil, investments E |
2 |
|
244 |
Mitchell Morgan & family |
$6.1 B |
71 |
Pennsylvania |
Real estate |
2 |
|
246 |
Baiju Bhatt |
$6 B |
40 |
California |
Stock trading app |
1 |
|
246 |
Mark Cuban |
$6 B |
67 |
Texas |
Online media, Dallas Mavericks AIM |
1 |
|
246 |
William Goldring & family |
$6 B |
82 |
Louisiana |
Liquor P |
1 |
|
246 |
Robert Hale, Jr. |
$6 B |
59 |
Massachusetts |
Telecom T |
3 |
|
246 |
Dan Kurzius |
$6 B |
53 |
Georgia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
246 |
Eric Lefkofsky |
$6 B |
56 |
Illinois |
Groupon, investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
246 |
Joe Mansueto |
$6 B |
69 |
Illinois |
Investment research |
|
|
246 |
Reinhold Schmieding |
$6 B |
70 |
Florida |
Medical devices P |
|
|
246 |
Ronald Wanek |
$6 B |
84 |
Florida |
Furniture P |
|
|
255 |
Archie Aldis Emmerson & family |
$5.9 B |
96 |
California |
Timberland, lumber mills P |
|
|
255 |
Rakesh Gangwal |
$5.9 B |
72 |
Florida |
Airline S |
|
|
255 |
Thomas Pritzker |
$5.9 B |
75 |
Illinois |
Hotels, investments S |
|
|
255 |
Trevor Rees-Jones |
$5.9 B |
74 |
Texas |
Oil & gas P |
|
|
255 |
Don Vultaggio & family |
$5.9 B |
73 |
New York |
Beverages P |
|
|
255 |
Rick Caruso |
$5.9 B |
66 |
California |
Real estate |
|
|
261 |
Martha Ingram & family |
$5.8 B |
90 |
Tennessee |
Book distribution, transportation AIM |
|
|
261 |
Vlad Tenev |
$5.8 B |
38 |
California |
Stock trading app |
|
|
261 |
Jayshree Ullal |
$5.8 B |
64 |
California |
Computer networking T |
|
|
264 |
Margot Birmingham Perot |
$5.7 B |
91 |
Texas |
Computer services, real estate T |
|
|
264 |
Bill Haslam |
$5.7 B |
67 |
Tennessee |
Gas stations S |
|
|
264 |
Thomas Secunda |
$5.7 B |
71 |
New York |
Bloomberg LP AIM |
|
|
264 |
John Henry |
$5.7 B |
75 |
Florida |
Sports AIM |
|
|
264 |
Jon Stryker |
$5.7 B |
67 |
New York |
Medical equipment P |
|
|
264 |
Carl Thoma |
$5.7 B |
76 |
Texas |
Private equity |
|
|
270 |
Bert Beveridge |
$5.6 B |
63 |
Texas |
Vodka P |
|
|
270 |
Rocco Commisso |
$5.6 B |
75 |
New Jersey |
Telecom T |
|
|
270 |
Jack Dorsey |
$5.6 B |
48 |
California |
Twitter, Square T |
|
|
270 |
Charles B. Johnson |
$5.6 B |
92 |
Florida |
Franklin Templeton |
|
|
270 |
Patrick Soon-Shiong |
$5.6 B |
73 |
California |
Pharmaceuticals P |
|
|
270 |
Ken Xie & family |
$5.6 B |
62 |
California |
Cybersecurity T |
|
|
276 |
Neal Blue & family |
$5.5 B |
90 |
California |
Defense P |
|
|
276 |
Gordon Getty & family |
$5.5 B |
91 |
California |
Getty Oil P |
|
|
276 |
Michael Novogratz |
$5.5 B |
60 |
New York |
Investments, cryptocurrency |
|
|
276 |
Romesh T. Wadhwani |
$5.5 B |
78 |
California |
Software |
|
|
280 |
Jim Coulter |
$5.4 B |
65 |
California |
Private equity |
|
|
280 |
Stephen Cohen |
$5.4 B |
42 |
California |
Software T |
|
|
280 |
Jeremy Jacobs, Sr. & family |
$5.4 B |
85 |
New York |
Food service S |
|
|
280 |
George Lucas |
$5.4 B |
81 |
California |
Star Wars AIM |
|
|
280 |
Gwendolyn Sontheim Meyer |
$5.4 B |
63 |
California |
Cargill P |
|
|
280 |
Lynda Resnick |
$5.4 B |
82 |
California |
Agriculture P |
|
|
280 |
Stewart Resnick |
$5.4 B |
88 |
California |
Agriculture P |
|
|
280 |
Edward Stack & family |
$5.4 B |
70 |
Pennsylvania |
Dick's Sporting Goods S |
|
|
280 |
Jeff Skoll |
$5.4 B |
60 |
Florida |
EBay S, T |
|
|
280 |
Russell Savage |
$5.4 B |
55 |
Florida |
Energy drinks P |
|
|
280 |
Jon Yarbrough |
$5.4 B |
68 |
Tennessee |
Gambling machines P? |
|
|
291 |
Ben Chestnut |
$5.3 B |
51 |
Georgia |
Email marketing |
|
|
291 |
Daniel D'Aniello |
$5.3 B |
78 |
Virginia |
Private equity |
|
|
291 |
Joseph Grendys |
$5.3 B |
63 |
Illinois |
Poultry processing P |
|
|
291 |
Thomas Tull |
$5.3 B |
55 |
Pennsylvania |
Movies, investments AIM |
|
|
295 |
Jim Davis & family |
$5.2 B |
82 |
Massachusetts |
New Balance sneakers P |
|
|
295 |
Josh Kushner |
$5.2 B |
40 |
New York |
Venture capital |
|
|
295 |
Isaac Perlmutter |
$5.2 B |
82 |
Florida |
Marvel comics AIM |
|
|
298 |
Peter Kellogg |
$5.1 B |
83 |
New Jersey |
Investments |
|
|
298 |
Jean (Gigi) Pritzker |
$5.1 B |
63 |
California |
Hotels, investments AIM |
|
|
298 |
Tim Sweeney |
$5.1 B |
54 |
North Carolina |
Video games AIM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank |
Name |
|
|
|
|
|
|
301 |
Mike Brown & family |
$5 B |
90 |
Ohio |
Cincinnati Bengals AIM |
1 |
|
301 |
Barry Diller |
$5 B |
83 |
New York |
Online media AIM |
4 |
|
301 |
Dagmar Dolby & family |
$5 B |
84 |
California |
Dolby Laboratories P |
4 |
|
301 |
Robert Faith |
$5 B |
61 |
South Carolina |
Real estate management |
1 |
|
301 |
Stephen Feinberg |
$5 B |
65 |
New York |
Private equity |
1 |
|
301 |
Hamilton James & family |
$5 B |
74 |
New York |
Investments |
2 |
|
301 |
Scott Kapnick |
$5 B |
66 |
Florida |
Private equity |
|
|
308 |
Seth Boro |
$4.9 B |
49 |
California |
Private equity |
1 |
|
308 |
Scott Crabill |
$4.9 B |
55 |
California |
Private equity |
1 |
|
308 |
Peter Cancro |
$4.9 B |
68 |
Florida |
Jersey Mike's Subs P |
1 |
|
308 |
David Dean Halbert |
$4.9 B |
69 |
Texas |
Biotech T |
2 |
|
308 |
Bom Kim |
$4.9 B |
46 |
|
Online retailing S |
|
|
308 |
Steven Klinsky |
$4.9 B |
69 |
New York |
Investments |
|
|
308 |
Ronald Lauder |
$4.9 B |
81 |
New York |
Estee Lauder P |
3 |
|
308 |
Arturo Moreno |
$4.9 B |
79 |
Arizona |
Billboards, Los Angeles Angels AIM |
1 |
|
308 |
Eren Ozmen |
$4.9 B |
67 |
Nevada |
Aerospace T |
1 |
|
308 |
Holden Spaht |
$4.9 B |
51 |
California |
Private equity |
1 |
|
308 |
Eric Yuan & family |
$4.9 B |
55 |
California |
Zoom Video Communications |
1 |
|
319 |
Austen Cargill, II. |
$4.8 B |
74 |
Montana |
Cargill P |
1 |
|
319 |
James Cargill, II. |
$4.8 B |
76 |
Wisconsin |
Cargill P |
1 |
|
319 |
John Catsimatidis |
$4.8 B |
77 |
New York |
Oil, real estate E |
1 |
|
319 |
Helen Johnson-Leipold |
$4.8 B |
68 |
Wisconsin |
Cleaning products P |
2 |
|
319 |
Marianne Liebmann |
$4.8 B |
72 |
Montana |
Cargill P |
1 |
|
319 |
Gail Miller & family |
$4.8 B |
