• Amazon reported third-quarter earnings on Thursday.
• Amazon stuck with its $220 billion capex forecast for 2026.
• CEO Andy Jassy expects the company to spend "meaningfully more" next year.

Amazon is already spending a record amount on AI data centers. Next year will be even bigger.

The world's biggest cloud-computing company reported third-quarter results on Thursday and reiterated its plan for $220 billion in capital expenditure for 2026.

Then, CEO Andy Jassy shared his outlook for next year, saying Amazon expects "to spend meaningfully more in 2027."

Amazon’s spending has become the central question hanging over the company. It's building massive data centers and buying expensive chips and other gear to meet surging demand for AI.

That's pushed its free cash flow into negative territory, with third-quarter results showing a hole of $42.4 billion for the trailing twelve months.

Amazon spent $75.9 billion in cash capital expenditures during the third quarter alone, CFO Brian Olsavsky said, primarily on AWS and AI infrastructure.

The results did little to ease investors' concern about the spending. Amazon's third-quarter revenue and earnings came in below Wall Street expectations, and its shares fell roughly 6% in after-hours trading.

"The cloud unit's improving operating margin was one welcome signal, but it may not be sufficient to alleviate concerns about the sharp spike in capex spending and corresponding freefall of its free cash flow," Sky Canaves, a principal analyst at eMarketer, said in a statement.

Amazon has argued that AI infrastructure takes years to build before it can begin generating revenue, and that AI chip servers typically break even in less than three years once deployed. But the scale of the outlay has raised the stakes for Amazon's cloud business to sustain rapid growth as competitors make similarly enormous bets.

On Thursday, Jassy reiterated his confidence in the company's AI business model and outlook, saying there's a "clear line of sight to attractive financial returns."

The time it takes Amazon to turn newly delivered servers into revenue-generating capacity has also come under scrutiny.

Last week, Business Insider exclusively reported that Amazon has begun receiving billions of dollars in Nvidia server racks before all of the gear can be deployed at their final data-center sites, as power shortages and construction delays hold back new capacity.

"We can fund this plan"

Jassy argued Thursday that Amazon has visibility into the demand supporting its huge AI investments. Customers that need the largest AI deployments reserve capacity well ahead of time, he said, in blocks ranging from hundreds of megawatts to, in some cases, as much as a gigawatt.

"We have very good visibility into 2027 and 2028 and some of '29 too with respect to what customers want in those really big chunks of capacity," Jassy said.

AWS revenue rose 39.3% year over year to $46 billion in the third quarter, its fastest growth in nearly five years. Jassy said he expects AWS revenue to grow more than 40% in both 2027 and 2028, a projection that requires the company to keep rapidly adding capacity.

Jassy described the spending as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity rather than an optional expansion. It would be more convenient, he said, if Amazon could spread the investment over 25 years. But the speed of the AI market does not allow that.

"We can fund this plan," he said. "It will forever change our revenue. It will forever change our free cash flow."

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at ekim@businessinsider.com or Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 650-942-3061. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

Samsung Electronics reported the most profitable quarter in its history on Thursday, with operating profit of 107.4 trillion won on revenue of 195.3 trillion won, and still watched its shares close more than 4% lower.  At one point they were down 6.6%. The KOSPI, which had broken above 6,000 the day before, slipped back under […]

The post Why Samsung’s record profits weren’t enough for investors appeared first on Asia Times.

George Clooney is headlining a last-minute effort to raise funds for a pair of far-left, progressive political organizations in the final days of the 2026 midterm elections cycle.

The post Midterms: George Clooney Headlines Star-Studded Last Minute Fundraiser for Progressive Groups appeared first on Breitbart.

“It was worse than an earthquake,” says 21-year-old Greek man who survived the fatal collision of the two high speed trains in Spain. “The impact caught us while we were standing; we were traveling at 170 kilometers per hour, and we all fell onto one another,” Marios recalled speaking to Mega TV Live News magazine. […]

The post “It was worse than an earthquake,” says young Greek survivor of the trains collision in Spain appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

Move comes as Philippines police investigate alleged child sexual abuse images reportedly found at Thomas Markle Sr’s former home

The Metropolitan police has referred itself to the police watchdog over potential errors in its handling of a 2019 letter warning of dangers to the security of the Duchess of Sussex posed by her father.

