Latest news with #Rockefellers
Business Times
19-05-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Sweden: a socialist paradise overflowing with billionaires
EVERY year I run an analysis of the Forbes rich lists, to spot countries where billionaire wealth is surging as a share of gross domestic product, concentrating in family empires or pooling in 'bad' industries better known for corruption than productivity. My working assumption is that the most extreme outliers face the highest risk of anti-capitalist revolt. This year, the warning signs point above all to Sweden. Though still seen by many progressives as a socialist paradise, Sweden saw billionaire wealth rise by four points to 31 per cent of GDP – the biggest increase, and to the highest level, of the 20 major economies in my analysis. Sweden has 45 billionaires, about 1.5 times more per capita than the US, which is often said to be enjoying a new gilded age. The richest American ever was John D Rockefeller in around 1910, when his fortune surpassed 1.5 per cent of GDP. No American is close to that mark today. The land of latter-day Rockefellers is Sweden, with seven magnates whose wealth as a share of their nation's GDP exceeds that of Rockefeller at his peak. A functioning economy will generate a balanced billionaire class, with more 'good' wealth from industries like tech or manufacturing than bad wealth from sectors such as real estate or commodities. Not that real estate or commodities are inherently bad. But they contribute less to productivity and are less likely to be held in high popular esteem than, say, cars or software. In Sweden, the good billionaires are outnumbered two to one by the bad ones. Despite the country's emergence as an incubator of tech entrepreneurs, only three of them make the Forbes list. At just 12 per cent, the good share of billionaire wealth is third-lowest among my top 10 developed countries. Sweden began to encourage wealth creation after the failure of its post-World War II experiment in unrestrained welfare statism. Heavy taxes were driving celebrities and industrialists out of the country, costing Sweden far more in lost wealth than it raised in revenue. The ensuing financial crises of the early 1990s forced Sweden to rethink its commitment to socialism. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Sweden did not end free education and healthcare, paid for with high income taxes. But it did downsize the welfare state, while abolishing or lowering taxes on wealth, inheritance, corporations and real estate. By the mid-2000s, the super-rich were no longer fleeing. Now, they dominate. Nearly 70 per cent of Sweden's billionaire wealth comes from inheritance, third-highest on my list after France and Germany. Sweden is not the only big welfare state to see a billionaire boom in recent years – France has, too – but each has special imbalances. Sweden's include distorted taxes and easy money. The country taxes capital much less heavily than salaries, and sometimes taxes capital regressively. A yearly homeowner fee is capped under US$1,000 – a big boon for the rich. Sweden has also held interest rates well below the European average, and low rates tend to inflate asset prices, while making it easy for the rich to borrow money to make more of it. In recent elections, political anger has been focused on immigrants and crime, not inequality. Many leading business families are better known for giving away than flaunting their wealth, which helps explain why they have avoided political attacks. But Sweden's composite ranking on my three billionaire metrics is now the worst of the 20 countries I track, and that does not bode well. I started running these analyses in 2010, when the booming fortunes of bad billionaires in India led to a backlash against wealth creation that was enough to hold back business activity in general. Over the next decade, dismal results on the billionaire metrics would presage revolts around the world, including in Chile before mass riots against social inequality erupted in 2019, and in France before the outbreak of 'tax the rich' rallies in 2023. The Paris protests have targeted top billionaires by name. These class revolts can ignite like bush fires, shifting with the political winds. As Swedish economist Johan Norberg has described his home country, this is a nation of 'extremes', prone to ignoring festering problems 'until they become too big to deny and everybody changes their minds at the same time'. Every healthy economy needs to encourage wealth creation, particularly in the most productive sectors, but balance is essential. Too much wealth at the top, concentrated in the hands of too many billionaires of the wrong type, puts a country at risk of political backlashes or policy reversals. Sweden is fertile ground for this kind of unrest now. FINANCIAL TIMES The writer is chair of Rockefeller International. His latest book is What Went Wrong With Capitalism.
