Michael Bloomberg, founder and owner of the unlisted financial media firm bearing his name, is planning to sell up and transfer much of his assets to a charitable foundation on similar lines to that of Microsoft’s Bill Gates. As Mayor of New York, Bloomberg has not really been able to give much day-to-day attention to his media empire, preferring to spend his time on matters such as banning smoking in bars.
I do not like much of what I hear about Bloomberg the politician, but I do greatly respect Bloomberg the businessman. The single-minded determination he has shown to challenge, and in some cases beat, rivals such as AP Dow Jones and Reuters has been impressive. In the space of little more than 15 years, Bloomberg has broken the near-duopoly on wholesale financial news and data once held by Reuters, the listed British firm which is more than 150 years old, though still bigger in terms of overall coverage of news.
If Ayn Rand were still alive, I would wager a small bet that she would think of the fellow as a likely business hero. It is going to be interesting to see what happens to this segment of the news business over the next few months and years.
I think of Bloomberg as a businessman I can really respect, and a politician I can totally tolerate.
The ban in smoking, from my political perspective, is bad, but certainly makes my bar going much more enjoyable 🙂
My sister works as a programmer for his firm, and I was an inch away from doing the same. I have visited his offices a number of times, which are simply stunning: huge fish tanks everywhere, massive sculptures, grass chairs, TVs everywhere (some feeding closed circuit from inside the tanks). And this is probably that much better in his new building where they have the world’s first, and patented, spiral escalator, just because Mike thought it was neat.
When he ran from Mayor, many at the company rallied behind him, though they didn’t have much to gain. He has single handedly cracked the iron grip the teachers union has over education. He canceled a public recycling scheme because the separate trucks to collect it polluted more than just burning & scrubbing it, which generated electricity and actually made the city money. He has insisted a new sports stadium be built with private funds (though his Olympic bid for 2012 is an exception).
I haven’t been in New York recently, but my impression 1 1/2 years ago was very positive.
Now, for his charitable side: he is on some special board for the Natural History Museum because he donates so much, such that one day a year, he can throw a company Christmas party filling the place all to themselves. In 2001, the party was canceled and the funds that would have gone to it were given the families-of-911-fund. You are highly encouraged to do Bloomberg funded community service, and given extra paid days off to do it.
This latest news is welcome and no surprise.
I could go on, but I’m sure I already look too much like a fanboy.
Ivan Kirigin,
His efforts to violate the property rights of smokers (not to mention the total lack of scientific evidence regarding any ill-effects involved in “second hand smoke”) pretty much makes him slime in my book.
Vanya dear,
-first, I don’t see how spending more money on his private co’ office interior (basically, an extension of his bedroom) makes Bloomberg a better politician (or businessman, for that matter). And I speak as a professional interior designer, specialising in corporate design. (and I had financial clients, like UBS, Merril Lynch and Paine Webber). It’s just a matter of his Co’ image and his (or his secretary, as usually the case) style preferences. If anything, if he selected spiral escalators just for the heck of it, it’ would speak of him as a rather bad businessman.
– second, as a homeowner, I think of him as a statist who voluntarily raised property taxes last year, on the basis that city missed out on commercial property tax revenue. Sorry, he had no right to punish private property owners for city loss in commercial property taxes! He returned some money this year, but nearly not enough: the raise was 18% , and return – max $400. Obviously, when you own expensive property, you are robbed of thousands, and “reimbursed” in hundreds.
-third, this excerpt from my local Bay Ridge paper’ article today confirms my beleif Bloomberg is a Republican only as strategic means:
“By Jotham Sederstrom
The Brooklyn Papers
State Sen. Marty Golden drew
the ire of Mayor Michael Bloomberg
this week for his outspoken
criticism of the United Nations
and its bid to issue $600 million in
bonds to build a 35-story building
on state park land.
In a telephone call Thursday to the
Bay Ridge legislator’s district office,
on Fifth Avenue at 74th Street,
Bloomberg voiced his disapproval of
Golden’s role in persuading the entire
body of the Republican-led state Senate
to remove legislation involving the
project from its agenda indefinitely. Both Golden and Bloomberg are
Republicans.” (Link)
His efforts to violate the property rights of smokers (not to mention the total lack of scientific evidence regarding any ill-effects involved in “second hand smoke”) pretty much makes him slime in my book.
Just what property rights are you talking about? ‘the right to freedom’, if so, then does that not also apply to non-smokers?
Why not look at his efforts in a more positve light – perhaps he is protecting the property rights of non-smokers, while at the same time trying to instil a little bit of consideration among smokers for someone other than themselves. Whether second hand smoke is injurious or not, is really immaterial, it stinks and it makes everything it contacts stink.
