How a reclusive computer programmer became a GOP money powerhouse
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
He supports the Club for Growth, NRA, American Crossroads, and GOP Congressional candidates and has since he became wealthy.
Its pretty clear its purely ideological.
I'm not sure why he is considered a "mysterious reclusive" type figure given he has been doing so for nearly a decade.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/11/he...
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2010/10/wealthy_f...
He might have been "mysterious" 5-6 years ago when he had only done a couple of things but at this point? Really?
I would say the article uses a lot of loaded words to try to create controversy and contradiction where none exists.
Yeah. They are trying to be clickbait-y and ignore the substance that actually exists. [e.g. The influence of patron-style donations]
From experience, it's easy to delude yourself into thinking you can do linguistic analysis without being an actual linguist.
Here is an interview with James Simmons, the founder of Renaissance, fascinating guy.
(Bubble meaning enclosed monocultural environment, not necessarily economic bubble.)
Wall Street is very different. IT is considered to be barely a step up from the people who clear out the garbage pails, even if you are a Java programmer that is making $175k a year (which is considered nothing). There are many signs of this. One is that in IT, a managing director might have hundreds of IT personnel working for him (on Wall Street, titles like partner, managing director etc. have some importance). In an important, major profit center division or group, it seems like every other person is a managing director.
Hedge funds like RenTec, DE Shaw, Two Sigma, PDT should not have to exist. Investment banks should have been able to spin out groups that do what they do and keep those tens of billions under management. The Wall Street culture and corporate politicsmis such that this can't happen, so these quant/ML hedge funds pop up and get tens of billions of dollars to manage. Which then pay their top quants hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. This can not happen in investment banks. Investment banks have seen these tens and, collectively hundreds, of billions go out the door, but they are big bureaucracies with office politics and inertia, they're taking steps to try to reclaim some of it, but the genie has already left the bottle to some extent.
Wealthy liberals in coastal communities are NIMBYs. The only time you get change is when the number of renters (and voters) greatly outnumbers the home owners.
Wealthy conservatives do not want regulations because changing the rules force them to reconsider their business.
Wait a minute, where did I hear about this recently?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/democrats-wealth_n_...
"Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle."
That income level is not considered "rich". As for presidential races: "In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls."
You may also want to look at the money Republicans have raised for the presidential race including super PACs. Republicans have a much larger war chest due to large contributions from many very rich people.
How did the Democrats become favorites of the rich?
"The party and its candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors for another quarter."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democr...
The NYT ain't exactly Fox news.