81 |
Utah |
Car dealerships S |
2 |
|
325 |
George Bishop |
$4.7 B |
87 |
Texas |
Oil & gas P |
1 |
|
325 |
H. Fisk Johnson |
$4.7 B |
67 |
Wisconsin |
Cleaning products P |
2 |
|
325 |
S. Curtis Johnson |
$4.7 B |
70 |
Wisconsin |
Cleaning products P |
2 |
|
325 |
Andrew Karam |
$4.7 B |
43 |
California |
Advertising technology |
1 |
|
325 |
Winifred J. Marquart |
$4.7 B |
66 |
Virginia |
Cleaning products P |
2 |
|
325 |
Fatih Ozmen |
$4.7 B |
67 |
Nevada |
Aerospace T |
1 |
|
325 |
Phil Ruffin |
$4.7 B |
90 |
Nevada |
Casinos, real estate AIM |
1 |
|
325 |
Dan Snyder |
$4.7 B |
60 |
Maryland |
Washington Commanders AIM |
2 |
|
325 |
Michael Xie |
$4.7 B |
56 |
California |
Cybersecurity T |
2 |
|
334 |
William Conway, Jr. |
$4.6 B |
76 |
Virginia |
Private equity |
4 |
|
334 |
David Filo |
$4.6 B |
59 |
California |
Yahoo AIM |
3 |
|
334 |
Carl Icahn |
$4.6 B |
89 |
Florida |
Investments |
3 |
|
334 |
Rupert Johnson, Jr. |
$4.6 B |
85 |
California |
Franklin Templeton |
2 |
|
334 |
David Rubenstein |
$4.6 B |
76 |
Maryland |
Private equity |
4 |
|
339 |
Peter Gassner |
$4.5 B |
60 |
California |
Software T |
|
|
339 |
Steven Udvar-Hazy |
$4.5 B |
79 |
Texas |
Aircraft leasing S |
2 |
|
341 |
Anthony Pritzker |
$4.4 B |
64 |
California |
Hotels, investments S |
3 |
|
341 |
Richard Schulze |
$4.4 B |
84 |
Florida |
Best Buy S |
3 |
|
341 |
Lynn Schusterman & family |
$4.4 B |
86 |
Oklahoma |
Oil & gas, investments E |
5 |
|
341 |
Donald Sterling |
$4.4 B |
91 |
California |
Real estate |
1 |
|
341 |
Cameron Winklevoss |
$4.4 B |
44 |
New York |
Cryptocurrency |
|
|
341 |
Tyler Winklevoss |
$4.4 B |
44 |
New York |
Cryptocurrency |
|
|
347 |
Travis Boersma |
$4.3 B |
54 |
Oregon |
Coffee P |
1 |
|
347 |
Maggie Hardy |
$4.3 B |
59 |
Pennsylvania |
Building materials P |
|
|
347 |
John Middleton |
$4.3 B |
70 |
Pennsylvania |
Tobacco P |
2 |
|
347 |
Byron Trott |
$4.3 B |
66 |
Illinois |
Investments |
2 |
|
347 |
Stewart Rahr |
$4.3 B |
79 |
New York |
Drug distribution S (unless criminal) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
352 |
Sanjit Biswas |
$4.2 B |
43 |
California |
Sensor systems T |
1 |
|
352 |
Eleanor Butt Crook & family |
$4.2 B |
93 |
Texas |
Supermarkets R |
3 |
|
352 |
Paul Foster |
$4.2 B |
67 |
Texas |
Oil refining P |
2 |
|
352 |
Rajiv Jain |
$4.2 B |
57 |
Florida |
Finance |
1 |
|
352 |
Penny Pritzker |
$4.2 B |
66 |
Illinois |
Hotels, investments AIM |
3 |
|
352 |
Daniel Och |
$4.2 B |
64 |
Florida |
Hedge funds |
3 |
|
352 |
Phillip T. (Terry) Ragon |
$4.2 B |
76 |
Massachusetts |
Health IT S |
3 |
|
352 |
Rodger Riney & family |
$4.2 B |
79 |
Missouri |
Discount brokerage |
2 |
|
352 |
Alan Trefler |
$4.2 B |
69 |
Massachusetts |
Software T |
1 |
|
352 |
Brian Venturo |
$4.2 B |
40 |
New Jersey |
Technology P |
1 |
|
362 |
Nick Caporella |
$4.1 B |
89 |
Florida |
Beverages P |
1 |
|
362 |
Todd Christopher |
$4.1 B |
62 |
Florida |
Hair care products P |
1 |
|
362 |
James Duff |
$4.1 B |
64 |
Mississippi |
Tires, diversified P |
1 |
|
362 |
Thomas Duff |
$4.1 B |
68 |
Mississippi |
Tires, diversified P |
1 |
|
362 |
Stewart Horejsi & family |
$4.1 B |
87 |
Arizona |
Berkshire Hathaway |
2 |
|
362 |
Johnelle Hunt |
$4.1 B |
93 |
Arkansas |
Trucking P |
2 |
|
362 |
Drayton McLane, Jr. |
$4.1 B |
89 |
Texas |
Walmart, logistics S |
2 |
|
362 |
C. Dean Metropoulos |
$4.1 B |
79 |
Florida |
Investments |
1 |
|
362 |
Bob Parsons |
$4.1 B |
74 |
Arizona |
Web hosting T |
3 |
|
362 |
Mitchell Rales |
$4.1 B |
69 |
Maryland |
Manufacturing, investments P |
4 |
|
362 |
Mark Shoen |
$4.1 B |
74 |
Arizona |
U-Haul P |
1 |
|
362 |
Thomas Siebel |
$4.1 B |
72 |
California |
Business software T |
4 |
|
362 |
Pat Stryker |
$4.1 B |
69 |
Colorado |
Medical equipment P |
3 |
|
362 |
Meg Whitman |
$4.1 B |
69 |
California |
EBay S |
2 |
|
362 |
Charles Zegar |
$4.1 B |
77 |
New York |
Bloomberg LP AIM |
2 |
|
377 |
John Bicket |
$4 B |
45 |
California |
Sensor systems T |
1 |
|
377 |
Neal Aronson |
$4 B |
60 |
Georgia |
Private equity |
|
|
377 |
Jim Davis |
$4 B |
65 |
Maryland |
Staffing & recruiting S |
2 |
|
377 |
Marc Lore |
$4 B |
54 |
New York |
Jet.com online shopping S |
1 |
|
377 |
John Paulson |
$4 B |
69 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
4 |
|
382 |
Behdad Eghbali |
$3.9 B |
49 |
California |
Private equity |
|
|
382 |
José E. Feliciano |
$3.9 B |
52 |
California |
Private equity |
1 |
|
382 |
Amos Hostetter, Jr. |
$3.9 B |
88 |
Massachusetts |
Cable television AIM |
5 |
|
382 |
Theodore Leonsis |
$3.9 B |
69 |
Maryland |
Sports teams AIM |
1 |
|
382 |
J.B. Pritzker |
$3.9 B |
60 |
Illinois |
Hotels, investments |
4 |
|
382 |
William Stone |
$3.9 B |
70 |
Connecticut |
Software T |
2 |
|
382 |
Steve Wynn |
$3.9 B |
83 |
Florida |
Casinos, hotels AIM |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
389 |
Sid Bass |
$3.8 B |
83 |
Texas |
Oil, investments E |
2 |
|
389 |
Jim Breyer |
$3.8 B |
64 |
Texas |
Venture capital |
1 |
|
389 |
Ray Davis |
$3.8 B |
83 |
Texas |
Pipelines P |
2 |
|
389 |
Edward DeBartolo, Jr. |
$3.8 B |
78 |
Florida |
Shopping centers S |
2 |
|
389 |
Robert Johnson & family |
$3.8 B |
78 |
Florida |
Johnson & Johnson, New York Jets P, AIM |
1 |
|
389 |
Michael Jordan |
$3.8 B |
62 |
Florida |
Charlotte Hornets, endorsements AIM |
1 |
|
389 |
Daniel Loeb |
$3.8 B |
63 |
New York |
Hedge funds |
2 |
|
389 |
Ira Rennert |
$3.8 B |
91 |
New York |
Investments |
2 |
|
389 |
Scott Shleifer |
$3.8 B |
48 |
New York |
Private equity |
2 |
|
389 |
Jeff Tangney |
$3.8 B |
53 |
California |
Healthcare IT S |
|
|
389 |
Eduardo Vivas |
$3.8 B |
39 |
California |
Advertising technology |
1 |
|
389 |
Herbert Wertheim |
$3.8 B |
86 |
Florida |
Investments |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATTACHMENT “E” FROM
X53 FROM QUIVER QUANTITATIVE
A “E” X53
FROM QUIVER QUANTITATIVE
We
used our data on politicians' stock portfolios to
calculate the most recent live net worth estimates for members of Congress.