That you find it appropiate to call someone who is your superior in so many ways, irrespective of whether you like him or not, a stupid and very juvenile name, says so much more about you than him… if you want to come and play with the grown-ups, then you should at least try to act like one…
When he ran from Mayor, many at the company rallied behind him, though they didn’t have much to gain.
–His company was based in Princeton, New Jersey at the time.
He has single handedly cracked the iron grip the teachers union has over education.
–Um, no. He has single-handledly caved to the union at every turn, while demanding that Albany contiribute even more money, to bring per-pupil spending in NYC to $20,000 per pupil, the highest in the nation, with little or nothing to show for it.
Anybody But Bloomberg: Broken Campaign Promises on School Reform(Link)
He has insisted a new sports stadium be built with private funds (though his Olympic bid for 2012 is an exception).
–Again, you are flat-out mistaken. Bloomberg’s Olympic plan calls for the City and State to contribute $300 million each to the stadium.
Bloomberg Defends Support For West Side Stadium(Link)
Oh, and he just created a board to confiscate all billboard space in the city to ensure that no Olympic non-sponsors are able to advertise during the Games.
China’s (and NYC’s) Totalitarianism(Link)
Hardly a Randian capitalist.
The ban on smoking is good. Just like a ban on pissing inside my nostrils is good.
ernest young,
Just what property rights are you talking about? ‘the right to freedom’, if so, then does that not also apply to non-smokers?
If a non-smoker wants to he may ban smoking on his private property; those are his rights. A smoker or non-smoker may allow smoking on his private property, and those are his “rights.” This is a fairly basic concept that you apparently lack in Britain.
…while at the same time trying to instil a little bit of consideration among smokers for someone other than themselves. Whether second hand smoke is injurious or not, is really immaterial, it stinks and it makes everything it contacts stink…
You have the choice not to visit the bar or other establishment if you don’t like smoking. Wow, freedom, what a novel concept.
That you find it appropiate to call someone who is your superior in so many ways…
No one is my superior.
…irrespective of whether you like him or not, a stupid and very juvenile name…
No, its an insightful and appropriate name. Bloomie is a scumbag and a petty fascist. 🙂
…if you want to come and play with the grown-ups, then you should at least try to act like one…
Why don’t you come and play with lovers of freedom and liberty instead?
KipEsquire,
Nice fisking. 🙂
Link for those who wish to visualize Bloomberg corporate NY office: (Link) ; go to portfolio=>financial=>bloomberg 500 Park (no direct permalink there).
lohan,
If you want someone to piss inside your nostrils I don’t see why that should be banned. In the case of smoking an individual can avoid places where people smoke; smokers should not be forced by the government to surrender their property rights, nor should people who want to allow smokers to smoke on their premises be forbidden from doing so. If a guest or employee cares not for smoking they can leave the establishment and find another place to visit or find employment, or they can stay home or create their own business.
ernest young,
BTW, your notion that one should live on the good graces and paternalism of “our betters” is pretty sickening and strikes as the sort of statism that folks here should find revolting.
There’s no point in even arguing with someone who thinks the government’s proper role is to make sure everyone can go anywhere they want and never have to encounter nasty smells, whether they’ve been proven harmful or not.
Tatyana,
Re: interior design, escalators, etc.
This reminds me of the statistic I heard on Wall Street Week some months ago concerning use of the company jet for personal matters (e.g., flying to Florida to play golf, etc.). Apparently companies where this is common are less profitable than those where the practice doesn’t occur or isn’t common. 🙂
Folks need to pass news of this injustice along:
http://www.reason.com/mother-rossetto.pdf
Gary,
Why don’t you come and play with lovers of freedom and liberty instead?
Very amusing… I live in the USA and have done so for many years…
BTW, your notion that one should live on the good graces and paternalism of “our betters” is pretty sickening and strikes as the sort of statism that folks here should find revolting.
Your words, not mine, I said it was very childish to call your superiors names. That he is very definitely your superior should be obvious to even someone of your intelligence, he has at least achieved something worthwhile in his life, and if you are so small-minded that you cannot grant at least a modicum of credit, where due, then it only confirms that he is truly your superior… perhaps the thought that you are so perfect is part of your problem…
Robert, or do they call you Bobby at home…
There’s no point in even arguing with someone who thinks the government’s proper role is to make sure everyone can go anywhere they want and never have to encounter nasty smells, whether they’ve been proven harmful or not.
Once again, not what I said, or even agreed with, do what you like on private property, but in public places, even if privately owned, non-smokers have as much right to their freedom to breathe clean air as smokers have to pollute it. I am sure that you would be one of the first to complain if it were a factory making the nasty smells, whether proven harmfull or not…and yes, you would be free to move on if you didn’t like it. Smokers do not have the right to contaminate my clothing with their dirty habit.
