The same person who asked you!
The Kochs could have been in a vegetative state since their 70’s inheritance and made billions. But they get an honorary mention just for old man Koch - a John Bircher through and through.
And everyone successful is “conservative” with money - even the risk takers. Ted Turner is a good example of a liberal that lost a fortune due to poor risk. His mistake was selling to the idiots at Time-Warner who wasted their company on AOL stock.
Cite, cite, cite, cite
I guess it took 23 posts in this thread to recall Job’s reality distortion field 
So yeah, liberals must be pretty good at inflicting reality distortion on large number of hapless victims. Some even become billionaires that way. Others try or even succeed becoming President.
If you insist:
Republican economist admits tax cuts, reducing regulations won’t create jobs:
So if these policies won’t create jobs, the only remaining conclusion is that conservatives want tax cuts and fewer regulations solely for the profits they add to the bottom line. Since liberals aren’t demanding tax cuts or reduced regulations, yet still manage to run profitable companies, clearly they are making money the old fashioned way; they earn it.
Except of course people can simply look and see you are wrong. Conservative states take out more from the federal government than they take. Conservatives loot the public treasury and warp all of society to benefit themselves and their cronies; just look at the occupation of Iraq and Bush cronies like Haliburton. They take the world economy hostage - even using the word “hostage” during the debt ceiling nonsense - and actively try to crash the economy of the country and drive the government into debt in order to “starve the beast”. They constantly enrich themselves by scams and have the government cover for them. Their supporter have slogans like “get your government hands off my Medicare”.
They are predatory, parasitic and incompetent. They ruin whatever they touch.
The problem with the OP’s premise is that liberalism is antithetical to capitalism. That’s not true - at least by my definition. The liberals you mentioned are ones that lean left on social issues. But no one is stopping them from gobbling up large shares of the market or taking in billions.
That may be true for classical liberalism but not for state-social liberalism of Obama and most of the Democratic Party.
Of course there is no evidence of a “state socialism” of Obama. There is more for Bush - the owner of a $700 billion bank stock purchase by the state and a state run and funded Pharma program for the elderly.
Obamacare may be un-constitutional but making me buy private insurance is certainly not state socialism.
Anyway, I am compiling the 100 list and don’t shirk challenges - results later.
I meant his liberalism is a combination of statism and social liberalism (ie on things like abortion or gay marriage).
Well, I don’t believe that although I may have unintentionally implied such.
Capitalism is in every definition of “liberal” I have ever seen - including Wikipedia. I and many other capitalists cannot be a conservative. Their hatred of science and reason is a show-stopper for me.
Even Ayn Rand hated conservatives. She had a long-running feud with with William F. Buckley and campaigned against Reagan (called him an “enemy of freedom”).
Largely because she opposed even the mildest of state intervention in economics and because she was utterly fanatical and self-righteous while Buckley was far more easy-going
Well, I agree with that.
We have two statist parties without a doubt. Unfortunately for us, Japan (MITI) and China have evolved state run capitalism into a formidable force.
They learned from the best though - us.
Socialism has a crummy history, so socialists have figured out how to control the economy without actual government ownership of companies. They use regulations to micromanage segments of the economy. When you can just write a regulation that all health insurance policies must insure all dependents to age 26, you can control insurance companies just as if you owned all of them. The terms of the insurance policies and the allowed profits will be set by the government, so the insurance companies will function just like a government agency reporting to the Secretary of HHS.
Yeah? That is what we did long ago with power utilities and their overseers - Public Service Commissions.
Have you looked at their profits recently? Capitalism doesn’t work when an industry’s business model is built on gouging citizens on vital services.
Capitalism thrives under rules. Look at Canada’s banking system. They didn’t need a TARP to survive and the Canadian people are better for it.
ISTM what set up Linden’s line of argument that “liberals make the best capitalists” was actually the other party’s surprise at learning of Jobs’ personal liberalism. Notice that the discussion led to an argument whether the other well-known liberal (or at the very least, non-Republican) billionaires are merely the exceptions that prove the rule.
My own line in that discussion would have been, not: hey the liberals are better capitalists; but rather: hey why the surprise/disbelief? Just because he fails to fit the caricature (which is what a lot of the other posters are really arguing now)? A liberal CAN be a GOOD capitalist (activity, not ideology!).
Better define capitalist and then differentiate between liberal and conservative capitalist before you get started. This group will never reach consensus.
Like any of these arguments if you actually think very much about the definition of the two terms “Liberal” and “capitalist” the argument is immediately exposed as being essentially void of any real content.
Firstly, how does one define liberal? If you vote Democrat are you liberal? If you favor a moderate tax increase on your specific income bracket are you liberal?
If you give money to charity does that make you liberal? If you are a vegetarian who believes in various Eastern philosophies does that make you liberal?
I’d argue if you actually know very much about Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs there are strong indicators of conservative ideals and liberal ideals in all three of those men.
Warren Buffet is a known Democrat, not the same as a “known liberal.” Many liberals would look at specific things Buffet has done and say “he ain’t one of us!” Many conservatives would do the same. Bill Gates has no known political affiliation I’m aware of, and if you look at his donations pretty much every election cycle Gates donates the maximum to the RNC and the DNC, and various prominent national politicians (he has donated the maximum to the campaigns to re-elect both Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid.)
Jobs had a lot of hippie personal beliefs but his actual behavior was more akin to that of a Jay Gould or a Cornelius Vanderbilt (except they actually did give some money to charity.) It’s hard for me to cotton Jobs as a liberal given he was less generous with his money than the Koch Brothers, and even made sure to screw most of the early Apple employees out of the vast levels of wealth that most early Microsoft employees were able to enjoy.
I’ll also note that adding Wozniak to a list of billionaires is a bit strange, Woz’s net worth is somewhere around $100m and he also has never been a business leader or anything approaching a capitalist. He was an engineer.
Then the definition of capitalist is in itself difficult to peg. Is any entrepreneur a capitalist? What about the ones who start co-ops and employee owned businesses? That’s not really traditional capitalism.
Some people would even argue that entrepreneurs by their nature are not themselves capitalists, but rather a key Factor of Production in the capitalist system. Instead, it is the people who give the entrepreneurs the money they need to run their business in exchange for later returns in the form of profits that are the real capitalists (i.e. the venture capitalists, bankers, etc.) It all depends on precisely how you use that term “capitalist.” Not everyone believes there is a perfect overlap of “Free Market” and “Capitalism.” In fact history has had free markets without a capitalist system.
Then of course the data set is a few selected individuals and when asked to actually come up with real data on say, the Forbes 100, you just assert they are mostly liberals aside from those who have inherited wealth…that’s just not going to fly.
I will throw an argument of my own into the ring as well. I think being hung up on definitions like “liberal” and “conservative” is not part of life for most Forbes 100 people, they are literally so far removed from the consequences of the day to day political wrangling that I think many of them are ambivalent to it. That’s why guys like Bill Gates are making the maximum contribution to both sides of the game all the time, he doesn’t really care who wins, he’s focused on other things and he quite simply does not have to worry about what happens in our political system.
It might be interesting to consider whether the companies run by the more liberal CEOs are any more open to unionization.
Judging from your last line I assume you understand that your earlier lines are a mischaracterization of what liberals believe. But for those who would take it at first value, allow me to rebut.
Liberals don’t want government handouts in the same sense that conservatives don’t want wars. But liberals generally believe that a social welfare net is necessary the same way that conservatives generally believe a strong military is necessary. Making preparations for an event is not the same as wanting the event to occur.
Liberals want everyone to be prosperous and conservatives want everyone to be peaceful - they just don’t see these as likely possibilities.