Entrepreneur
09-05-2025
- Business
- Entrepreneur
5 Tips for Building Generational Wealth
America is in the midst of the greatest wealth transfer in history. Over the next decade, an estimated $80 to $100 trillion will pass from baby boomers to their children... This story originally appeared on Due America is in the midst of the greatest wealth transfer in history. Over the next decade, an estimated $80 to $100 trillion will pass from baby boomers to their children and grandchildren. But one critical question remains: Will their heirs be ready for it? A 2023 study by AMG National found that 90% of inherited wealth disappears by the third generation. That sobering statistic is leading more families to ask: How do we build wealth that actually lasts? Financial advisor and author John Nebeker believes the answer lies in adopting a strategy used by some of America's wealthiest dynasties: the Family Bank. In his book The Family Bank: The Key to Generational Wealth, Nebeker shares how families like the Rockefellers used this approach to grow wealth while preparing future generations to be responsible stewards, not entitled heirs. Here are five key tips from Nebeker for building real generational wealth. 1. Rethink Your Estate Plan Traditional estate plans often fall short. They might protect your money from external threats, but they rarely account for internal ones, like mismanagement, entitlement, or family disputes. 'Traditional planning does a lousy job fulfilling people's wishes,' Nebeker said. 'Spendthrift heirs often dissipate whatever is left of the estate.' If you've already set up a plan, don't worry—it may still be adaptable. Talk to your estate attorney or financial planner about aligning your plan with longer-term family wealth goals. 2. Replace Entitlement With Opportunity Through a Family Bank A Family Bank is a nontraditional structure that allows families to retain and grow assets over time while providing support to future generations. Instead of handing out inheritances, the family makes structured loans to heirs to fund things like education, business ventures, or home purchases. 'Families replace gifts with loans, and entitlements with opportunities,' Nebeker said. Many successful families use trusts to manage their Family Bank. Trusts can help reduce estate taxes, ensure legal protection, and maintain generational financial control. 3. Talk About Money—Yes, Really Many parents avoid talking to their kids about inheritance plans. But keeping financial plans secret can do more harm than good. 'Money can drive people apart, but with wise design, it can also bring them closer together,' Nebeker said. 'It's possible—even probable—to make money a unifying force in your family with the right structure.' Start by communicating your goals and expectations. Invite family members to participate in discussions so they understand the plan and its values. 4. Choose the Right People to Manage the Family Bank A Family Bank typically has a 'Bank Board' or trustees who oversee assets and make decisions about loans and investments. These individuals are often family members, but can also include outside advisors. 'The selection of trustees may be the deciding factor in whether a Family Bank is successful,' Nebeker said. 'They need to manage assets, stay connected to the family, and uphold the founding principles.' Regular board meetings and clear communication help keep the structure transparent and effective. 5. Invest in Financial Education for the Next Generation A lasting legacy requires more than money—it requires knowledge. The Family Bank model emphasizes preparing heirs to be financially competent and mission-driven. 'Training young members is a cornerstone responsibility of the board,' Nebeker said. 'When they experience firsthand what it means to borrow, invest, and give responsibly, they are far more likely to succeed.' A well-structured Family Bank can give heirs the tools to grow wealth, give back to their communities, and honor the family's values. Final Thought: You Can Build Wealth That Lasts Generational wealth isn't just about passing down assets—it's about passing down vision, values, and responsibility. With the right strategy, your legacy can empower future generations instead of burdening them. 'The Family Bank is about creating opportunity, not entitlement,' Nebeker said. 'That's the key to wealth that lasts.' Featured Image Credit: Photo by Los Muertos Crew; Pexels The post 5 Tips for Building Generational Wealth appeared first on Due.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Latest billionaire backers of Andrew Cuomo's mayoral run: The Rockefellers