Now can I recommend a good patch to help ease the craving…
The no-smoking bans, wherever they have been implemented, are largely due to governments responding to a popular demand. You just don’t like being told, a) that it is a nasty habit. b) that it is offensive to most folk. and c) that you have no regard for anyone else, and that, if you insist on smoking against the wishes of others, you are really just an ill-mannered lout… nothing overly statist about it, just a small taste of local democracy in action, and obviously very popular with the majority…
Gary,
Now that is a worthwhile cause to spend time on, rather than playing semantic games over trivia….
But then it is Berkeley….
private property, but in public places
Contradiction in terms
non-smokers have as much right to their freedom to breathe clean air as smokers have to pollute it
i.e. none, except at the discretion of the property owner.
if it were a factory making the nasty smells
What’s to complain about if the smell is kept entirely within the bounds of the property?
Smokers do not have the right to contaminate my clothing with their dirty habit.
Just like you would have the right to have your clothes free from dirt if you went traipsing through a farmyard?
are largely due to governments responding to a popular demand
What’s your point? Do you know what this site is about?
You just don’t like… you insist on smoking…
Not me. I very strongly dislike smoking. I won’t allow it in my house and my skin crawls when my wife lets my MIL smoke in our car when she borrows it. But I do strongly support the right of property owners to control what goes on on their own property. If you don’t want to suffer second hand smoke then go to an establishment where the owner doesn’t allow it. Simple, choices for all…
Rich
Sorry Richard,
Can’t agree, your arguments are at best specious.
A private place open to the public, is a public place, why else would there be all those public health regs. etc. – I know, they shouldn’t be there either, but they do illustrate the concept of a ‘public place’.
The farmyard analogy is irrelevant, I expect it to be a bit crappy, not so with a bar or restauraunt.
I know very well what this site is all about, doesn’t mean to say that I have to agree with all that is written here. I happen to have a slightly more pragmatic view of the world.
I am sure that you are familiar with the concept that libertarianism is no more than a collection of ideas, rather than a hard and fast philosophy, and as such is no more than a parasite on the body politic…in a position to influence, but incapable of surviving on its own.
Off-topic but of potential interest: Mr. Bean opposes hate crimes law.
So EY, the minute the public is let in a private space it suddenly becomes state property? Surely that is nonsense. I think the case is that a private property holder lets customers into his establishment and thus they are liable to his rules. It is not a “public” place, its a place where customers are allowed, but it remains private party.
I have absolutely no problem with a state building baning smoking but I have a very big problem when the state tells a private entity, whether it is an individual or a company, that they must ban smoking on their property. That is not the business of the state. If people don’t like smoking they should sod off and go somewhere else…very simple.
So AID,
We are going to play games with definitions, – first of all, I did not say that when a place is open to the public that it becomes State property. As you say, nonsense, – so why the heck did you suggest it?
The whole concept of opening an establishment for buiness or trade, is that you are ‘open to the public’, it becomes a public place, and as such – certainly under modern regulations – the proprietor agrees to accept – whether he likes it or not, – any existing or future laws regulating such premises, and in return for being allowed to trade, he not only pays taxes, but passes some control of his business to the state. And lets not forget that the State does provide the environment that allows the proprietor to trade in the first place.
If one of the accepted libertarian functions of the State is to protect its citizens from external danger, then why the wringing of hands when the State, decides to interfere to protect the same citizens from some perceived internal danger, such as smoking?
In such an overcrowded society, it is to be expected that some individual freedoms will be lost, and as long as the State keeps to ‘public’ regulation – then that is about the best that we can expect. Sure, a smoking ban is inconvenient, but apart from the exaggerated sense of outrage at such a thing, can you really say that it so very wrong?…
“The no-smoking bans, wherever they have been implemented, are largely due to governments responding to a popular demand.”
Its really quite basic, if there is such a bloody well popular demand for non smoking bars then there would be plenty of them even without the smoking bans. If this isnt the case then likely there isnt all that much of a “popular demand” the nazi minority knew it wasnt popular enough for the market so they resorted to coercion.
Jake
ernest young,
Your words, not mine, I said it was very childish to call your superiors names.
Bloomie is not my “superior.”
That he is very definitely your superior should be obvious to even someone of your intelligence, he has at least achieved something worthwhile in his life, and if you are so small-minded that you cannot grant at least a modicum of credit, where due, then it only confirms that he is truly your superior…
This is flat out laughable. Sorry Deanna Troi, but your retreat to psycho-babble only reinforces the fact that you haven’t a leg to stand on.
Once again, not what I said, or even agreed with, do what you like on private property, but in public places, even if privately owned, non-smokers have as much right to their freedom to breathe clean air as smokers have to pollute it.
No they don’t. If they care not for the area in an establishment they can leave it.