AMERICA’S
100 RICHEST POLITICIANS
|
|
Name |
Position |
State |
Current Net Worth (USD) |
Daily Change (USD) |
Daily % Change |
|
1 |
James C. Justice |
Senate - Rep |
West Virginia |
$ 664.51 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
2 |
Jefferson Shreve |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 600.73 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
3 |
Rick Scott |
Senate - Rep |
Florida |
$ 508.34 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
4 |
Darrell Issa |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 288.53 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
5 |
Vern Buchanan |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 271.95 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
6 |
Nancy Pelosi |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 248.41 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
7 |
Pete Ricketts |
Senate - Rep |
Nebraska |
$ 215.44 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
8 |
Mark R. Warner |
Senate - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 210.59 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
9 |
Daniel S. Goldman |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 207.49 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
10 |
David McCormick |
Senate - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 172.62 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
11 |
Tim Sheehy |
Senate - Rep |
Montana |
$ 153.44 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
12 |
April McClain Delaney |
House - Dem |
Maryland |
$ 152.89 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
13 |
Bernie Moreno |
Senate - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 139.14 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
14 |
Suzan K. DelBene |
House - Dem |
Washington |
$ 129.16 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
15 |
Donald S. Beyer, Jr. |
House - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 121.83 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
16 |
Kevin Hern |
House - Rep |
Oklahoma |
$ 113.91 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
17 |
Jay Obernolte |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 97.76 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
18 |
Sara Jacobs |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 84.70 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
19 |
Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr. |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 80.28 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
20 |
Roger Williams |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 74.68 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
21 |
Ron Johnson |
Senate - Rep |
Wisconsin |
$ 69.67 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
22 |
Daniel Meuser |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 69.29 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
23 |
Mitch McConnell |
Senate - Rep |
Kentucky |
$ 68.93 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
24 |
Markwayne Mullin |
Senate - Rep |
Oklahoma |
$ 68.33 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
25 |
Cleo Fields |
House - Dem |
Louisiana |
$ 62.12 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
26 |
Scott H. Peters |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 61.73 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
27 |
Ralph Norman |
House - Rep |
South Carolina |
$ 57.22 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
28 |
James E. Risch |
Senate - Rep |
Idaho |
$ 56.61 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
29 |
John W. Rose |
House - Rep |
Tennessee |
$ 56.51 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
30 |
Lloyd Doggett |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 55.50 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
31 |
Bill Hagerty |
Senate - Rep |
Tennessee |
$ 55.07 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
32 |
Marlin A. Stutzman |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 54.38 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
33 |
John Hoeven |
Senate - Rep |
North Dakota |
$ 48.48 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
34 |
Julie Johnson |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 47.85 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
35 |
Kelly Morrison |
House - Dem |
Minnesota |
$ 41.93 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
36 |
Shri Thanedar |
House - Dem |
Michigan |
$ 39.93 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
37 |
Josh Gottheimer |
House - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 39.14 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
38 |
Robert Bresnahan |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 36.76 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
39 |
Earl L. "Buddy" Carter |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 36.21 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
40 |
George Whitesides |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 36.06 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
41 |
Lori Trahan |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 34.31 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
42 |
John W. Hickenlooper |
Senate - Dem |
Colorado |
$ 32.30 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
43 |
James R. Baird |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 30.93 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
44 |
Scott Franklin |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 28.41 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
45 |
Carol D. Miller |
House - Rep |
West Virginia |
$ 27.92 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
46 |
Sheldon Whitehouse |
Senate - Dem |
Rhode Island |
$ 27.36 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
47 |
Michael A. Rulli |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 26.91 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
48 |
Craig Goldman |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 26.18 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
49 |
Ann Wagner |
House - Rep |
Missouri |
$ 25.94 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
50 |
Marjorie
Taylor Greene |
House
- Rep |
Georgia |
$
25.87 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
51 |
Victoria Spartz |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 25.58 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
52 |
Ron Wyden |
Senate - Dem |
Oregon |
$ 24.91 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
53 |
Rick W. Allen |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 23.31 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
54 |
Bill Foster |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 23.04 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
55 |
Ken Calvert |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 22.85 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
56 |
Angus S. King Jr. |
Senate - Ind |
Maine |
$ 22.33 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
57 |
J. French Hill |
House - Rep |
Arkansas |
$ 21.64 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
58 |
Steve Daines |
Senate - Rep |
Montana |
$ 21.37 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
59 |
Nicholas Begich |
House - Rep |
Alaska |
$ 21.34 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
60 |
William R. Timmons IV |
House - Rep |
South Carolina |
$ 21.31 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
61 |
Cory Mills |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 21.25 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
62 |
John Kennedy |
Senate - Rep |
Louisiana |
$ 21.06 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
63 |
Mark Kelly |
Senate - Dem |
Arizona |
$ 20.45 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
64 |
Dale W. Strong |
House - Rep |
Alabama |
$ 20.13 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
65 |
Kim Schrier |
House - Dem |
Washington |
$ 19.95 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
66 |
Kathy Castor |
House - Dem |
Florida |
$ 19.90 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
67 |
Andrew S. Clyde |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 19.18 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
68 |
Dan Newhouse |
House - Rep |
Washington |
$ 18.80 M |
- 1.62 K |
- 0.01% |
|
69 |
Mike Collins |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 18.75 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
70 |
John R. Curtis |
Senate - Rep |
Utah |
$ 18.33 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
71 |
Michael F. Bennet |
Senate - Dem |
Colorado |
$ 18.29 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
72 |
Robert Onder |
House - Rep |
Missouri |
$ 18.18 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
73 |
Pat Fallon |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 18.14 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
74 |
Gregory F. Murphy |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 18.01 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
75 |
Jacky Rosen |
Senate - Dem |
Nevada |
$ 17.82 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
76 |
John Joyce |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 17.07 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
77 |
Pete Sessions |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 16.38 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
78 |
Christopher A. Coons |
Senate - Dem |
Delaware |
$ 16.35 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
79 |
Mike Kelly |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 16.35 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
80 |
Chuck Edwards |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 16.21 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
81 |
Janelle Bynum |
House - Dem |
Oregon |
$ 16.18 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
82 |
Jamie Raskin |
House - Dem |
Maryland |
$ 16.01 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
83 |
Mary E. Miller |
House - Rep |
Illinois |
$ 15.79 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
84 |
Laurel M. Lee |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 15.54 M |
+ 15.24 K |
+ 0.10% |
|
85 |
Cynthia M. Lummis |
Senate - Rep |
Wyoming |
$ 15.50 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
86 |
Sheri Biggs |
House - Rep |
South Carolina |
$ 15.31 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
87 |
Debbie Dingell |
House - Dem |
Michigan |
$ 15.30 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
88 |
Mikie Sherrill |
House - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 15.18 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
89 |
Judy Chu |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 14.89 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
90 |
Katherine M. Clark |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 14.81 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
91 |
Thomas R. Suozzi |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 14.12 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
92 |
Thomas H. Kean, Jr. |
House - Rep |
New Jersey |
$ 13.90 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
93 |
Rudy Yakym III |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 13.89 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
94 |
Ryan K. Zinke |
House - Rep |
Montana |
$ 13.84 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
95 |
Tony Wied |
House - Rep |
Wisconsin |
$ 13.67 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
96 |
James A. Himes |
House - Dem |
Connecticut |
$ 13.65 M |
- 1.98 K |
- 0.01% |
|
97 |
Ami Bera |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 13.65 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
98 |
Seth Moulton |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 13.10 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
99 |
Lisa Blunt Rochester |
Senate - Dem |
Delaware |
$ 12.76 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
100 |
Jared Moskowitz |
House - Dem |
Florida |
$ 12.44 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
ALL POLITICIANS
|
|
Name |
Position |
State |
Current Net Worth (USD) |
Daily Change (USD) |
Daily % Change |
|
1 |
James C. Justice |
Senate - Rep |
West Virginia |
$ 664.51 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
2 |
Jefferson Shreve |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 600.73 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
3 |
Rick Scott |
Senate - Rep |
Florida |
$ 508.34 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
4 |
Darrell Issa |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 288.53 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
5 |
Vern Buchanan |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 271.95 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
6 |
Nancy Pelosi |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 248.41 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
7 |
Pete Ricketts |
Senate - Rep |
Nebraska |
$ 215.44 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
8 |
Mark R. Warner |
Senate - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 210.59 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
9 |
Daniel S. Goldman |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 207.49 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
10 |
David McCormick |
Senate - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 172.62 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
11 |
Tim Sheehy |
Senate - Rep |
Montana |
$ 153.44 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
12 |
April McClain Delaney |
House - Dem |
Maryland |
$ 152.89 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
13 |
Bernie Moreno |
Senate - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 139.14 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
14 |
Suzan K. DelBene |
House - Dem |
Washington |
$ 129.16 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
15 |
Donald S. Beyer, Jr. |
House - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 121.83 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
16 |
Kevin Hern |
House - Rep |
Oklahoma |
$ 113.91 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
17 |
Jay Obernolte |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 97.76 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
18 |
Sara Jacobs |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 84.70 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
19 |
Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr. |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 80.28 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
20 |
Roger Williams |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 74.68 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
21 |
Ron Johnson |
Senate - Rep |
Wisconsin |
$ 69.67 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
22 |
Daniel Meuser |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 69.29 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
23 |
Mitch McConnell |
Senate - Rep |
Kentucky |
$ 68.93 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
24 |
Markwayne Mullin |
Senate - Rep |
Oklahoma |
$ 68.33 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
25 |
Cleo Fields |
House - Dem |
Louisiana |
$ 62.12 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
26 |
Scott H. Peters |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 61.73 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