Andrew Cuomo's run for mayor has attracted financial support from some of the country's richest individuals — and the Rockefellers are the latest addition to that list. Three members of the Rockefeller family, which has deep roots in New York politics and ranks as one of the wealthiest dynasties in American history, recently pumped $75,000 into a pro-Cuomo super PAC that's boosting the former governor's campaign for City Hall, filings released this week show. Businessman David Rockefeller, Jr. and his wife, Susan Rockefeller, each gave the PAC, Fix the City, $25,000 on April 24, the records show. Their contributions came after David's younger cousin, environmental lawyer Laurance Rockefeller Jr., chipped in $25,000 to the PAC on April 16. The PAC has raised more than $6.2 million to date, per disclosures. It has already spent more than $2.5 million of that on TV and social media ads touting Cuomo as a tested leader who'd put 'the city back on track.' By law, PACs can raise and spend as much money as they want as long as they don't coordinate with the candidates they're supporting. However, a report in Politico recently said that the restriction hasn't stopped Cuomo's team from using a technique known as 'red-boxing' whereby his campaign's website lists off proposals for ads that can signal what type of messaging the PAC might push. Cuomo campaign spokesperson Rich Azzopardi characterized the website entry to Politico as a 'broad message to voters.' The PAC cash infusion comes at a critical time for Cuomo, who resigned as governor in 2021 amid sexual harassment accusations he denies. Last month, the Campaign Finance Board denied Cuomo's request for nearly $3 million in public matching funds due to paperwork errors. In addition to donating to the PAC, Rockefeller family members have contributed directly to Cuomo's campaign. Laurance Rockefeller, Jr., a registered Republican who once mounted a failed bid for U.S. Senate, gave $2,100, the max legal amount, to Cuomo's campaign on March 1, the day he launched his mayoral run. He tried giving another $2,000 to Cuomo's campaign on March 12, but that contribution was returned due to the donation cap, records show. Another Rockefeller family member, Lucy Rockefeller Waletzky, gave $2,100 to Cuomo's campaign on March 1, too, records show. A rep for Rockefeller Capital Management, where David Rockefeller Jr. serves on the board, didn't return a request for comment. Fix the City spokeswoman Liz Benjamin said the PAC 'is gratified by the support we continue to receive from a growing number of donors.' The Rockefellers are among the most storied families in the country, with its patriarch, oil baron John D. Rockefeller, widely seen as the world's first billionaire. Nelson Rockefeller, Laurance Jr.'s uncle, served as governor of New York for more than a decade, the same job both Cuomo and his father, Mario Cuomo, held. Rockefellers, including Laurance Jr., donated to several of Cuomo's gubernatorial campaigns, too, a Daily News review of contribution records found. The Rockefeller cash for Cuomo's mayoral bid is part of a wave of financial support billionaires are providing the ex-gov as he vies to replace the embattled Mayor Adams. Other business titans who have flocked to Cuomo include Bill Ackman, the Trump-supporting hedge fund manager, who gave Fix the City $250,000 in April. Alice Walton, the billionaire Walmart heiress, donated another $100,000 last month, and scores of executives in the real estate and financial sectors have given even more to pro-Cuomo efforts. Cuomo is polling as the favorite to win June's Democratic mayoral primary. Some of his primary opponents have argued his reliance on billionaire donors is problematic. 'Andrew Cuomo: Trump-praised, scandal-ridden, billionaire-backed,' reads a text blast sent to voters last month by New Yorkers for Lower Costs, a super PAC that backs Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's mayoral run. In contrast to Fix the City, the pro-Mamdani PAC is struggling to raise money, having pulled in just over $64,000 as of the end of April, filings show.
