I think you might be onto something there, still remains in favour of individual capitalists against national capital - and is usually something, the state is supposed to prevent (it’s jobs in capitalism are mostly preventing class conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat just as much as conflict between individual capitalists hurting the economy at large).

But this now feels like 19th century economics from before understanding the nature of crises, and 19th century “sphere of influence” geopolitics all in one.

Here’s hoping they end up shooting themselves in the foot by underestimating the consequences of their actions.

The Nixon-era Richardson Waiver came about amid a push for more public engagement, with the waiver acting essentially as a workaround to amending the APA’s exemptions. As Richard Brady, the assistant secretary for administration, wrote in the Federal Register at the time, implementing the Richardson Waiver “should result in greater participation by the public in the formulation of this Department’s rules and regulations.”

“The public benefit from such participation should outweigh any administrative inconvenience or delay which may result from use of the APA procedures in the five exempt categories,” Brady wrote. The waiver also noted that the Health Department should use the “good cause” exception “sparingly.”

Kennedy’s new policy rescinds the Richardson Waiver entirely. He writes in stark contrast: “The extra-statutory obligations of the Richardson Waiver impose costs on the Department and the public, are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impede the Department’s flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates.”

So, just to make this clear, they didn’t just not really implement their fabled transparency, they also walked back on the control mechanisms that were already in place.

It’s fascinating, because the people behind him are genuine grifters and/or delusional ideologues, he can’t even make proper politics in the interest of capitalists. (Just in the interests of some individual capitalists, against the interests of national capital accumulation).

Article without paywall:

https://archive.is/PEiOq

This is an interesting conundrum, actually. The big question at its core being:

Can you ever do enough good through philanthropy, so that it offsets the damage you had to do, in order to become a billionaire? Can even all the billionaires in the world do enough good with their money, to offset the damage done by a system, that allowed for them to become billionaires?

I, personally, don’t think it is possible.

To give an actual answer: I think, the world would definitely be better, but unless those billionaires collectively used all the power their money provides, to do away with money and the possibility of billionaires altogether, I don’t think it would amount to all that much.