27 |
Ralph Norman |
House - Rep |
South Carolina |
$ 57.22 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
28 |
James E. Risch |
Senate - Rep |
Idaho |
$ 56.61 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
29 |
John W. Rose |
House - Rep |
Tennessee |
$ 56.51 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
30 |
Lloyd Doggett |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 55.50 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
31 |
Bill Hagerty |
Senate - Rep |
Tennessee |
$ 55.07 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
32 |
Marlin A. Stutzman |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 54.38 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
33 |
John Hoeven |
Senate - Rep |
North Dakota |
$ 48.48 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
34 |
Julie Johnson |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 47.85 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
35 |
Kelly Morrison |
House - Dem |
Minnesota |
$ 41.93 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
36 |
Shri Thanedar |
House - Dem |
Michigan |
$ 39.93 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
37 |
Josh Gottheimer |
House - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 39.14 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
38 |
Robert Bresnahan |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 36.76 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
39 |
Earl L. "Buddy" Carter |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 36.21 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
40 |
George Whitesides |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 36.06 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
41 |
Lori Trahan |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 34.31 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
42 |
John W. Hickenlooper |
Senate - Dem |
Colorado |
$ 32.30 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
43 |
James R. Baird |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 30.93 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
44 |
Scott Franklin |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 28.41 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
45 |
Carol D. Miller |
House - Rep |
West Virginia |
$ 27.92 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
46 |
Sheldon Whitehouse |
Senate - Dem |
Rhode Island |
$ 27.36 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
47 |
Michael A. Rulli |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 26.91 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
48 |
Craig Goldman |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 26.18 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
49 |
Ann Wagner |
House - Rep |
Missouri |
$ 25.94 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
50 |
Marjorie
Taylor Greene |
House
- Rep |
Georgia |
$
25.87 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
51 |
Victoria Spartz |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 25.58 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
52 |
Ron Wyden |
Senate - Dem |
Oregon |
$ 24.91 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
53 |
Rick W. Allen |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 23.31 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
54 |
Bill Foster |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 23.04 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
55 |
Ken Calvert |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 22.85 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
56 |
Angus S. King Jr. |
Senate - Ind |
Maine |
$ 22.33 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
57 |
J. French Hill |
House - Rep |
Arkansas |
$ 21.64 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
58 |
Steve Daines |
Senate - Rep |
Montana |
$ 21.37 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
59 |
Nicholas Begich |
House - Rep |
Alaska |
$ 21.34 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
60 |
William R. Timmons IV |
House - Rep |
South Carolina |
$ 21.31 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
61 |
Cory Mills |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 21.25 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
62 |
John Kennedy |
Senate - Rep |
Louisiana |
$ 21.06 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
63 |
Mark Kelly |
Senate - Dem |
Arizona |
$ 20.45 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
64 |
Dale W. Strong |
House - Rep |
Alabama |
$ 20.13 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
65 |
Kim Schrier |
House - Dem |
Washington |
$ 19.95 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
66 |
Kathy Castor |
House - Dem |
Florida |
$ 19.90 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
67 |
Andrew S. Clyde |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 19.18 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
68 |
Dan Newhouse |
House - Rep |
Washington |
$ 18.80 M |
- 1.62 K |
- 0.01% |
|
69 |
Mike Collins |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 18.75 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
70 |
John R. Curtis |
Senate - Rep |
Utah |
$ 18.33 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
71 |
Michael F. Bennet |
Senate - Dem |
Colorado |
$ 18.29 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
72 |
Robert Onder |
House - Rep |
Missouri |
$ 18.18 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
73 |
Pat Fallon |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 18.14 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
74 |
Gregory F. Murphy |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 18.01 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
75 |
Jacky Rosen |
Senate - Dem |
Nevada |
$ 17.82 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
76 |
John Joyce |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 17.07 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
77 |
Pete Sessions |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 16.38 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
78 |
Christopher A. Coons |
Senate - Dem |
Delaware |
$ 16.35 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
79 |
Mike Kelly |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 16.35 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
80 |
Chuck Edwards |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 16.21 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
81 |
Janelle Bynum |
House - Dem |
Oregon |
$ 16.18 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
82 |
Jamie Raskin |
House - Dem |
Maryland |
$ 16.01 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
83 |
Mary E. Miller |
House - Rep |
Illinois |
$ 15.79 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
84 |
Laurel M. Lee |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 15.54 M |
+ 15.24 K |
+ 0.10% |
|
85 |
Cynthia M. Lummis |
Senate - Rep |
Wyoming |
$ 15.50 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
86 |
Sheri Biggs |
House - Rep |
South Carolina |
$ 15.31 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
87 |
Debbie Dingell |
House - Dem |
Michigan |
$ 15.30 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
88 |
Mikie Sherrill |
House - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 15.18 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
89 |
Judy Chu |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 14.89 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
90 |
Katherine M. Clark |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 14.81 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
91 |
Thomas R. Suozzi |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 14.12 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
92 |
Thomas H. Kean, Jr. |
House - Rep |
New Jersey |
$ 13.90 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
93 |
Rudy Yakym III |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 13.89 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
94 |
Ryan K. Zinke |
House - Rep |
Montana |
$ 13.84 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
95 |
Tony Wied |
House - Rep |
Wisconsin |
$ 13.67 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
96 |
James A. Himes |
House - Dem |
Connecticut |
$ 13.65 M |
- 1.98 K |
- 0.01% |
|
97 |
Ami Bera |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 13.65 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
98 |
Seth Moulton |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 13.10 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
99 |
Lisa Blunt Rochester |
Senate - Dem |
Delaware |
$ 12.76 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
100 |
Jared Moskowitz |
House - Dem |
Florida |
$ 12.44 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
101 |
Ted Cruz |
Senate - Rep |
Texas |
$ 11.97 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
102 |
Max L. Miller |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 11.95 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
103 |
Chip Roy |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 11.76 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
104 |
Robert E. Latta |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 11.62 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
105 |
Suzanne Bonamici |
House - Dem |
Oregon |
$ 11.28 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
106 |
Jeff Merkley |
Senate - Dem |
Oregon |
$ 10.99 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
107 |
Maggie Goodlander |
House - Dem |
New Hampshire |
$ 10.95 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
108 |
Mary Gay Scanlon |
House - Dem |
Pennsylvania |
$ 10.94 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
109 |
Peter Welch |
Senate - Dem |
Vermont |
$ 10.77 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
110 |
Steve Cohen |
House - Dem |
Tennessee |
$ 10.42 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
111 |
Robert B. Aderholt |
House - Rep |
Alabama |
$ 10.36 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
112 |
John Barrasso |
Senate - Rep |
Wyoming |
$ 10.27 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
113 |
Tim Moore |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 9.87 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
114 |
Blake D. Moore |
House - Rep |
Utah |
$ 9.74 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
115 |
Bradley Scott Schneider |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 9.72 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
116 |
Juan Vargas |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 9.57 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
117 |
Mike Rounds |
Senate - Rep |
South Dakota |
$ 9.35 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
118 |
Tom Cole |
House - Rep |
Oklahoma |
$ 9.21 M |
+ 677.99 K |
+ 7.94% |
|
119 |
Susie Lee |
House - Dem |
Nevada |
$ 9.17 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
120 |
Mike Haridopolos |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 9.10 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
121 |
Troy Downing |
House - Rep |
Montana |
$ 9.02 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
122 |
Jake Ellzey |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 8.84 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
123 |
Pat Harrigan |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 8.81 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
124 |
David Kustoff |
House - Rep |
Tennessee |
$ 8.67 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
125 |
Sam Liccardo |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 8.67 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
126 |
Dan Sullivan |
Senate - Rep |
Alaska |
$ 8.37 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
127 |
Lizzie Fletcher |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 8.23 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
128 |
Mike Flood |
House - Rep |
Nebraska |
$ 8.18 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
129 |
Thom Tillis |
Senate - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 7.89 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
130 |
Lisa C. McClain |
House - Rep |
Michigan |
$ 7.85 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
131 |
Katie Boyd Britt |
Senate - Rep |
Alabama |
$ 7.83 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
132 |
Jeanne Shaheen |
Senate - Dem |
New Hampshire |
$ 7.82 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
133 |
Julie Fedorchak |
House - Rep |
North Dakota |
$ 7.63 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
134 |
Gary C. Peters |
Senate - Dem |
Michigan |
$ 7.52 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
135 |
Mazie K. Hirono |
Senate - Dem |
Hawaii |
$ 7.49 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
136 |
Scott Fitzgerald |
House - Rep |
Wisconsin |
$ 7.27 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
137 |
Chellie Pingree |
House - Dem |
Maine |
$ 7.16 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
138 |
Elizabeth Warren |
Senate - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 7.09 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
139 |
James Comer |
House - Rep |
Kentucky |
$ 7.00 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
140 |
Dusty Johnson |
House - Rep |
South Dakota |
$ 6.98 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
141 |
Susan M. Collins |
Senate - Rep |
Maine |
$ 6.97 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
142 |
Neal P. Dunn |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 6.82 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
143 |
Ed Case |
House - Dem |
Hawaii |
$ 6.67 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
144 |
Cliff Bentz |
House - Rep |
Oregon |
$ 6.65 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
145 |
John James |
House - Rep |
Michigan |
$ 6.63 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
146 |
Brad Knott |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 6.61 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
147 |
Warren Davidson |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 6.58 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
148 |
J. Luis Correa |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 6.48 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
149 |
Ted Budd |
Senate - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 6.25 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
150 |
Donald Norcross |
House - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 6.22 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
151 |
Chuck Grassley |
Senate - Rep |
Iowa |
$ 6.22 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
152 |
Margaret Wood Hassan |
Senate - Dem |
New Hampshire |
$ 6.19 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
153 |
Tommy Tuberville |
Senate - Rep |
Alabama |
$ 6.16 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
154 |
Deborah K. Ross |
House - Dem |
North Carolina |
$ 6.10 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
155 |
Andy Biggs |
House - Rep |
Arizona |
$ 6.07 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
156 |
Roger Marshall |
Senate - Rep |
Kansas |
$ 6.05 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
157 |
Tracey Mann |
House - Rep |
Kansas |
$ 6.04 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
158 |
Josh Harder |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 6.02 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