Boston Globe
19-04-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
How universities became so dependent on the federal government
Now this mutually beneficial bargain has started to unravel. President Trump and many Republicans say they will use the threat of deep funding cuts to rein in out-of-control progressive activism on campus, which they believe has driven universities away from their mission to educate and mold better citizens. With confidence in higher education waning among Americans, the president also believes he has public opinion on his side. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But as the Trump administration starts cutting -- including an announcement it would pull $2.2 billion in multiyear grants from Harvard University this month -- the future of the partnerships is anything but certain. Advertisement American universities spent $60 billion in federal money on research and development in fiscal year 2023 alone. That's more than 30 times as much as what they spent in the early 1950s, adjusted for inflation, when the research university system was just beginning to grow into the vast industry it is today. Advertisement There is no other system like it in the world, in part because of the sprawling, decentralized nature of American higher education. Unlike many other countries, the United States never had a national university. And the founders left matters of education to the states. It was inside university labs where military radar was developed in the 1940s, the code for Google's search engine was written in the 1990s, and wonders of the universe are still being discovered. Dismantling the system -- as Trump and many conservatives seem intent on doing -- could partially rewind the clock to when the federal government largely left research in the hands of the private sector. The work was done at foundations created by wealthy families such as the Carnegies and Rockefellers or in the laboratories of DuPont, Westinghouse, and other corporations. The genesis of the system that exists today was World War II and the Great Depression -- crises so large, they required the kind of money only Washington could spend. Roger Geiger, an emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in a 1993 history on American research universities that political leaders knew nothing short of a large-scale undertaking was needed to mobilize and incentivize the best scientists. 'And the fate of the democratic nations of the world might very well depend on its effectiveness,' Geiger wrote in his book, 'Research and Relevant Knowledge.' At first, there was some resistance to funding academic research on such a large scale. And anti-New Deal Republicans were opposed in principle to the further expansion of a federal government they already saw as too big and powerful. But the race to beat the Nazis to an atomic bomb wiped away much of that reluctance. Advertisement The Manhattan Project, the biggest research endeavor of the war, with a cost of $2 billion (more than $30 billion in today's dollars), grew out of work by scientists at schools including the University of California Berkeley; Columbia University; and the University of Chicago. 'We all know this, thanks to Christopher Nolan,' said Christopher Loss, a professor at Vanderbilt University who studies higher education, referring to the director of 'Oppenheimer,' the 2023 film about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist who oversaw the development of the bomb. 'But that's the defining moment,' Loss added, 'the touchstone of the research economy.' The government-academia partnership spawned other military innovations, such as the radio-powered bomb fuse that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Hopkins spends more federal money than any other university on research: $3.3 billion in fiscal year 2023. About half of that came from the Department of Defense. Deprived of the resources to pursue big ideas, Loss said, the American research university will cease to function as an institution 'geared toward the discovery of -- not just the preservation of -- knowledge.' After the war, policymakers in Washington were eager to replicate the formula in other fields such as medicine. It was, Geiger said, 'a seller's market for research.' But not everyone was comfortable with the growing reliance on money from the government. Scientists worried about interference from federal agencies and the possibility that their work could be compromised. Military personnel sometimes viewed academia with suspicion. More broadly, professors and university leaders had concerns about becoming beholden to the government. 'I think academic freedom in those days was thought to be perhaps threatened by new funding sources from government -- perhaps presciently,' said John Tomasi, president of the Heterodox Academy, a nonpartisan organization that promotes the exchange of more diverse viewpoints in academia. Advertisement But the money was hard to resist. Student enrollment soared at many institutions. Faculties doubled and tripled in size. Universities provided the human and intellectual capital to power some of the most important Cold War initiatives, including the development of the hydrogen bomb -- hundreds of times more powerful than the first-generation Manhattan Project bomb -- and the space race that was set off when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the world's first human-made satellite. Research funding still flowed primarily to a small number of elite institutions in the 1960s. So in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order that would spread the wealth around. 