Conserative Treehouse And The Finpolity

I've been using Ferdinand Lumdberg's model of the finpolity that he outlined in The Rich and the Super-Rich (1968) as vehicle to understand this year's political developments. It turns out that Sundance, the blogger at Conservative Treehouse, has a parallel explanation that doesn't reference Lundberg or finpols, but it assumes a very similar theory of the wealthiest actors working to advance interlocking interests. He outlines what he thinks is the current state of the game in this post:

In late summer 2023 not only myself, but several insightful analysts in the world of high finance, had come to the conclusion that Musk’s financial effort with the purchase of Twitter was unsustainable, unless something changed.

Something did change.

In early August of 2023, understanding the dynamic at stake, and also having a strategy for his own interests, Oracle’s Larry Ellison said, ‘he would not let Elon Musk fail with Twitter’.

Billionaire Larry Ellison, a Tesla Board member, already had invested money in place, but that wasn’t the motive on this move. In hindsight, Ellison was brilliant and intensely strategic.

Sundance linked to a Wall Street Journal article behind a paywall, Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Is Now the Worst Buyout for Banks Since the Financial Crisis. It begins,

The seven banks involved in the deal, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, lent the money to the billionaire’s holding company to take the social-media platform, now named X, private in October 2022. Banks that provide loans for takeovers generally sell the debt quickly to other investors to get it off their balance sheets, making money on fees.

Let's recall that Musk's takeover of Twitter prompted widespread efforts to boycott Twitter advertisers. Clearly there was a sense that Musk had misjudged this move, and it would fail. It looks like the banks that had made the loan weren't gping to be able to lay it off to the other investors. Sundance continues,

Ellison pumped money into the problem, relieving Musk of the cash flow problem created by his inability to divest shares (Musk was max-limited by Board). Ellison also helped make the $1.5 billion loan made by SpaceX, (unknown at the time) go away.

Ellison essentially positioned Twitter for the same dynamic reason that Bezos bought and used WaPo. This is the world of high finance, and these moves are all about influence, leverage and ultimately positioning. Ellison wanted a vessel for influence, a friendship and common ideological alignment therein just made sense.

Let's just back off and refer to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. As of November 22, it listed Elon Musk at number 1, net worth $347.8 billion; Jeff Bezos as number 2, net worth $218.5 billion; Larry Ellison as number 3, net worth $206.1 billion; and Mark Zuckerberg as number 4, net worth $198.1 billion. Over the past couple of weeks, Musk himself has been camped out at Mar-a-Lago, presumably keeping his silent partner Ellison abreast of developments. Zuckerberg came to dinner at Mar-a-Lago the day before Thanksgiving.

Earlier, Jeff Bezos notably told the hired help at the Washington Post that they wouldn't be making an endorsement in the presidential race. The wealthiest men in the world -- that is, the finpolity -- are adjusting to the changed conditions. Sundance continues,

Oracle, specifically Larry Ellison, is now positioned as the biggest benefactor of a second Trump administration, with a very specific group of technocrats in close alignment.

. . . It should be emphasized up front that no one is a bad guy in the framework of what took place; however, neither is this altruism.

These are essentially self-interests in a common alignment. As long as the alignment is for good purposes, then the network of billionaire allies is in a very cool place.

. . . In August 2023 President Trump understands that Twitter will survive. Ellison will not let Musk fail and will underwrite whatever is needed in order to ensure success. Everything candidate Trump does from that moment forth, carries that baseline.

Now, in August 2023 Larry Ellison was not saying, hey Trump I support you; instead, the reality of what the Oracle billionaire was saying was that Twitter would survive.

. . . In the spring of 2024, the broad outline of a technocratic team falls slowly into place. By summer 2024 we see Larry Ellison, Elon Musk, David [Sacks], Peter Thiel all in common alignment. The technocratic team bring in the RFK Jr element along with the Vivek Ramaswamy element, and Peter Thiel’s background seeding of Senator JD Vance blossoms. The rest, as they say, is now history.

However, it is important to remember, this is an alignment of common interests. Insofar as those diverse but intertwined interests are good for the USA, then this is an extremely powerful coalition. There is a great deal of commonality, but there is also the opportunity for some disparity – especially if the technocrats push the Office of the President too hard.

Thiel, by the way, is #146 on the billionaiure index, net worth $15.3 billion. David Sacks, not on the index, has a net worth of $200 million. Vivek Ramaswamy's net worth just recently reached $1 billion, but he doesn't yet seem to have been ranked on the index. We may definirtely assume, though, that these lesser figures are allgned with Musk and have interlocking interests with him, Ellison, and Zuckerberg.

None of these men is an altruist. They are finpols or finpol wannabes, looking to form political alliances as part of their goals for their own aggrandizement. This requires that they have access to the levers that control public life, and it's no surprise that Musk made a major (and very risky) investment in media, while Zuckerberg's wealth comes from media almost entirely. For now, it looks like their overall purposes may have a positive effect, but they are not primarily altruistic.

But John D Rockefeller, after all, saved the whales.