I am sure that you would be one of the first to complain if it were a factory making the nasty smells, whether proven harmfull or not…
If said “nasty smells” invaded the area outside the home and its curtilage you might have a point, but that is not generally the case here. Sorry, your (implied) fact pattern makes no sense.
The no-smoking bans, wherever they have been implemented, are largely due to governments responding to a popular demand.
Sorry, but that statement hides all manner of sins; popularity by itself is hardly a reason to justify government action. Indeed, I could imagine a wide variety of horrors based on this particular justification.
I, like, Richard, am a non-smoker; it has nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes (well, except my love of, you know, freedom).
In response to Young’s comments to others:
You are merely parroting the nature of the status quo and arguing (by implication) that since it exists it must the correct view of things. Gentle readers, what sort of fallacy is ernest young purveying here?
…but passes some control of his business to the state.
So it is – at least in part – state property. Would you get your fucking story straight please?
If one of the accepted libertarian functions of the State is to protect its citizens from external danger, then why the wringing of hands when the State, decides to interfere to protect the same citizens from some perceived internal danger, such as smoking?
(a) It is not a danger (there is absolutely no evidence that such a danger exists), and (b) in a minarchist state one would expect people largely to police themselves.
Sure, a smoking ban is inconvenient, but apart from the exaggerated sense of outrage at such a thing, can you really say that it so very wrong?…
Yes. It impinges on the freedom of private property owners.
Jake, well put. The reason they pass these bans is that they know damn well that when consumers are offered a choice over smoking/non-smoking bars they go for the latter. Its not like there are no no-smoking bars and restaurants in London or even NYC before the ban.
Yes, EY, I think banning smoking is very wrong as it denys the right of a private citizen to have choice of how he/she runs his business. It also denies the right of an individual the choice of where they want to go. Tobacco is, and may it remain so, a legal product. As long as it does remain so, business should be able to allow its customers and employees to use the product.
I find smoke-free bars tend to be antispetic and lacking in character. I go to a pub for a drink, some friendly chat and the ambiance. If you don’t like getting smoky, something that non-smokers tend to whinge about, don’t go into a pub that allows smoking! It is a very simple concept.
Ernest Young, surely, if a bar or restaurant is privately owned, then the decision on whether to ban smoking, scruffy dress, or whatever, should be up to owners of said property, and no-one else. In a free market and in a place as incredibly diverse as New York, there are plenty of bars and suchlike where owners could cater to the desires of non-smokers like you and me by setting their own rules. No one is forced to work in, or drink in, a bar, so it is a violation of property rights to impose your views. You seem a rather intolerant fellow, which is why other commenters have gently, or not so gently, kicked the tar out of you on this thread.
Also, EY, makes the claim that if a owner of a restaurant/bar/whatever lets consumers into his property, that turns the private property into a public domain over which governments can and do have the right to intervene. Wrong. Entering a private building should be at the own risk of the person entering it. In a free market society, of course, owners will likely ensure their customers are safe and well looked after for the rather obvious reason that killing one’s clients is bad for business.
And even when some kind of regulations do make sense, like fire regulations and the like, they are more likely to work if they are prompted by insurance firms with a direct vested interest in reducing risk, rather than the heavy hand of the State, and Michael Bloomberg.
Jonathan,
Nice to see that we can have a reasonably civilised discussion, it really wouldn’t do if we all felt the same about things, would it?
There is little doubt, that the more intrusive the State becomes, the more reliant the public become on them to regulate even further, why else is it called ‘the Nanny State’?
However much the intrusion is resented, we have to accept that is the way things are – for the moment, – it’s called the real world. To go all histrionic over something that is generally agreed to be good thing, and seems to be popular, is doing the libertarian cause a disservice. Bad enough that in it’s extreme interpretation, libertarianism is seen as a ‘howling at the moon’ cult.
As AID noted earlier, which makes the point nicely;
The reason they pass these bans is that they know damn well that when consumers are offered a choice over smoking/non-smoking bars they go for the latter.
I see these petty rules, (smoking ban, foxhunting ban, etc.), to be no more that a distraction from the real infringement of your rights and liberties. I didn’t see you making such a fuss over the new laws removing your protections from the State, when the latest Civil Contingencies Bill was passed with hardly a whimper.
The old saying ‘to keep your powder dry’, has a lot to commend it…
By the way – I do not feel that I have had the ‘tar kicked out of me’, a few potty mouthed remarks, and a bit of name calling by a few illiterates, are no substitute for a reasoned, logical discussion, if I seem intolerant, yes I admit it, – I do not tolerate fools gladly……..
Ernest, David Carr of this parish has written about the Civil Contingencies bill. Trust me, we will be monitoring this, have no fear.
Also such rules as bans on smoking may be petty to you, but they all add up.