159 |
Tim Scott |
Senate - Rep |
South Carolina |
$ 5.96 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
160 |
Zoe Lofgren |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 5.82 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
161 |
Al Green |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 5.70 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
162 |
Robert J. Wittman |
House - Rep |
Virginia |
$ 5.63 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
163 |
Tina Smith |
Senate - Dem |
Minnesota |
$ 5.57 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
164 |
Andy Harris |
House - Rep |
Maryland |
$ 5.23 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
165 |
Maxine Dexter |
House - Dem |
Oregon |
$ 5.20 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
166 |
Ashley Hinson |
House - Rep |
Iowa |
$ 5.08 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
167 |
Shelley Moore Capito |
Senate - Rep |
West Virginia |
$ 4.98 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
168 |
Deb Fischer |
Senate - Rep |
Nebraska |
$ 4.93 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
169 |
David P. Joyce |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 4.92 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
170 |
Ayanna Pressley |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 4.88 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
171 |
Brian Schatz |
Senate - Dem |
Hawaii |
$ 4.81 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
172 |
Rick Larsen |
House - Dem |
Washington |
$ 4.80 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
173 |
Virginia Foxx |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 4.65 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
174 |
Derek Tran |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 4.62 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
175 |
Christopher R. Deluzio |
House - Dem |
Pennsylvania |
$ 4.62 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
176 |
Jake Auchincloss |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 4.47 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
177 |
Jim Costa |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 4.45 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
178 |
Frank Pallone, Jr. |
House - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 4.44 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
179 |
Byron Donalds |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 4.42 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
180 |
Yassamin Ansari |
House - Dem |
Arizona |
$ 4.39 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
181 |
Catherine Cortez
Masto |
Senate - Dem |
Nevada |
$ 4.36 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
182 |
Chris Pappas |
House - Dem |
New Hampshire |
$ 4.35 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
183 |
Jennifer Kiggans |
House - Rep |
Virginia |
$ 4.25 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
184 |
Brian Babin |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 4.12 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
185 |
Joyce Beatty |
House - Dem |
Ohio |
$ 4.10 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
186 |
John Garamendi |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 4.09 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
187 |
Sean Casten |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 4.08 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
188 |
Gerald E. Connolly |
House - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 4.05 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
189 |
Harriet M. Hageman |
House - Rep |
Wyoming |
$ 4.05 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
190 |
Brad Finstad |
House - Rep |
Minnesota |
$ 4.03 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
191 |
Steny H. Hoyer |
House - Dem |
Maryland |
$ 3.93 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
192 |
Raja Krishnamoorthi |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 3.88 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
193 |
Mike Crapo |
Senate - Rep |
Idaho |
$ 3.87 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
194 |
Ted Lieu |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 3.86 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
195 |
Barry Moore |
House - Rep |
Alabama |
$ 3.82 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
196 |
Sydney Kamlager-Dove |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 3.78 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
197 |
Wesley Hunt |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 3.77 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
198 |
Maxine Waters |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 3.74 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
199 |
John R. Carter |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 3.70 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
200 |
Young Kim |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 3.62 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
201 |
James P. McGovern |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 3.59 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
202 |
Mark Harris |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 3.57 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
203 |
Derek Schmidt |
House - Rep |
Kansas |
$ 3.57 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
204 |
Jonathan L. Jackson |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 3.55 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
205 |
Doug LaMalfa |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 3.52 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
206 |
Nanette Diaz Barragán |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 3.52 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
207 |
Nancy Mace |
House - Rep |
South Carolina |
$ 3.43 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
208 |
John Boozman |
Senate - Rep |
Arkansas |
$ 3.42 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
209 |
William R. Keating |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 3.42 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
210 |
Jim Banks |
Senate - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 3.40 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
211 |
Patty Murray |
Senate - Dem |
Washington |
$ 3.38 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
212 |
Maria Cantwell |
Senate - Dem |
Washington |
$ 3.34 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
213 |
Bennie G. Thompson |
House - Dem |
Mississippi |
$ 3.31 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
214 |
David Taylor |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 3.26 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
215 |
David Scott |
House - Dem |
Georgia |
$ 3.26 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
216 |
Jon Ossoff |
Senate - Dem |
Georgia |
$ 3.25 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
217 |
Jerry Moran |
Senate - Rep |
Kansas |
$ 3.23 M |
- 493.77 |
- 0.02% |
|
218 |
Rosa L. DeLauro |
House - Dem |
Connecticut |
$ 3.22 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
219 |
Grace Meng |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 3.20 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
220 |
Thomas Massie |
House - Rep |
Kentucky |
$ 3.10 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
221 |
Luz Rivas |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 3.08 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
222 |
Patrick Ryan |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 3.07 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
223 |
Lloyd Smucker |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 3.06 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
224 |
Frank D. Lucas |
House - Rep |
Oklahoma |
$ 3.01 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
225 |
Brian K. Fitzpatrick |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 3.01 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
226 |
Julia Brownley |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 3.00 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
227 |
Chrissy Houlahan |
House - Dem |
Pennsylvania |
$ 2.88 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
228 |
Diana DeGette |
House - Dem |
Colorado |
$ 2.84 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
229 |
Josh Hawley |
Senate - Rep |
Missouri |
$ 2.83 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
230 |
Vince Fong |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 2.71 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
231 |
Gary J. Palmer |
House - Rep |
Alabama |
$ 2.70 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
232 |
Lois Frankel |
House - Dem |
Florida |
$ 2.68 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
233 |
Carlos A. Gimenez |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 2.65 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
234 |
John B. Larson |
House - Dem |
Connecticut |
$ 2.60 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
235 |
Jennifer L. McClellan |
House - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 2.57 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
236 |
Eleanor Holmes Norton |
House - Dem |
District of Columbia |
$ 2.54 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
237 |
Greg Landsman |
House - Dem |
Ohio |
$ 2.53 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
238 |
Frederica S. Wilson |
House - Dem |
Florida |
$ 2.52 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
239 |
Marilyn Strickland |
House - Dem |
Washington |
$ 2.48 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
240 |
Mike Levin |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 2.46 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
241 |
Lisa Murkowski |
Senate - Rep |
Alaska |
$ 2.38 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
242 |
Michael K. Simpson |
House - Rep |
Idaho |
$ 2.36 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
243 |
Tim Kaine |
Senate - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 2.35 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
244 |
Jeff Crank |
House - Rep |
Colorado |
$ 2.35 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
245 |
James C. Moylan |
House - Rep |
Guam |
$ 2.31 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
246 |
Maria Elvira Salazar |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 2.31 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
247 |
Jason Smith |
House - Rep |
Missouri |
$ 2.30 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
248 |
Adam B. Schiff |
Senate - Dem |
California |
$ 2.28 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
249 |
Amy Klobuchar |
Senate - Dem |
Minnesota |
$ 2.27 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
250 |
Dave Min |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 2.27 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
251 |
Suhas Subramanyam |
House - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 2.26 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
252 |
Madeleine Dean |
House - Dem |
Pennsylvania |
$ 2.25 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
253 |
Glenn Grothman |
House - Rep |
Wisconsin |
$ 2.24 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
254 |
Bill Huizenga |
House - Rep |
Michigan |
$ 2.21 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
255 |
Teresa Leger
Fernandez |
House - Dem |
New Mexico |
$ 2.19 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
256 |
Greg Stanton |
House - Dem |
Arizona |
$ 2.10 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
257 |
Rand Paul |
Senate - Rep |
Kentucky |
$ 2.09 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
258 |
Sam Graves |
House - Rep |
Missouri |
$ 2.09 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
259 |
Becca Balint |
House - Dem |
Vermont |
$ 2.05 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
260 |
Aaron Bean |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 2.04 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
261 |
Nellie Pou |
House - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 2.04 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
262 |
Julia Letlow |
House - Rep |
Louisiana |
$ 2.01 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
263 |
Charles E. Schumer |
Senate - Dem |
New York |
$ 2.00 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
264 |
Mark Messmer |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 1.99 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
265 |
Andy Barr |
House - Rep |
Kentucky |
$ 1.96 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
266 |
Pete Stauber |
House - Rep |
Minnesota |
$ 1.94 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
267 |
Scott Perry |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 1.92 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
268 |
Bryan Steil |
House - Rep |
Wisconsin |
$ 1.88 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
269 |
Adrian Smith |
House - Rep |
Nebraska |
$ 1.88 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
270 |
Shomari Figures |
House - Dem |
Alabama |
$ 1.88 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
271 |
Stephanie I. Bice |
House - Rep |
Oklahoma |
$ 1.86 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
272 |
Brandon Gill |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 1.82 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
273 |
Robert C. "Bobby" Scott |
House - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 1.78 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
274 |
Mariannette Miller-Meeks |
House - Rep |
Iowa |
$ 1.77 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
275 |
Nicole Malliotakis |
House - Rep |
New York |
$ 1.76 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
276 |
Ronny Jackson |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 1.75 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
277 |
Don Bacon |
House - Rep |
Nebraska |
$ 1.74 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
278 |
Joe Courtney |
House - Dem |
Connecticut |
$ 1.74 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
279 |
Pramila Jayapal |
House - Dem |
Washington |
$ 1.71 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
280 |
Morgan McGarvey |
House - Dem |
Kentucky |
$ 1.70 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
281 |
John Fetterman |
Senate - Dem |
Pennsylvania |
$ 1.70 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
282 |
Andy Kim |
Senate - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 1.69 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
283 |
Michael Baumgartner |
House - Rep |
Washington |
$ 1.65 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
284 |
Austin Scott |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 1.64 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
285 |
August Pfluger |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 1.63 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
286 |
Josh Riley |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 1.62 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
287 |
Lucy McBath |
House - Dem |
Georgia |
$ 1.60 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
288 |
Erin Houchin |
House - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 1.58 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