The letter made allegations about Thomas Markle, the father of Meghan, who is facing claims of child sexual abuse images offending linked to the Philippines, which he denies.

Por separado, es mucho lo que se conoce de la vida y obra de Pablo Picasso (Málaga, 1881-Mougins, Francia, 1973) y Edvard Munch (Ådalsbruk, 1863-Oslo, 1944). Prolíficos y audaces, estos dos gigantes cambiaron la historia del arte con una osadía y un afán experimentador poco frecuentes hasta entonces. Con vidas personales muy diferentes, abordaron temas similares, confrontaron intereses comunes y resolvieron preocupaciones compartidas. Aunque pisaron los mismos escenarios en diferentes momentos (París, Berlín), nadie ha podido certificar que llegaran a encontrarse personalmente.

Seguir leyendo

Next week's election is a pivotal one for Colorado, as voters will decide a pair of ballot questions that could secure the state's low-tax, small-government reputation—or shatter it.

Confusingly, there is a slim possibility that they decide to do both. More on that in a moment.

The two competing ballot measures could hardly be more different. The first, Proposition 136, would cap individual and corporate income taxes at 4.4 percent—the state's current flat rate.

The other, Amendment 87, would rewrite the state's constitution to allow for a progressive income tax. It would also set new rates, ranging from 7.4 percent on income over $500,000 to 8.4 percent on income over $1 million. And it would offer a modest tax cut to the lower end of the income spectrum: Individuals earning less than $100,000 would pay 4.2 percent, while those earning less than $25,000 would pay 3.7 percent.

Even with those offsets, Amendment 87 would be a massive tax increase. Both advocates and opponents agree that it would generate about $2–3 billion in additional annual revenue for the state government.

For now, the higher tax rates created by Amendment 87 would only apply to incomes over $500,000. Unsurprisingly, supporters of the measure are framing this as an opportunity to make the wealthy "pay their fair share."

There are two reasons why that argument is a bit deceiving.

As Jared Walczak, a senior fellow at the Tax Foundation, points out, "the new rates would be statutory, while the authorization for a graduated-rate tax would be enshrined in the constitution, permitting the legislature to adjust rates later." Lawmakers would not have to get permission from the voters to make those changes, so Coloradans would be trading away their flat income tax for a new model where income taxes could be hiked by the legislature at any time.

Second, the new rates are not indexed to inflation. As a result, "a household making $450,000 a year in today's dollars would be moved into a higher tax bracket within eight years if their earnings increased by 3% annually," reports The Colorado Sun, which crunched the numbers. Such "bracket creep" would also push more workers over the $100,000 threshold, nullifying the small tax cut for workers making less than that.

Politically, the progressive income tax proposal is dividing Democrats. The Colorado Democratic Party has endorsed Amendment 87 (along with many of its usual allies, like the AFL-CIO and the state's largest teachers union).

But Democratic Gov. Jared Polis has called the proposal "a huge blank check to politicians" that will "cripple our economy and reduce jobs."

In comments to a Denver TV station, Polis also highlighted how higher taxes in Colorado would make the state less competitive with its neighbors. "Utah has a very similar tax rate to what we have. If ours is double, we can't compete for businesses," Polis told Denver7. "It's game over. We will not be able to attract new employers to Colorado if the voters adopt this."

It's not just Utah. If the amendment passes, Colorado would have a significantly higher top income tax rate than any of its neighbors. (The current highest in that group is New Mexico, with its top rate of 5.9 percent.)

Under Colorado law, constitutional amendments typically need 55 percent approval to pass. However, Amendment 87 requires only a simple majority* because it technically repeals provisions in the constitution, rather than adding new ones. Similarly, Proposition 136—the one that would cap the income tax rate at 4.4 percent—requires just a simple majority.

It is possible, though unlikely, that both could pass. That would create a conflict, since the state's income tax can't be capped at 4.4 percent and also hiked to more than 7 percent on incomes over $500,000.

