Notable quote: "In the pits ... where men wearing ties but acting like gladiators, fought literally and physically for a profit." Now it's at home wearing your PJs.
Q: Who are you going to vote for in the presidential election? Paul Tudor Jones: I think the biggest issue facing America, unequivocally, is campaign finance reform. When you sit down and talk about gun control or charter schools or whatever, all those issues, it's impossible to have politicians actually vote their conscience when they're all unequivocally conflicted because of the fund raising necessities they have and the amount of money they take. Until you have campaign finance reform and term limits, we're dealing with a whole group of elected officials who are incapable of making any independent and honest decisions. So McCain, Bradley, I'll vote for either one of them. I'll vote for any politician that's going to sign the dotted line to get the money lenders out of the temple. I think that if you look at the 13,000 registered lobbyists in Washington, what chance do you or I have of having a voice in government unless you're willing to write a big check? Because that's what all those guys are doing. I'll tell you from my conservation battles down in Florida. The entire sugar industry in Florida, which is destroying the Everglades, they have one business. Their business is not growing sugar. Their business is paying off every politician that they can see simply so that they can continue with a subsidy that does nothing but take money out of every Americans pocket and put it in theirs. Q: You were close to getting that legislation to go your way, weren't you? Paul Tudor Jones: Right. And they spent forty some-odd-million dollars to fight us. Forty million dollars that they probably got through some extraordinarily inequitable and unfair and offensive subsidy that they have done an excellent job of paying off every politician in Congress for. Campaign finance for me is the key issue. It's funny, McCain is a great example. He's probably way too conservative for me, but I'd vote for the guy in a heart beat because there's no doubt in my mind that he more so than anyone would probably go in and attack the vested interests there in Washington that completely distort and destroy our political process.
effective campaign finance reform will require a new version of the First Amendment. Congress can't legally stop PACS the way things are now. PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party and they can say or claim almost anything in their ads, no matter how ridiculous or outrageous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
I saw that before, I find it hilarious and outright bizarre for the epitome of killer capitalism to stand there and talk about income inequality. Outright ridiculous. I love him for his trading acumen and insight but I think he and his kind should really shut up about getting things right in regards to anything social or in regards to inequalities in this world. Even a little soul self-massaging by donating a few bucks to needy causes or showing up every now and then at some fund raisers or other events does not change one's real convictions. If he had a true change of heart he would be pledging most of his wealth to worthy causes such as many billionaires and multi millionaires have done. But living a life based on pure greed and a gross disregard for anyone around him/her in my book disqualifies to ever again open the mouth in public domain about social inequalities. Again, he can do with his money as pleases him, if he wants to invest it for a good cause its fine, but appearing on TED and pretending as if he ever cared about income inequality is outright bizarre. Its like "hey, capitalism has treated me very well, I immensely profited from this system, I benefited from a 'laser sharp focus on short-term profits and corporate greed' and I pretty much fucked everyone in the ass that presented themselves before me, but hey, I cashed out, let's invite China now and teach us how we can all become good communist comrades and love each other".
ann huffington, to the tune of $300 million+ is another one. late senator kennedy was the forerunner . he was a liberal with other people's money. his aim was to pass legislation to tax heavily people who were going to make big money in the future while grandfathering the kennedy clan and their people. they are all a disgusting ilk.
I think it's ridiculous for you to criticize Paul Tudor Jones. He is one of the world's preeminent philanthropists having started the Robin Hood Foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_Foundation A billionaire really doesn't have to give one damn penny to the less fortunate if he doesn't want to. A billionaire can say FCUK ALL OF YOU and tie up all the money into intergenerational trusts that keeps growing for decades to benefit all his future progeny if he wants to. Actually, it's very difficult to grow wealth. Taxes (income, capital gains, estate), inflation, competition (domestic and worldwide), and rapid changes in technology virtually assures that wealth accumulated by any rich person will be wiped out usually within a hundred years, if not sooner. The old saying is that wealth does not last 3 generations. That's due to the aforementioned factors and family issues, such as drug use, lack of motivation, having unintelligent children, or any number of causes will derail the possibility for intergenerational wealth.
The number one thing that is needed for material wealth to last is political stability. Revolution and war are what destroys long-lasting fortunes. Worrying about money, though, will soon be considered old school. In the future more people will understand the number one inheritance is the genetic inheritance, not material wealth. Dollar denominated wealth is nothing compared to genetics.
Exactly. It's in fashion nowadays for billionaires to start a "foundation". Otherwise they seem to get bored. According to reports he hardly ever spends actual time with any poor or homeless. Be my guest and drink that koolade. But talking as Mr. GREED about social inequality is outright bullshit. Talking and spending 0.2% of one's wealth always seems to impress more than actually working in the trenches. And please don't make suggestions about topics I never said or meant. I never claimed anyone has to give anything to anyone else. but what I suggested was that it is disingenuous to play carer for the needy at one time without actually spending FaceTime. Then playing a bit politician in Florida and when that gets boring talking on TED about the world's social inequality.I respect Tudor Jones for attempting to do the right thing. And how he does it is entirely his own choice of course. but I cannot help to feel weird seeing him standing on the social inequality podest as someone who fully used and abused a capitalist system that is designed to keep those born into fortune on top and those at the bottom exactly where they were born into. The American dream of equality and equal chances is a huge hoax I think we can all agree on that. But hey I guess it comes down to this: Do you prefer Mother Theresa who may have saved 10000 kids or Paul Tudor Jones who may support 100000 poor? I choose the former for true heart and conviction and a lifetime of selfless service.