'We want to find excellence and build it up wherever it is found so that creative centers of excellence may grow in every part of the nation,' the order declared. But the social upheaval of the Vietnam War era started to alter the perception of academia in the eyes of many Americans. Student-led protests against the war became deeply unpopular. The era of Republican dominance that followed was less hospitable to higher education. Research funding plateaued as conservative politicians asked why taxpayers were subsidizing institutions they saw as hotbeds for anti-American radicalism. But one bipartisan reform helped stimulate a boom in the emerging fields of biomedicine, computer science, and engineering. In 1980, Congress changed the law to transfer patent rights for federally funded research to the universities from the federal government. The idea was to apply conservative free-market principles to the academic research sector, allowing universities to profit from licensing the innovations created in their labs. It led to a transformation in academia, ushering in what scholars have described as the current era of 'Big Science.' Advertisement Today, all that money has made universities a target of the Trump administration. Many of the universities receiving the most from the federal government for research and development are among dozens of schools under review by the Trump administration, over allegations they are not doing enough to prevent and punish antisemitism. Of the 25 schools that received the most federal funding in fiscal year 2023, at least 16 are under investigation. The 10 colleges receiving additional focus from a government task force on antisemitism spent a combined $9.3 billion in federal money on research and development -- roughly 15% of what colleges nationwide spent from federal sources. The Trump administration doesn't appear to be finished. Although Ivy League institutions have borne the brunt of the retaliation, public universities make up roughly half of the broader list of schools under review. They include the University of Washington; the University of California San Diego; and the University of Michigan. And they all have a lot of money on the line: Each spent more than $1 billion in federal research funding in fiscal year 2023. This article originally appeared in
Miami Herald
19-04-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
How Universities Became So Dependent on the Federal Government
EDITORS NOTE: EDS: UPDATES time element in 6th graf; SUBS graf that now begins "But one bipartisan reform ..."; RECODES as a Page 1 story for Sunday AMs; UPDATES list of related stories. NOTE: Story first moved Friday, April 18, at 8:27 p.m. ET.) ; (ART ADV: With graphics.); (With: UNIV-FOREIGN-STUDENTS For over eight decades, American universities and the federal government wound themselves into an ever-tighter embrace. The United States wanted to build the most powerful bombs and cure the worst diseases. It wanted to be first to explore the outer edges of the solar system. It wanted to grow more efficient crops. And so it offered millions, and then billions, to researchers at universities across the country -- in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Berkeley, California, but also in Minnesota, Indiana and Mississippi. The schools took the money. They built the best labs and attracted top-notch professors and students from around the world. They also became increasingly and, at first, somewhat warily beholden to the whims of politicians in Washington. Now this mutually beneficial bargain has started to unravel. President Donald Trump and many Republicans say they will use the threat of deep funding cuts to rein in out-of-control progressive activism on campus, which they believe has driven universities away from their mission to educate and mold better citizens. With confidence in higher education waning among Americans, the president also believes he has public opinion on his side. But as the Trump administration starts cutting -- including an announcement it would pull $2.2 billion in multiyear grants from Harvard University this month -- the future of the partnership that built the American research university into the world's engine of scientific innovation is anything but certain. The Birth of the Modern Research University American universities spent $60 billion in federal money on research and development in fiscal year 2023 alone. That's more than 30 times as much as what they spent in the early 1950s, adjusted for inflation, when the research university system was just beginning to grow into the vast industry it is today. There is no other system like it in the world, in part because of the sprawling, decentralized nature of American higher education. Unlike many other countries, the United States never had a national university. And the founders left matters of education to the states. It was inside university labs where military radar was developed in the 1940s, the code for Google's search engine was written in the 1990s, and wonders of the universe are still being discovered. Dismantling the system -- as Trump and many conservatives seem intent on doing -- could partially rewind the clock to when the federal government largely left research in the hands of the private sector. The work was done at foundations created by wealthy families such as the Carnegies and Rockefellers or in the laboratories of DuPont, Westinghouse and other corporations. The genesis of the system that exists today was World War II and the Great Depression -- crises so large, they required the kind of money only Washington could spend. Roger Geiger, an emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in a 1993 history on American research universities that political leaders knew nothing short of a large-scale