If that happens, the ballot question with the larger share of support would win, per state law. "In short, that means Amendment 87 would need to both win majority support from voters and surpass Proposition 136 in total votes to go into effect," explains the Denver Post, which has encouraged residents to vote against both ballot measures.

Accordingly, Proposition 136 must win majority support from the voters and surpass Amendment 87 (which needs 55 percent to pass, don't forget) to be implemented.

It is all a bit confusing, but the outcomes are worth watching. Colorado has long been a bit of an outlier among "blue" states for its relatively low taxes and booming population. It's now up to the voters to decide if that remains true.

*CORRECTION: This article incorrectly described how Amendment 87 could be passed into law. 

The post Jared Polis Warns Colorado's Progressive Tax Ballot Measure Could 'Cripple' the Economy appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Heavy rainfall and flash floods in South Pelion, Central Greece, on Wednesday evening caused extensive destruction in infrastructure, brought bridges and roads down, flooded homes and businesses and set human and animal lives at risk. Video: Flood in Platanias Several villages and settlements were cut off electricity and water and communications. Residents and business owners […]

The post South Pelion: Heavy rainfall and flash floods cause extensive destruction appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

La manovra da 26 miliardi di euro approvata dal governo Meloni finisce nel mirino delle opposizioni e della Cgil. Partito democratico e Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra contestano soprattutto il trattamento differenziato tra chi paga l’Irpef progressiva, ormai quasi solo lavoratori dipendenti e pensionati, e chi può accedere a regimi agevolati con imposta sostitutiva. Una disparità che l’estensione della flat tax per gli autonomi non può che accentuare. “Oltre 6 miliardi di misure una tantum o temporanee, destinate a esaurire i propri effetti in un solo anno. Come fa Giorgia Meloni a sostenere che questa non sia una manovra pre-elettorale?”, attacca nel merito Maria Cecilia Guerra, capogruppo del Pd in commissione Bilancio alla Camera. Per la segretaria del Pd Elly Schlein “il Paese aspettava risposte ma Meloni ha fatto una manovra di mance e spot elettorali. L’unica buona notizia è che sarà l’ultima per questo governo”. Per il leader del Movimento 5 Stelle Giuseppe Conte “la manovretta elettorale è una lotteria di micromisure per microplatee”.

Il ddl di Bilancio, per Guerra, “penalizza lavoratori dipendenti e pensionati del ceto medio: chi resta in Irpef può ottenere un taglio fiscale da zero a 500 euro, mentre un professionista che passa alla flat tax può beneficiare di uno sconto da 7.237 a 9.890 euro, oltre a non pagare più le addizionali Irpef, che possono superare i 2.000 euro. Nel frattempo, il fiscal drag continua a erodere i redditi di chi resta in Irpef e, secondo i dati ufficiali, porterà nelle casse dello Stato 35 miliardi nel triennio di riferimento della manovra”. Ai giovani “viene riconosciuto uno sconto fiscale per un solo anno sugli aumenti salariali, lasciati alla discrezionalità del datore di lavoro. Agli over 75 si destinano 300 euro, mentre 1,6 miliardi vengono indirizzati alla sanità privata: risorse che avrebbero potuto contribuire a ridurre le liste d’attesa nel servizio sanitario pubblico e a rafforzare l’assistenza domiciliare e territoriale. Per i nuovi nati si prevedono 100 euro l’anno, mentre si introduce un vantaggio fiscale per le famiglie più abbienti che possono destinare risorse a un fondo vincolato per i figli senza pagare imposte sui rendimenti”.

M5s: “Lotteria di micromisure per microplatee”

“Il governo arriva all’ultimo Cdm senza decreto bollette e propone agli italiani la targa personalizzata a pagamento“, rincara il leader del Movimento 5 Stelle Giuseppe Conte. “Non hanno capito dove siamo fra guerre e le loro disastrose firme sul Riarmo e sui patti di austerità europei: salari reali a -10% in cinque anni, tre anni di crollo industriale, boom di cassa integrazione, carburante sopra i 2 euro da mesi e mesi, record di pressione fiscale. La manovretta elettorale è una lotteria di micromisure per microplatee. Se sei fortunato, dopo lo slalom tra i vari requisiti, raccogli qualche briciola. Il biglietto vincente va ad armi e difesa: 14 miliardi di extra-spese. Quello perdente ai lavoratori dipendenti, tartassati tra rincari, tasse e stipendi da fame”.