289 |
Linda T. Sánchez |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 1.54 M |
- 15.39 K |
- 0.99% |
|
290 |
Joe Wilson |
House - Rep |
South Carolina |
$ 1.53 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
291 |
Jared Huffman |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 1.52 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
292 |
John Cornyn |
Senate - Rep |
Texas |
$ 1.50 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
293 |
Laura Friedman |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 1.48 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
294 |
Darren Soto |
House - Dem |
Florida |
$ 1.48 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
295 |
Lindsey
Graham |
Senate
- Rep |
South
Carolina |
$ 1.48
M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
296 |
Mike Kennedy |
House - Rep |
Utah |
$ 1.46 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
297 |
Raphael G. Warnock |
Senate - Dem |
Georgia |
$ 1.45 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
298 |
Elijah Crane |
House - Rep |
Arizona |
$ 1.43 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
299 |
Tammy Duckworth |
Senate - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 1.41 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
300 |
Zachary Nunn |
House - Rep |
Iowa |
$ 1.40 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
301 |
Glenn Ivey |
House - Dem |
Maryland |
$ 1.39 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
302 |
Raul Ruiz |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 1.36 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
303 |
Claudia Tenney |
House - Rep |
New York |
$ 1.34 M |
+ 2.33 K |
+ 0.17% |
|
304 |
Dan Crenshaw |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 1.34 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
305 |
Kristen McDonald Rivet |
House - Dem |
Michigan |
$ 1.34 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
306 |
Brendan F. Boyle |
House - Dem |
Pennsylvania |
$ 1.33 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
307 |
Richard McCormick |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 1.33 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
308 |
Mark Pocan |
House - Dem |
Wisconsin |
$ 1.33 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
309 |
Jimmy Gomez |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 1.32 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
310 |
Mike Carey |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 1.32 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
311 |
Stephen F. Lynch |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 1.31 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
312 |
Cindy Hyde-Smith |
Senate - Rep |
Mississippi |
$ 1.31 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
313 |
Laura Gillen |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 1.31 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
314 |
Daniel Webster |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 1.30 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
315 |
Robert Menendez |
House - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 1.27 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
316 |
Dwight Evans |
House - Dem |
Pennsylvania |
$ 1.24 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
317 |
Kevin Mullin |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 1.24 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
318 |
Bruce Westerman |
House - Rep |
Arkansas |
$ 1.23 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
319 |
John McGuire |
House - Rep |
Virginia |
$ 1.21 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
320 |
Sylvia R. Garcia |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 1.21 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
321 |
Henry Cuellar |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 1.20 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
322 |
Seth Magaziner |
House - Dem |
Rhode Island |
$ 1.17 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
323 |
Bernard Sanders |
Senate - Ind |
Vermont |
$ 1.15 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
324 |
John H. Rutherford |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 1.14 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
325 |
Marsha Blackburn |
Senate - Rep |
Tennessee |
$ 1.14 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
326 |
Brian Jack |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 1.13 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
327 |
Kirsten E. Gillibrand |
Senate - Dem |
New York |
$ 1.13 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
328 |
Cory
A. Booker |
Senate
- Dem |
New
Jersey |
$ 1.13 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
329 |
Marcy Kaptur |
House - Dem |
Ohio |
$ 1.10 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
330 |
Kweisi Mfume |
House - Dem |
Maryland |
$ 1.10 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
331 |
Johnny Olszewski |
House - Dem |
Maryland |
$ 1.08 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
332 |
Eric Schmitt |
Senate - Rep |
Missouri |
$ 1.07 M |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
333 |
Nikki Budzinski |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 1.05 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
334 |
Jack Bergman |
House - Rep |
Michigan |
$ 1.01 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
335 |
Eric Burlison |
House - Rep |
Missouri |
$ 1.01 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
336 |
Val T. Hoyle |
House - Dem |
Oregon |
$ 1.01 M |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
337 |
Salud O. Carbajal |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 1.01 M |
+ 32.50 K |
+ 3.34% |
|
338 |
Christian Menefee |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 1.00 M |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
339 |
David Rouzer |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 988.28 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
340 |
Adam Gray |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 965.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
341 |
Tammy Baldwin |
Senate - Dem |
Wisconsin |
$ 933.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
342 |
Brian J. Mast |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 925.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
343 |
W. Gregory Steube |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 924.64 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
344 |
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez |
House - Dem |
Washington |
$ 922.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
345 |
Christopher Murphy |
Senate - Dem |
Connecticut |
$ 904.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
346 |
Kevin Cramer |
Senate - Rep |
North Dakota |
$ 896.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
347 |
James R. Walkinshaw |
House - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 889.36 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
348 |
Monica De La Cruz |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 881.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
349 |
Ron Estes |
House - Rep |
Kansas |
$ 859.54 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
350 |
Morgan Luttrell |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 858.73 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
351 |
Brittany Pettersen |
House - Dem |
Colorado |
$ 855.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
352 |
Randy K. Weber, Sr. |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 852.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
353 |
LaMonica McIver |
House - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 848.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
354 |
James Lankford |
Senate - Rep |
Oklahoma |
$ 841.42 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
355 |
Delia C. Ramirez |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 841.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
356 |
Abraham Hamadeh |
House - Rep |
Arizona |
$ 833.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
357 |
Jodey C. Arrington |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 833.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
358 |
Joni Ernst |
Senate - Rep |
Iowa |
$ 827.76 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
359 |
Joe Neguse |
House - Dem |
Colorado |
$ 825.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
360 |
Andrea Salinas |
House - Dem |
Oregon |
$ 820.98 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
361 |
Jill N. Tokuda |
House - Dem |
Hawaii |
$ 812.71 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
362 |
Roger F. Wicker |
Senate - Rep |
Mississippi |
$ 799.17 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
363 |
Nathaniel Moran |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 791.22 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
364 |
Jeff Hurd |
House - Rep |
Colorado |
$ 772.10 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
365 |
Michelle Fischbach |
House - Rep |
Minnesota |
$ 769.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
366 |
John Thune |
Senate - Rep |
South Dakota |
$ 757.07 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
367 |
Nydia M. Velázquez |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 750.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
368 |
Ryan Mackenzie |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 733.26 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
369 |
Ben Cline |
House - Rep |
Virginia |
$ 715.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
370 |
John R. Moolenaar |
House - Rep |
Michigan |
$ 711.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
371 |
David Schweikert |
House - Rep |
Arizona |
$ 703.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
372 |
Lance Gooden |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 695.47 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
373 |
Emanuel Cleaver |
House - Dem |
Missouri |
$ 688.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
374 |
Tom Cotton |
Senate - Rep |
Arkansas |
$ 687.94 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
375 |
Tim Walberg |
House - Rep |
Michigan |
$ 681.22 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
376 |
Gabe Evans |
House - Rep |
Colorado |
$ 679.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
377 |
Andrew Ogles |
House - Rep |
Tennessee |
$ 673.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
378 |
Hakeem S. Jeffries |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 666.13 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
379 |
H. Morgan Griffith |
House - Rep |
Virginia |
$ 665.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
380 |
Ritchie Torres |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 657.40 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
381 |
Veronica Escobar |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 641.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
382 |
Scott DesJarlais |
House - Rep |
Tennessee |
$ 632.30 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
383 |
Riley Moore |
House - Rep |
West Virginia |
$ 631.46 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
384 |
Anna Paulina Luna |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 626.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
385 |
Hillary J. Scholten |
House - Dem |
Michigan |
$ 621.56 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
386 |
Martin Heinrich |
Senate - Dem |
New Mexico |
$ 613.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
387 |
Kat Cammack |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 612.29 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
388 |
Joseph D. Morelle |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 612.00 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
389 |
Adam Smith |
House - Dem |
Washington |
$ 594.85 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
390 |
Terri A. Sewell |
House - Dem |
Alabama |
$ 579.64 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
391 |
Debbie Wasserman Schultz |
House - Dem |
Florida |
$ 563.84 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
392 |
Michael R. Turner |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 563.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
393 |
Jim Jordan |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 560.93 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
394 |
Angela Alsobrooks |
Senate - Dem |
Maryland |
$ 558.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
395 |
Juan Ciscomani |
House - Rep |
Arizona |
$ 546.30 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
396 |
Emilia Strong Sykes |
House - Dem |
Ohio |
$ 538.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
397 |
John Mannion |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 521.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
398 |
Janice D. Schakowsky |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 512.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
399 |
Rashida Tlaib |
House - Dem |
Michigan |
$ 490.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
400 |
Danny K. Davis |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 489.53 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
401 |
Mark Alford |
House - Rep |
Missouri |
$ 487.70 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
402 |
Mike Bost |
House - Rep |
Illinois |
$ 480.17 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
403 |
Trent Kelly |
House - Rep |
Mississippi |
$ 465.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
404 |
Pablo Hernández |
House - Dem |
Puerto Rico |
$ 463.33 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
405 |
Nick LaLota |
House - Rep |
New York |
$ 460.11 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
406 |
Elissa Slotkin |
Senate - Dem |
Michigan |
$ 458.71 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
407 |
Mark DeSaulnier |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 458.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
408 |
Michael Cloud |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 450.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
409 |
Darin LaHood |
House - Rep |
Illinois |
$ 448.26 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
410 |
George Latimer |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 445.15 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
411 |
Tom Barrett |
House - Rep |
Michigan |
$ 433.45 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
412 |
Bill Cassidy |
Senate - Rep |
Louisiana |
$ 431.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
413 |
Sharice Davids |
House - Dem |
Kansas |
$ 431.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
414 |
Timothy M. Kennedy |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 431.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
415 |
Adriano Espaillat |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 415.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
416 |
Mark E. Amodei |
House - Rep |
Nevada |
$ 415.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
417 |
Eric Swalwell |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 415.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
418 |
Herbert Conaway |
House - Dem |
New Jersey |
$ 415.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
419 |
Alma S. Adams |
House - Dem |
North Carolina |