undertaking was needed to mobilize and incentivize the best scientists. "And the fate of the democratic nations of the world might very well depend on its effectiveness," Geiger wrote in his book, "Research and Relevant Knowledge." Wariness About a New Relationship At first, there was some resistance to funding academic research on such a large scale. And anti-New Deal Republicans were opposed in principle to the further expansion of a federal government they already saw as too big and powerful. But the race to beat the Nazis to an atomic bomb wiped away much of that reluctance. The Manhattan Project, the biggest research endeavor of the war, with a cost of $2 billion (more than $30 billion in today's dollars), grew out of work by scientists at schools including the University of California, Berkeley; Columbia University; and the University of Chicago. "We all know this, thanks to Christopher Nolan," said Christopher Loss, a professor at Vanderbilt University who studies higher education, referring to the director of "Oppenheimer," the 2023 film about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist who oversaw the development of the bomb. "But that's the defining moment," Loss added, "the touchstone of the research economy." The government-academia partnership spawned other military innovations, such as the radio-powered bomb fuse that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Hopkins spends more federal money than any other university on research: $3.3 billion in fiscal year 2023. About half of that came from the Department of Defense. Deprived of the resources to pursue big ideas, Loss said, the American research university will cease to function as an institution "geared toward the discovery of -- not just the preservation of -- knowledge." From Defense to Medicine to Space After the war, policymakers in Washington were eager to replicate the formula in other fields such as medicine. It was, Geiger said, "a seller's market for research." But not everyone was comfortable with the growing reliance on money from the government. Scientists worried about interference from federal agencies and the possibility that their work could be compromised. Military personnel sometimes viewed academia with suspicion. More broadly, professors and university leaders had concerns about becoming beholden to the government. "I think academic freedom in those days was thought to be perhaps threatened by new funding sources from government -- perhaps presciently," said John Tomasi, president of the Heterodox Academy, a nonpartisan organization that promotes the exchange of more diverse viewpoints in academia. But the money was hard to resist. Student enrollment soared at many institutions. Faculties doubled and tripled in size. Universities provided the human and intellectual capital to power some of the most important Cold War initiatives, including the development of the hydrogen bomb -- hundreds of times more powerful than the first-generation Manhattan Project bomb -- and the space race that was set off when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the world's first human-made satellite. A 'Great Society' Vision for University Research Research funding still flowed primarily to a small number of elite institutions in the 1960s. So in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order that would spread the wealth around. "We want to find excellence and build it up wherever it is found so that creative centers of excellence may grow in every part of the nation," the order declared. But the social upheaval of the Vietnam War era started to alter the perception of academia in the eyes of many Americans. Student-led protests against the war became deeply unpopular. The era of Republican dominance that followed was less hospitable to higher education. Research funding plateaued as conservative politicians asked why taxpayers were subsidizing institutions they saw as hotbeds for anti-American radicalism. But one bipartisan reform helped stimulate a boom in the emerging fields of biomedicine, computer science and engineering. In 1980, Congress changed the law to transfer patent rights for federally funded research to the universities from the federal government. The idea was to apply conservative free-market principles to the academic research sector, allowing universities to profit from licensing the innovations created in their labs. It led to a transformation in academia, ushering in what scholars have described as the current era of "Big Science." Success Begets Backlash Today, all that money has made universities a target of the Trump administration. Many of the universities receiving the most from the federal government for research and development are among dozens of schools under review by the Trump administration, over allegations they are not doing enough to prevent and punish antisemitism. Of the 25 schools that received the most federal funding in fiscal year 2023, at least 16 are under investigation. The 10 colleges receiving additional focus from a government task force on antisemitism spent a combined $9.3 billion in federal money on research and development -- roughly 15% of what colleges nationwide spent from federal sources. The Trump administration doesn't appear to be finished. Although Ivy League institutions have borne the brunt of the retaliation, public universities make up roughly half of the broader list of schools under review. They include the University of Washington; the University of California, San Diego; and the University of Michigan. And they all have a lot of money on the line: Each spent more than $1 billion in federal research funding in fiscal year 2023. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