Avs: “Sgretola la progressività”

Tino Magni, senatore di Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra, si concentra sul fisco: “La manovra Meloni sgretola la progressività“. La destra, afferma, “rovescia il principio costituzionale, articolo 53, che chi ha di più paga proporzionalmente di più”. Magni denuncia un sistema nel quale “una ristretta minoranza sceglie il proprio regime fiscale con imposte ad aliquota fissa, mentre lavoratori, lavoratrici dipendenti e pensionati pagano alla fonte senza possibilità di scegliere”. Secondo il senatore, l’85% del gettito Irpef è a loro carico. “Proseguire su questa strada aumenta le diseguaglianze lasciando ai lavoratori dipendenti e ai pensionati tutto il peso dell’Irpef e l’aumento della pressione fiscale”. “Da anni diciamo che è necessaria una riforma fiscale, perché il fisco attuale è iniquo e penalizzante – prosegue Magni -. Come Avs abbiamo presentato la ‘Restituzione fiscale’, una riforma del fisco basata su due proposte: una rimodulazione strutturale in senso progressivo dell’Irpef e l’introduzione di una tassa patrimoniale solo per le ricchezze superiori ai 5 milioni di euro. La nostra proposta cancella le aliquote Irpef e le sostituisce con un’unica funzione continua molto progressiva, come già avviene oggi in Germania e Danimarca. Per il 98% dei contribuenti, 41,5 milioni di persone, significa un considerevole taglio delle tasse”.

Cgil: “Non restituito il fiscal drag”

Il segretario generale della Cgil Maurizio Landini, dal canto suo, parla di “manovra totalmente inadeguata ai bisogni delle persone e ingiusta, che continua a indicare spese per le armi, tagli a sanità, casa e affitti e che continua a far pagare tasse ai lavoratori dipendenti e ai pensionati non restituendo 4,5 miliardi di fiscal drag ma introducendo nuove flat tax e aumentando la diversità. In un Paese normale a parità di reddito devi pagare parità di tasse, combattere l’evasione fiscale e introdurre la progressività vera anche sulle rendite finanziarie e sui profitti: è questo quello di cui abbiamo bisogno. Per questo, sono ancora più forti le ragioni dello sciopero generale del 20 novembre e le lotte dei giovani e degli studenti che chiedono futuro”.

“Il sostegno dell’Esecutivo al ceto medio? Pochi spiccioli e una disparità di trattamento che non potrebbe essere più clamorosa. Al 92% di lavoratori e pensionati questa manovra non dà alcuna risposta”, aggiunge il segretario confederale della Cgil Christian Ferrari. Che nota come per il 92% dei dipendenti e pensionati, quelli sotto la soglia dei 50.000 euro di reddito lordo annuo, la manovra non preveda alcun sostegno sostanziale. E si tratta di una “enorme platea di persone che vive di reddito fisso, drammaticamente eroso dall’inflazione e dal fiscal drag (tra il 2022 e il 2025 chi vive di salario o di pensione ha già pagato oltre 30 miliardi di euro di Irpef non dovuta)”.

L'articolo Manovra, opposizioni all’attacco: “Sei miliardi di misure una tantum per l’anno del voto. Sgretola la progressività del fisco a danno di dipendenti e pensionati” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Luis Zahera se ha convertido en una de las caras más visibles de la ficción española. Mientras este viernes el actor estrena Colisión, Netflix ha aprovechado para confirmar el regreso de su otra gran serie reciente con la segunda temporada de Animal. La comedia de Víctor García León y la productora Alea Media volverá con nuevos capítulos el próximo 1 de enero de 2027 para arrancar el año.