$ 407.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
420 |
Jimmy Panetta |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 398.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
421 |
Frank J. Mrvan |
House - Dem |
Indiana |
$ 398.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
422 |
Jack Reed |
Senate - Dem |
Rhode Island |
$ 390.72 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
423 |
Mike Lee |
Senate - Rep |
Utah |
$ 390.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
424 |
Guy Reschenthaler |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 390.00 K |
+ 43.00 K |
+ 12.39% |
|
425 |
Christopher H. Smith |
House - Rep |
New Jersey |
$ 382.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
426 |
Troy Balderson |
House - Rep |
Ohio |
$ 382.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
427 |
Troy E. Nehls |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 378.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
428 |
Steve Womack |
House - Rep |
Arkansas |
$ 365.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
429 |
Richard E. Neal |
House - Dem |
Massachusetts |
$ 359.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
430 |
Russ Fulcher |
House - Rep |
Idaho |
$ 356.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
431 |
Eugene Vindman |
House - Dem |
Virginia |
$ 352.75 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
432 |
Haley M. Stevens |
House - Dem |
Michigan |
$ 348.35 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
433 |
Nicholas A. Langworthy |
House - Rep |
New York |
$ 347.65 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
434 |
James E. Clyburn |
House - Dem |
South Carolina |
$ 336.36 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
435 |
Robert Garcia |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 333.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
436 |
Jason Crow |
House - Dem |
Colorado |
$ 331.12 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
437 |
Mark Takano |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 331.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
438 |
Glenn Thompson |
House - Rep |
Pennsylvania |
$ 320.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
439 |
Richard Hudson |
House - Rep |
North Carolina |
$ 258.68 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
440 |
Andrew R. Garbarino |
House - Rep |
New York |
$ 249.34 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
441 |
Lateefah Simon |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 234.56 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
442 |
Pete Aguilar |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 218.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
443 |
Thomas P. Tiffany |
House - Rep |
Wisconsin |
$ 215.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
444 |
Yvette D. Clarke |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 207.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
445 |
Valerie P. Foushee |
House - Dem |
North Carolina |
$ 207.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
446 |
Josh Brecheen |
House - Rep |
Oklahoma |
$ 207.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
447 |
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. |
House - Dem |
Georgia |
$ 198.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
448 |
Tony Gonzales |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 190.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
449 |
Michael Lawler |
House - Rep |
New York |
$ 183.04 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
450 |
Melanie A. Stansbury |
House - Dem |
New Mexico |
$ 175.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
451 |
Jahana Hayes |
House - Dem |
Connecticut |
$ 175.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
452 |
Nikema Williams |
House - Dem |
Georgia |
$ 164.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
453 |
Marc A. Veasey |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 152.86 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
454 |
Beth Van Duyne |
House - Rep |
Texas |
$ 144.35 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
455 |
Mario Diaz-Balart |
House - Rep |
Florida |
$ 123.62 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
456 |
Ruben Gallego |
Senate - Dem |
Arizona |
$ 121.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
457 |
Jared F. Golden |
House - Dem |
Maine |
$ 121.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
458 |
Norma J. Torres |
House - Dem |
California |
$ 115.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
459 |
Gabe Amo |
House - Dem |
Rhode Island |
$ 99.20 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
460 |
Emily Randall |
House - Dem |
Washington |
$ 99.03 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
461 |
Derrick Van Orden |
House - Rep |
Wisconsin |
$ 99.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
462 |
Steven Horsford |
House - Dem |
Nevada |
$ 97.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
463 |
Todd Young |
Senate - Rep |
Indiana |
$ 91.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
464 |
Randy Feenstra |
House - Rep |
Iowa |
$ 89.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
465 |
Alex Padilla |
Senate
- Dem |
California |
$
85.15 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
466 |
Eric Sorensen |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 83.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
467 |
Russell Fry |
House - Rep |
South Carolina |
$ 77.19 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
468 |
Ilhan Omar |
House - Dem |
Minnesota |
$ 72.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
469 |
Lauren Underwood |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 65.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
470 |
Kevin Kiley |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 56.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
471 |
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez |
House
- Dem |
New
York |
$
49.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
472 |
Tim Burchett |
House - Rep |
Tennessee |
$ 42.59 K |
- 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
473 |
Barry Loudermilk |
House - Rep |
Georgia |
$ 40.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
474 |
Tom McClintock |
House - Rep |
California |
$ 40.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
475 |
Robin L. Kelly |
House - Dem |
Illinois |
$ 40.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
476 |
Donald G. Davis |
House - Dem |
North Carolina |
$ 40.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
477 |
Wesley Bell |
House - Dem |
Missouri |
$ 32.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
478 |
André Carson |
House - Dem |
Indiana |
$ 32.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
479 |
Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr. |
House - Dem |
Georgia |
$ 32.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
480 |
Sarah McBride |
House - Dem |
Delaware |
$ 32.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
481 |
Paul Tonko |
House - Dem |
New York |
$ 32.50 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
482 |
Shontel M. Brown |
House - Dem |
Ohio |
$ 32.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
483 |
Jasmine Crockett |
House - Dem |
Texas |
$ 31.86 K |
+ 0.00 |
0.00% |
|
484 |
Gabe Vasquez |
House - Dem |
New Mexico |
$ 24.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
485 |
Celeste Maloy |
House - Rep |
Utah |
$ 24.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
486 |
Mike Ezell |
House - Rep |
Mississippi |
$ 16.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
487 |
Burgess Owens |
House - Rep |
Utah |
$ 16.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
488 |
Sarah Elfreth |
House - Dem |
Maryland |
$ 16.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
489 |
Steve
Scalise POOREST REP |
House
- Rep |
Louisiana |
$ 8.00 K |
0.00 |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATTACHMENT “F” FROM REAL CLEAR POLITICS
POLLING DATA from REAL CLEAR POLITICS
|
Race |
Poll |
Results |
Spread |
||||
|
Wednesday, July 22 |
|||||||
|
Lindell 35, Demuth 26, Qualls 11 |
|
||||||
|
Hong 26, Barnes 15, Crowley , Roys 1, Brennan 2 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Tuesday, July 21 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Pingree 49, Charles 35, Bennett 6 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Right Direction 30, Wrong Track 63 |
|
||||||
|
Monday, July 20 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Donalds 43, Fishback 12, Collins 11, Renner 2 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Right Direction 36, Wrong Track 58 |
|
||||||
|
Saturday, July 18 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Friday, July 17 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Thursday, July 16 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Graham Nordone 6, Norman 16, Evette 10, Fry 9, Lynch 13, Sanford 5, Mace 10 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Wednesday, July 15 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Vance 38, Rubio 15, Trump
Jr. 8, DeSantis 9, Kennedy
Jr. 3, Haley , Cruz 2, Ramaswamy 3, Carlson 2 |
|
||||||
|
Harris 25, Buttigieg 19, Ocasio-Cortez 12, Newsom 10, Kelly 8, Shapiro 4, Pritzker 2, Moore 2 |
|
||||||
|
Tuesday, July 14 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
·
·
Latest Polls
Name of Race
|
Race |
Poll |
Results |
Spread |
||
|
Tuesday,
July 14 |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Right Direction 35, Wrong Track 55 |
|
||||
|
Right Direction 32, Wrong Track 62 |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Vance 42, Rubio 22, Trump
Jr. 18, DeSantis 0, Kennedy Jr. 6, Haley 6, Cruz , Ramaswamy , Carlson 3 |
|
||||
|
Monday,
July 13 |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Right Direction 39, Wrong Track 55 |
|
||||
|
Saturday,
July 11 |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Right Direction 35, Wrong Track 57 |
|
||||
|
Friday,
July 10 |
|||||
|
Vance 51, Rubio 15, Trump
Jr. , DeSantis 9, Kennedy
Jr. , Haley 2, Cruz 6, Ramaswamy 2, Carlson |
|
||||
|
Wednesday,
July 8 |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Right Direction 36, Wrong Track 60 |
|
||||
|
Right Direction 38, Wrong Track 62 |
|
||||
|
Vance 42, Rubio 26, Trump
Jr. , DeSantis 9, Kennedy
Jr. , Haley 3, Cruz 4, Ramaswamy , Carlson |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Tuesday,
July 7 |
|||||
|
Biggs 60, Schweikert 10, Neely 2, Miceli 1 |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Right Direction 33, Wrong Track 60 |
|
||||
|
Right Direction 32, Wrong Track 61 |
|
||||
|
Monday,
July 6 |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
POLLING DATA from REAL CLEAR POLITICS
|
Race |
Poll |
Results |
Spread |
||||
|
Wednesday, July 22 |
|||||||
|
Lindell 35, Demuth 26, Qualls 11 |
|
||||||
|
Hong 26, Barnes 15, Crowley , Roys 1, Brennan 2 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Tuesday, July 21 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Pingree 49, Charles 35, Bennett 6 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Right Direction 30, Wrong Track 63 |
|
||||||
|
Monday, July 20 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Donalds 43, Fishback 12, Collins 11, Renner 2 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Right Direction 36, Wrong Track 58 |
|
||||||
|
Saturday, July 18 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Friday, July 17 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Thursday, July 16 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Graham Nordone 6, Norman 16, Evette 10, Fry 9, Lynch 13, Sanford 5, Mace 10 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Wednesday, July 15 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Vance 38, Rubio 15, Trump
Jr. 8, DeSantis 9, Kennedy
Jr. 3, Haley , Cruz 2, Ramaswamy 3, Carlson 2 |
|
||||||
|
Harris 25, Buttigieg 19, Ocasio-Cortez 12, Newsom 10, Kelly 8, Shapiro 4, Pritzker 2, Moore 2 |
|
||||||
|
Tuesday, July 14 |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
·
·
Latest Polls
Name of Race
|
Race |
Poll |
Results |
Spread |
||
|
Tuesday,
July 14 |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Right Direction 35, Wrong Track 55 |
|
||||
|
Right Direction 32, Wrong Track 62 |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Vance 42, Rubio 22, Trump
Jr. 18, DeSantis 0, Kennedy Jr. 6, Haley 6, Cruz , Ramaswamy , Carlson 3 |
|
||||
|
Monday,
July 13 |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Right Direction 39, Wrong Track 55 |
|
||||
|
Saturday,
July 11 |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Right Direction 35, Wrong Track 57 |
|
||||
|
Friday,
July 10 |
|||||
|
Vance 51, Rubio 15, Trump
Jr. , DeSantis 9, Kennedy
Jr. , Haley 2, Cruz 6, Ramaswamy 2, Carlson |
|
||||
|
Wednesday,
July 8 |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Right Direction 36, Wrong Track 60 |
|
||||
|
Right Direction 38, Wrong Track 62 |
|
||||
|
Vance 42, Rubio 26, Trump
Jr. , DeSantis 9, Kennedy
Jr. , Haley 3, Cruz 4, Ramaswamy , Carlson |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Tuesday,
July 7 |
|||||
|
Biggs 60, Schweikert 10, Neely 2, Miceli 1 |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Right Direction 33, Wrong Track 60 |
|
||||
|
Right Direction 32, Wrong Track 61 |
|
||||
|
Monday,
July 6 |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
CORRECTIONS
to DJI (7/24)
ATTACHMENTS
FIFTEEN to TWENTY TWO
“The impact of AI is also
being felt around the world. India, the
most populous nation and a rising economic power, has a unique problem... too
many young people who want to get ahead via higher education colliding with an
antiquated and restricted university system that exludes millions from
necessary professions and consigns them to, at best, low-paid tech support
positions for American and other richer countries’ corporations.
“Revolution has occurred,
but not the sort of Bastille, Marxist or even Venezuelan total overhaul of the
political and economic establishment but, rather a specified demand – “the education minister's resignation following repeated leaks of a
medical entrance exam that millions of students see as determining their
futures” (1440, ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN)
Like
other revolutions, however, it has also engendered violence and mass actions –
and, with half its 1.5 billion people under
age thirty, more than 2 million students compete annually for roughly 130,000
medical school spots. Families borrow money or even sell land to pay for years
of private tutoring, while the competitive exam culture has also raised
concerns about students' mental health.
After
India's chief justice compared unemployed young people to "parasites"
and "cockroaches" during a Supreme Court hearing, the de-enrolled
students adopted the namesake Cockroach Janta Party and security forces “used tear gas and
batons to disperse tens of thousands of people marching on the Parliament in
one of the largest protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government
in years.” (New York Times, July 20,
ATTACHMENT 15.A)
“By day’s end, the police crackdown, in which protesters were
beaten up, appeared to have dispersed much of the crowd. The exact number of
protesters injured was not clear, but Indian media reported that over 100 people had been brought to two
hospitals in Delhi.
“Police officials told Indian news outlets that at least 50 of
their personnel were also injured.
