CBS’s Latest Socialism Sales Pitch: ‘Maybe You Can Be Too Rich’

Continue reading CBS Sunday Morning, the broadcast network made a new push to sell socialism by arguing that billionaires shouldn’t be allowed to exist and that their wealth should be seized by the government and spent on left-wing priorities like climate change. The segment featured radical guests demanding wealth redistribution and advocating the notion that “maybe you can be too rich.”

“A recent report reveals the world’s nearly 3,000 billionaires increased their wealth by $5 trillion last year….Which prompts Mark Whitaker to ask: When is more than enough, enough?,”Jane Pauley was the host and announced it at the beginning of the segment. Whitaker then warned viewers: “The wealth gap has reached stratospheric levels.The American richest one percent has nearly 13 times as much wealth than the 50th percent. It’s led some to consider: Maybe you can be too rich.”

For his explanation of her socialist ideologies, which included seizing wealth through giving it new names, he turned towards a European philosophy professor from the left. “Professor Ingrid Robeyns teaches philosophy and ethics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. She’s been promoting a concept called limitarianism. Define limitarianism.”

Robeyns lectured: “So limitarianism is just the word for the thought that there should be a moral limit to how much wealth you can accumulate. So it’s the idea that it’s fine to be well off, but at some point one has too much.”

After noting that she was “talking mainly about the really rich,” Whitaker wailed: “Robeyns believes the case against the super rich isn’t just moral; it’s also environmental. From the profits of businesses that haven’t paid for polluting the atmosphere to the emissions from mega mansions and private planes, and the unused dollars just sitting in offshore accounts.”

A radical professor suggested that the private fortunes of those who are wealthy should be forfeited to stop climate change.

Wealthy people have money, but it isn’t used to meet their financial needs. It’s used for luxury spending For accumulating more and more While we face the enormous problem of climate changes, funding is also needed.

Whitaker fretted: “The world’s wealthiest one percent are believed to use double the carbon emissions of the bottom 50 percent.”

He asked, “What is the difference between these two?” “So where to draw the bottom line on wealth?”Robeyns responded by quoting Alexandria OcasioCortez, the far-left economic advisor: “In America, you now have the saying, ‘There shouldn’t be any billionaires,’ ‘Every billionaire is a policy failure.’ And my initial reaction is a billion is way too much.”

Whitaker followed up: “So whatever your line would be, it would be under a billion?” Robeyns declared: “Yes, absolutely. It is possible to live a happy, fulfilled life, and still do the things that you love with only 10 million. But with 20 million you could. I don’t think you need a billion.”

Whitaker spoke with Abigail Disney (Disney fortune heiress, left-leaning political activist) and fawning about Robeyns. She compared the rich to an invading population.

I really believe that money ruins people….There’s this bug called the Japanese beetle and it eats the tree out from the inside and the tree looks completely until it falls over. Money is just like this to me. You develop a pattern of thinking and feeling that is – that’s corrosive.

CBS attempted to promote socialism at least once in 2020. CBS MorningsTony Dokoupil was a co-host and used yummy baked goods as a way to teach mall shoppers about the evils capitalism. In 2021, the wealthy anchor hypocritically ranted about the rich leaving “us” with “crumbs.”

CBS’s latest advocacy for socialism was brought to viewers by Colgate and Downy. This is your chance to fight against these advertisers by telling them what you think about their sponsorship of such content.

Below is the transcript of selected excerpts taken from the segment on January 23, 2009.

9:00 AM ET

JANE PAULEY: A recent report reveals the world’s nearly 3,000 billionaires increased their wealth by $5 trillion last year. It is the fastest increase in wealth recorded in human history. Mark Whitaker asks: What is enough?

(…)

9:00 AM ET

MARK WHITTAKER: Abigail Disney was born to Roy O. Disney and his brother Walt. She’s inherited millions of dollars, seen the gilded life up close. But these days she thinks that great wealth isn’t necessarily so magical.

ABIGAIL DISNEY – I truly believe money ruins people.

WHITTAKER: Disney has become a documentary filmmaker and social activist.