El movimiento deja claro el peso que tiene el actor gallego dentro de la plataforma. En poco más de dos meses, Zahera pasará de interpretar a un policía corrupto y contra las cuerdas en el Madrid de los recortes a ponerse de nuevo la bata de Antón, el veterinario rural gruñón y despistado que sorprendió a todo el mundo en su primera entrega.

El éxito de la primera temporada de 'Animal' y su nominación al Emmy

Cuando se estrenó en otoño de 2025, Animal tardó muy poco en llamar la atención de los espectadores. La historia seguía a Antón, un veterinario gallego de pueblo que pierde su consulta de siempre y se ve obligado a trabajar en una moderna clínica y tienda de mascotas de ciudad (Kawanda Urban). La serie enganchó por su tono cercano, sencillo y familiar.

Las cifras acompañaron desde el primer momento. El proyecto superó los 5,2 millones de reproducciones en sus primeras semanas y se metió en el Top 2 mundial de series de habla no inglesa más vistas de Netflix. Además del respaldo de la audiencia, la industria también premió su recorrido con una nominación a mejor comedia en los Premios Emmy Internacional de 2026. Con estos datos y un presupuesto ajustado, renovarla era la decisión más lógica para la plataforma.

De qué trata la segunda temporada de 'Animal'

Los nuevos episodios arrancan con Antón bastante más adaptado a su vida en Kawanda Urban. Se lleva bien con los clientes, tiene buen trato con sus compañeros y cuenta con la confianza de Mike (Álvaro Mel), su jefe. Sin embargo, todo se complica con la vuelta de su sobrina Uxía (Lucía Caraballo), que acaba de terminar sus estudios en etología, la rama que estudia la conducta y las emociones de los animales.

Al tener que compartir la misma consulta todos los días, los dos chocan continuamente. Antón busca enfermedades físicas con métodos de toda la vida, mientras Uxía intenta tratar traumas psicológicos y problemas de estrés en perros y gatos.

El giro de la temporada llega cuando a Antón, Uxía y Mike se les ocurre montar un servicio de entierros para mascotas. La iniciativa tiene tanto éxito que llena de dinero al pueblo de Topomorto, pero traerá consecuencias. El pueblo empieza a llenarse de modas raras y de vecinos nuevos que cambian la rutina de siempre. Al ver que todo va demasiado rápido, Antón empieza a sospechar y decide investigar qué hay de verdad detrás de tanto dinero fácil.

Quién es quién en los nuevos episodios de 'Animal'

La nueva temporada vuelve a apoyarse en el grupo de actores que hizo funcionar la serie desde el principio. Luis Zahera está acompañado una vez más por Lucía Caraballo (No me gusta conducir), cuyo personaje de Uxía gana todavía más peso al poner patas arriba la consulta de su tío con sus métodos modernos. A su lado repite Álvaro Mel (Un cuento perfecto) como Mike, el director del centro veterinario, y Carmen Ruiz (Madres, Amar en tiempos revueltos), que vuelve a aportar su veteranía y su habitual toque de humor a la rutina diaria de la clínica.

El reparto lo completan caras conocidas como Adrián Viador, Raquel Nogueira, Pepo Suevos y Lucía Veiga, que ayudan a mantener ese tono costumbrista y gallego tan característico de la ficción.

Detrás de las cámaras, el equipo creativo tampoco cambia. Víctor García León sigue al mando del proyecto junto a los directores Laura M. Campos y Manu Gómez, con guiones escritos por Teresa Bellón, César Calvillo y el propio creador, mientras que la producción ejecutiva vuelve a correr a cargo de Aitor Gabilondo (Patria), Jota Aceytuno y el propio García León para Alea Media.

De "El Pertur" a policía o veterinario: Luis Zahera, el actor que funciona en todos los géneros

Ver a Zahera enlazar un atraco como Colisión con una comedia familiar como Animal demuestra lo cómodo que se mueve en registros totalmente opuestos. Mucho antes de ganar sus dos premios Goya por El reino y As bestas, el actor gallego ya se metió al público en el bolsillo a nivel nacional dando vida a El Pertur, el desquiciado narcotraficante de Sin tetas no hay paraíso. Aquel papel marcó el inicio de una larga lista de tipos duros y personajes al borde del abismo en series de gran éxito como Vivir sin permiso, Entrevías o Clanes.