“Over 60 protesters were arrested, according to lawyers who were
rallying legal help for them,” according to the Times.
Public anger over the exam scandal had been
simmering since May, when more than two million students who took India’s
biggest entrance exam for medical school found out that the results would be
scrapped because the questions had been leaked and that they would have
to retake the test.
“Such leaks have become a frequent problem in recent
years, and news reports in India that some students have died by suicide
because of the stress have intensified the outrage. The movement has since
grown into broader discontent over the failings of the Indian education system
and the lack of accountability in governance,” and police forcibly removed
Sonam Wangchuk, a prominent activist who had been on hunger strike
at the protest site to a hospital for court-ordered essential medical care,
despite opposition from his family and fellow protesters.
“Seeing the brutality with which peacefully protesting youth are
being dealt with, I have decided to continue my fast,” Mr. Wangchuk, who has
been held at a hospital against his will, said in a statement.
Amit Malviya, who is in charge of the ruling party’s social media
wing, tried to downplay the scale of the protest.
“This hardly looks like a protest that enjoys support beyond
professional agitators and ideological groups,” he said on X.
And the mob adopted its name after Indian
Chief Justice Surya Kant called the medical student wannabees “cockroaches, who
don't get any employment and don't have any place in the profession. Some of
them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI
activists, some of them become other activists, and they start attacking
everyone." (“X” ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN.B)
By Monday afternoon, a senior member of PM Narendra Modi’s
cabinet, J.P. Nadda, met with representatives of the movement, the first such
outreach since the protests began. The movement’s leaders have issued three
specific demands: the immediate resignation of the education minister,
Dharmendra Pradhan; the discharge from the hospital of Mr. Wangchuk; and
compensation for the families those students who died by suicide.
Mr. Pradhan is seen as close to Mr. Modi, having played an important
role in recent victories by his Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P., in key state
elections. The education minister has previously brushed the protesters aside,
calling them “the B-team of terrorists.”
The outcome? See DJI
of July 31st.
Israeli influencers at Calcalistech.com (July
15, ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN) interviewed techsperts like Dr.
Eldad Rom (an organizational psychologist and partner at Team8, who works
primarily with founders and senior executives) who warned the workers of the
world that: "AI will not necessarily replace you, but you may be replaced
by someone in your profession who knows how to use AI platforms better."
Perhaps fortunately for India’s cockroach students
and Americans dismayed by the skyrocketing costs of higher education, Efrat
Shapira, Senior Vice President of Human Resources at @Ness, now believes that a
person “does not necessarily need a bachelor's degree for me to recruit them
for a development role if they have learned independently and can demonstrate
the required abilities."
SO WHAT SHOULD PEOPLE STUDY?
"What you love," Shapira says.
"The world is changing."
Rom said one of the most important skills in
the AI era is the ability to remain comfortable without immediate answers and
that AI can create false confidence.
"AI provides answers with a great deal
of confidence, but confidence does not necessarily mean correctness."
"Humans have always struggled with ambiguity
and uncertainty, which is why we create anchors. But today we live in a world
where every question appears to have an answer within seconds. The ability to
remain with an open question long enough for something meaningful to emerge is
becoming extremely valuable."
"Many executives and board members still
view the AI revolution primarily as a technological revolution. But that is
only half the story," said Ayalla Reuven-Lelong, CEO of global consulting
firm EQ.el.
"Within a few years, AI will become a
basic workplace tool, just like computers, the internet and smartphones. The
question will no longer be who uses AI, but who knows how to create more value
with it."
And with more AI coming and necessitating
more devices that necessitate even higher torrents of electrical power,
President Trump has done another of his famous pivots and now supports
legislation that answers widespread public hostility to the AI data centers by
ostensibly shielding
households from electricity costs tied to the AI boom, as he pushes to make the United States the global
leader in artificial intelligence.
(Reuters, July 22, ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN)
Despite
corporate accusations of NIMBYhood, data center opposition has gone
bipartisan. "Today’s electricity
system forces almost everyone, from homeowners to hyperscale data centers, to
depend on the same network," Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato
Institute, a libertarian think tank, recently wrote.
"That
one-size-fits-all model increasingly does not serve either group well. Large
customers may wait a decade or longer for service, while ordinary
ratepayers worry that expanding the grid
for massive new industrial loads will ultimately increase their own
bills."
Reuters added that the White House its pledge, “which is nonbinding”, will now cover 80% of all the
power delivered to U.S. homes and businesses.
And the nonbindinatory status has failed to quell opposition
from local activists, homeowners and ratepayers.
KPNX TV in Arizona, via MSN (ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN) found
Phoenicians calling the prospect of higher utility rates as oppressive as the
desert heat indices of late as another data center is under construction in suburban Ahwatukee near 48th
Street and Chandler Boulevard.
“Lots of people don’t like the idea of a new data
center coming to Ahwatukee,” opined KPNX, “sharing concerns about the noise,
and how much water and power this project would demand.”
"With the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, we're
creating a fair deal for everybody," President Trump has said. "This
is how we'll grow our economy, lower the cost of living, protect American
consumers and lead the world in AI, and high tech all at the same time. We want
to lead the world.”
But while the White House pushes this new pledge,
people in Ahwatukee told WPNX they don’t trust him, and “plan to continue
protesting the construction of a new data center in the area.”
Stoking the heat index of data center protests, CNN
found environmentalists contending that the facilities are not only gulping
down power that has to be paid for by human neighbors, but “are creating “heat islands,”
warming the land around them by up to 16 degrees Fahrenheit, and making life
hotter for more than 340 million people.”
For example, with Phoenix routinely hitting 116°
over the past weeks, the actual temperature in their vicinity would be 132° and
the heat indices... despite the dry, Southwest climate, sometime approaching
@get data on life threatening HEAT
Andrea Marinoni, associate professor with the Earth Observation
group at the U.K.’s University of Cambridge, and an author of the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, told CNN that
“surface temperatures increased by an average of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit after a
data center started operations” while in “extreme cases”, nearby temperatures
shot up to the aforementioned 16.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Citing climate data from Mexico, Spain and other locations where
data centers are now already operating, the scientists called their findings
“particularly alarming” because AI data centers “are set to boom over the next
few years, and these temperature rises come as planet-warming pollution is
already making heat waves more extreme around the world.”
The planned scale up of data centers “could have dramatic impacts
on society” in terms of the environment, people’s welfare and the economy,
Marinoni told CNN.
Deborah Andrews, emeritus professor of design for sustainability
and circularity at London South Bank University, who was not involved in the
research, said there are plenty of concerns over the impacts of data centers
but this was the first paper she’d seen focusing specifically on the heat
islands they produce.
“The ‘rush for AI-gold’ appears to be overriding good practice
and systemic thinking,” she said, “and is developing far more rapidly than any
broader, more sustainable systems.”
A glaring example of corporate stupidy was on
display from no other than Larry Ellison, whom the DJI calls the “most evil
human being in America.”
Add to that – most stupid.
Ellison, who empire includes tech hippo
Oracle and worker surveillance Taleo emerged as a major supplier of AI computing
capacity after reportedly signing a $300
billion contract with OpenAI requiring a huge new data center in Wisconsin,
but the data centers needed to fulfill that agreement have contributed to a
cash crunch. Oracle, being the Oracle that it is, subsequently pursued thousands of job cuts as it looked for
ways to fund its expansion, Reuters reported in March. (Yahoo Finance, July 22, ATTACHMENT
TWENTY) By the end of its 2026 fiscal
year, Oracle's workforce had fallen by approximately 21,000 employees, or 13%, from 162,000 to 141,000.
Under We Energies' "very large
customer" tariff, data center operators with an S&P credit rating
below A- must provide collateral covering the power plants and transmission
infrastructure constructed to serve them.
Oracle was rated BBB, two notches below the
threshold, when the requirements were considered. S&P subsequently downgraded the company to BBB-, leaving it one notch above
junk status.
Joined by Amazon, Microsoft and META in
firing human beings to feed their AI robots, Oracle's
dispute in Wisconsin showed that cutting payroll and raising money may not be
enough. “As data centers consume more
power and require billions of dollars in new electrical infrastructure,
companies must also convince utilities and regulators that their AI bets are
financially sound,” Reuters concluded.
And TV capitalist Mark Cuban told Business
Insider that AI efficiency gains could lead to obsolete data centers “being turned over to
pickleball fans” long before they recoup their costs. (ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE)
A less jocular take on the
tech... in fact, inferring that AI could cause a new Great Depression... was
postulated by Douglas McIntyre of 247WallSt.com.(July 20, ATTACHMENT TWENTY
TWO)
The bad news, McIntyre wrote, is that AI
generated unemployment will shatter the US tax base falls apart. “Tax revenue from individuals is 80% of the
income collected by the IRS and Social Security. The $7 trillion needed to run
the federal government takes a hit that is beyond imagination. Social security
falls apart as payouts become a fraction of what they are today. The US’s inability
to pay off its debt triggers a default. US borrowing costs soar.”
There will be some jobs around, but only for
a few high priced clerks and coders – more of the downsized will have to work
in service jobs, such as medical personnel, athletes, and musicians... at
best... more likely as minwage fry guys, Door Dash drivers and, filling the ICE
expulsion deportations, grass cutters, dog walkers, senior nursing home bedpan
emptiers and those guys who hold up signs on highway construction projects.
A 15% unemployment rate is halfway between
the peak 10% level of the Great Recession and the Great Depression’s peak of
24.9% in 1933. At 15%, both the stock market and housing market suffer. “The
core of American individual net worth gets damaged.”
The US federal government deficit “will be
about $2 trillion this year,” McIntyre wrote.
(DJI/Debt Clock indices for the first seven months this year are running
about half that) “If the government
deficit rises very rapidly and much higher than that, the financial strain
starts to become unimaginable.”
Perhaps a way to sop up the
surplus will be find more wars to start... boots on the ground in Iran? Greenland?
Canada?... draft the unemployed and send them out to do their patriotic
duty and worry about VA expenses later.
RETURN to
ORIGINAL