DISNEY: There’s this bug called the Japanese beetle and it eats the tree out from the inside and the tree looks completely until it falls over. It’s like money. You develop a pattern of thinking and feeling that is – that’s corrosive.

(…)

9:00 AM ET

WHITAKER – The wealth gap is at an all time high. The wealth of America’s richest 1 percent is now almost 13x that of the 50th percent. It’s led some to consider: Maybe you can be too rich.     

Ingrid Robeyns, a Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at Utrecht University (the Netherlands), teaches. She’s been promoting a concept called limitarianism. Limitarianism:

DR. INGRID ROBYNS: The idea of limitarianism, which is a belief that wealth should not exceed a person’s moral capacity to bear it all. So it’s the idea that it’s fine to be well off, but at some point one has too much.

ROBERTS: Robeyns focuses mainly on the truly rich. They are becoming more numerous than ever. In the United States, there have been 745 billionaires since 1990. Robeyns believes the case against the super rich isn’t just moral; it’s also environmental. From the profits of businesses that haven’t paid for polluting the atmosphere to the emissions from mega mansions and private planes, and the unused dollars just sitting in offshore accounts.

ROBEYNS: The super-rich have money that they don’t use for their daily needs. It’s used for luxury spending or for accumulating further and further, whereas we have this massive problem of climate change that also needs funding.

WHITAKER: The world’s wealthiest one percent are believed to use double the carbon emissions of the bottom 50 percent. Where is the bottom line for wealth?

ROBEYNS: In America, you now have the saying, “There shouldn’t be any billionaires,” “Every billionaire is a policy failure.” And my initial reaction is a billion is way too much.

WHITAKER

ROBEYNS: Yes, absolutely. It is possible to live a happy, fulfilled life, and accomplish all the things that you desire with only 10 million. However, you might be able to do so with as many as 20 million. I don’t think you need a billion.

WHITAKER: Do you think that there’s a point at which it becomes a problem for an individual, but also for society, when not just one person, but a whole class of people, has vastly more wealth than anybody else in the society?

VIVEK RAMASWAMY: I don’t think that’s inherently a problem.

WITAKER Vivek Ramaswamy, a founder of a biopharmaceutical firm, is an entrepreneur who has made more than just a few hundred dollars.

RAMASWAMY: I’m not gonna be here telling you that capitalism is a perfect system. It is, however, the most perfect system that ultimately lifts people from the bottom.

WHITAKER: And there’s the argument about incentives – that you, too, could become the next Bill Gates.

DISNEY: I think that’s hogwash.

(…)

9:12 am ET

ROBEYNS: So rich people say, “I did this. I took the risk for whatever I did, so it’s mine. I deserve it.” But the truth is, take any of these billionaires on a deserted island, and just look at what they can do? They cannot do anything. They are able to survive. They can survive.

WHITAKER: Limitarians also raise concerns about the outsized impact that the wealthy have on society – from politics to philanthropy.

ROBEYNS: And it can, of course, be that you just fund somebody who is standing for office or – and who then becomes a president or a member of Congress. Another option is to buy out or significantly fund university research institutes and influence how the public conversations are going. You can use these methods to turn your financial wealth into a political force.

DISNEY: I don’t think it’s right for a private individual, or a group of individuals, to have that much say in the direction of social issues that all of us are affected by.

WHITAKER: It’s one limitarian point that Vivek Ramaswamy agrees with. He has criticised corporations and wealthy individuals for their role in shaping social issues.

RAMASWAMY: The source of equality that I think we need to restore isn’t an equality of wealth, it isn’t a redistribution of wealth. It’s a return to the belief that citizens and we all have equal rights. My preference is to speak of a redistribution not of wealth, but of duties.

WHITAKER: A startling new study just out finds that the world’s ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes during the first two years of the pandemic. The income of the remaining 99 percent actually declined.

From a real world perspective, how realistic is what you’re talking about, putting an absolute limit on wealth?

ROBEYNS: Yeah, it’s a very good question. Philosophy must ask people questions that encourage them to think even though they may disagree with the answers. So I think that’s my role. My belief is that there won’t be any nation that can truly limit wealth in my lifetime.

(…)