Sin embargo, su mayor acierto en los últimos años ha sido no encasillarse en el papel de villano. En Animal demostró que también puede sostener una historia cotidiana y con humor sin perder su carisma habitual. Con películas de robos, dramas policiales y comedias familiares nominadas a los Emmy, Zahera se ha convertido en el actor comodín de Netflix al representar un reclamo infalible que garantiza buenas críticas y visitas cada vez que asoma por el catálogo.

La historia de Isabel de Baviera, más conocida como Sissi, vuelve a la pantalla con el estreno de la tercera y última temporada de La emperatriz, la serie alemana de Netflix que recrea la vida de una de las figuras más conocidas de la monarquía europea del siglo XIX.

Los nuevos episodios llegarán a la plataforma el próximo 12 de noviembre, con una trama marcada por las crisis matrimoniales, las intrigas políticas y los conflictos que amenazan al Imperio de los Habsburgo. Aunque la producción se inspira en personajes y acontecimientos históricos reales, no todo lo que aparece en pantalla sucedió tal y como lo cuenta la ficción.

La historia de amor entre Sissi y Francisco José I

Uno de los pilares de La emperatriz es la relación entre Isabel de Baviera y Francisco José I, emperador de Austria. Su historia de amor existió realmente y culminó con su boda en Viena el 24 de abril de 1854, cuando ella tenía 16 años. Sin embargo, la vida matrimonial de la pareja estuvo lejos de ser el cuento romántico que suele asociarse a las representaciones más idealizadas de Sissi.

Isabel se encontró con las estrictas normas de la corte vienesa, un entorno en el que la etiqueta y las obligaciones dinásticas condicionaban su vida cotidiana. Su relación con la archiduquesa Sofía, madre de Francisco José, también estuvo marcada por las tensiones relacionadas con la educación de sus hijos y el papel que debía desempeñar como emperatriz. La serie utiliza estos conflictos para mostrar las dificultades de una joven que tuvo que adaptarse a un mundo muy alejado de la libertad de la que disfrutaba durante su infancia en Baviera.

Las infidelidades y el conde Andrássy, ¿qué hay de verdad?

La tercera temporada profundiza en la crisis matrimonial entre Sissi y Francisco José. Según la sinopsis oficial de Netflix, la infidelidad del emperador agravará todavía más la situación de la pareja, mientras Isabel intenta encontrar su lugar dentro de la corte y termina alejándose de Viena para recuperarse.

Otro de los personajes destacados de los nuevos episodios es el conde Gyula Andrássy, una figura histórica vinculada al movimiento nacional húngaro. La emperatriz mantuvo una relación política relevante con Hungría y desarrolló una conexión con este territorio que tendría importancia durante su vida. Sin embargo, la atracción sentimental que muestra la ficción entre ambos no debe confundirse con una relación amorosa demostrada históricamente.

Por tanto, las escenas de celos, las conversaciones privadas y los posibles triángulos amorosos deben interpretarse con cautela. La serie utiliza las relaciones sentimentales para dar continuidad a la trama y mostrar las tensiones de la monarquía, pero no todos los detalles de la vida privada de sus protagonistas están documentados.

La guerra de Cerdeña y Maximiliano en México

La última temporada también incorporará acontecimientos políticos que sí forman parte de la historia europea. Uno de ellos es la guerra de Cerdeña, donde la derrota austríaca debilitó la posición de Francisco José y sirve como punto de partida para mostrar las consecuencias de la guerra sobre el emperador y su entorno.

Otro episodio histórico relevante es la aventura mexicana de Maximiliano de Habsburgo, hermano de Francisco José. En 1864, aceptó la corona del Segundo Imperio mexicano y También forma parte de este capítulo de la historia de la dinastía, aunque la serie introduce sus propias escenas para conectar esta trama con la de Sissi.

Más allá de estos acontecimientos, la verdadera vida de Isabel de Baviera fue mucho más compleja que la imagen romántica que se ha popularizado con el paso del tiempo. Nacida en 1837, se convirtió en emperatriz de Austria tras su matrimonio y en reina consorte de Hungría en 1867. Sus viajes, su rechazo a determinadas convenciones de la corte y su búsqueda de independencia marcaron su trayectoria hasta su asesinato en Ginebra, en 1898, a manos del anarquista italiano Luigi Lucheni. Así, La emperatriz combina una base histórica reconocible con licencias narrativas que permiten reconstruir los episodios que no pueden conocerse con exactitud.

No matter what happens in Tuesday's elections, support for wealth taxes keeps growing. Its justification is based on the idea that the very rich owe all of us something, and taxing their fortunes is collecting on that debt. We're told their success fuels inequality and that it's selfish of them to keep so much, especially if they don't proclaim that they want to do more for society.

Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Olivier Blanchard of France recently gave this narrative a clear voice. Writing on X, he wondered why California's wealthiest are spending so heavily to defeat Proposition 40, the supposed one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of billionaires. Blanchard added that billionaires "typically have not indicated that they are building their wealth to eventually make the world a better place."

The entire notion misunderstands how fortunes are made. In a market economy, people don't build great wealth first and redeem it later through good works. They build it by making the world better first.

When I buy an $800 smartphone, it's because I value the phone more than whatever else I would have bought with the money. The seller values my $800 more than they do the phone. We both walk away richer by our own measure. Neither owes the other anything more.

Repeat this exchange a few hundred million times, and vast fortunes take shape for the people who create amazing technology so abundantly and affordably that we take it for granted. More importantly, though, people hand over every cent of it voluntarily.

As my colleague Arnold Kling aptly explained over the weekend, "Profits are earned within a positive-sum game for society. Profits induce firms to serve consumers and to innovate." The drive for wealth taxes relies on "the opposite point of view. It regards profits as something that businesses take from the rest of us, as if we can take innovation and efficiency for granted. [It] acts as if we are in a zero-sum environment in which one person's gain is necessarily another person's loss."

And, yes, the gains are divided more fairly than people think. Nobel laureate and Yale University economist William Nordhaus estimated that innovators in the U.S. business sector personally captured, on average, a mere 2.2 percent of the social surplus they created between 1948 and 2001. The other 97.8 percent went to everyone else in the form of lower prices, higher wages, better products and goods, and services that didn't previously exist.

In short, the world has already been compensated, many times over.

Those urging billionaires to acquiesce also err by blithely assuming that the state that grabs the money will use it well enough to "make the world a better place." The burden of proof is on them. California's government already spends roughly $350 billion a year. What will the extra few billion accomplish that the rest hasn't?

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys," as journalist and satirist P.J. O'Rourke used to say. Maybe California's billionaires aren't eager to fund a Merced-to-Bakersfield rail line that the state prices around $35 billion and its inspector general puts closer to $48 billion. Perhaps they're hesitant to backfill pension funds like the California Public Employees' Retirement System, whose staff concedes is unlikely to hit an assumed 6.8 percent return without leaning on private equity.

Prop 40's revenue is earmarked for health care, but money is fungible. In the end, California has one budget. Every earmarked dollar frees another for something else. Some billionaires might simply have concluded that their philanthropy does more good elsewhere, or that their dollars are more beneficial when invested in private enterprises.

The tax also doubles down on California's worst habit: spend, spend, spend, and then tax, tax, tax. The money is never enough to cover all the spending. A one-time levy spent over five years doesn't fix that. It funds new commitments with temporary money. Some will want to make the tax permanent, which its intellectual architects clearly prefer and may have made possible. And yet that still won't be enough.

That's the commitment problem that Blanchard admits California can't solve. Billionaires are wise to distrust the "one-time" promise.

What worries me most is the moral framework. When a society convinces itself that the people making life better and less costly are the problem, we eventually stop getting those people.

Contrary to Blanchard's naive belief, billionaires aren't lacking in public spirit. Even if we ignore their often massive charitable giving, we can't forget that the market already collected their contribution and handed a large share of it to the rest of us. We should stop demanding they apologize for the other two cents.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

The post Billionaires Have Already Paid Us Back. So Why Does California Want More? appeared first on Reason Magazine.