Curious how the questions can contain the answer, and in some cases may be the answer. And there is a big difference between the two things: in case the question contains the answer, you hear us say "you answered yourself". But when the question is the answer, then we hear people say "it's what you're doing now".
I'll explain. As you know, you can send me comments and questions using Tox, as explained in frontpage. And one of the requests that came to me is "but who the hell is this Bloomberg, and what does it mean that he is a candidate?".
Well, here it is: if you used Bloomberg services (or similar services) you would know. And in a sense, when you ask me to comment on this using Tox, you're looking for a product like Bloomberg Opinion. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Tradebook )
If it confused you, let's see what this Bloomberg does for a moment. I have often said that journalism was born to bring quality news to a class of stock market investors who had to decide what to do (in London) but to decide they had to know how the The harvest in Bangalore had gone, what do I know? . (I'm not sure that tea is harvested in Bangalore, to be honest. I know little about the climate of that place. I don't even use Bloomberg's services).
Later, the press underwent an evolution: first of all when the newspaper owners began to be financiers themselves, and people began to wonder how much it made sense to take financial news from a competitor.
In the best case, in fact, the competitor will know the news first, and will move ahead. At worst, the competitor will invent 'non-existent news, or give much emphasis to irrelevant news, making them appear as opportunities / disasters, or hide (minimize) important news, hiding opportunities / disasters.
Therefore, businessmen who could not own a newspaper had to find a form of communication that gave, BY CONTRACT, only the facts, without inventing them, without diminishing the salient ones, without exalting insignificant bullshit.
Et voila ', we described Bloomberg's flagship product: the Bloomberg Terminal.
Now, this is not a simple ticker that shows the data from the stock exchanges. Behind there is a whole infrastructure that takes the data, analyzes them, and provides forecasts, analyzes, summaries, indexes, comparisons, etc. All strictly based on numerical methods.
This is why you see Bloomberg's IT manager attending conferences on carrier networks, technologies, artificial intelligence and more. In fact, Bloomberg provides IT services, in real time, on market-oriented FACTS.
People who buy the Bloomberg terminal buy at a glance data processing services on market facts. But not only. It also has TV networks to inform business people, Bloomberg Opinion to give competent opinions on financial matters, Bloomberg Government to give news about the new laws and their meaning and impact, along with Bloomberg Law that goes more on technicalities and quibbles. It also has services that tell you who your customer really is (that is, whether to give him credit, or a deferred payment) and everything, but with a specific clause: "I pay you a lot, but you only sell me facts and news TRUE ".
It means that if you find out that Bloomberg lied to you, you can sue him. And if it ends up in the newspapers that Bloomberg has issued false news to make money, Bloomberg is finished, because the contract he has with his customers (who pay him handsomely) is to give USEFUL information, and the only useful information and 'the one based ONLY on facts.
This doesn't make Bloomberg the person who tells the truth by contract, and I'm not doing a Bloomberg commercial. I'm saying a simple thing, which is relevant to current politics.
That Bloomberg made a fortune fighting the fake news. Or, on the other hand, he made a fortune because fake news exists.
The two things are not in contradiction. If the financial press, even a specialist one, had always done its job, and well, there would be no need for Bloomberg. It would be sufficient to read, I know, Il Sole 24 ore, or Handelsblatt, or any "specialized" newspaper. And if the newspapers had also provided specialized (as they say they do) multimedia services, there would have been no need for a guy called Bloomberg.
This is the point, very simple.
Bloomberg is in a doctor's market situation: on the one hand, he is paid to fight something, diseases. On the other hand, if the diseases disappeared (as desirable), the doctors would go hungry.
Similarly, Bloomberg is well paid to provide true news, true facts, opinions or competent and well done analyzes. On the other hand, the value of Bloomberg exists only because the press (including the "specialized" one) does not do its job.
Since it's not a Bloomberg commercial, I'll give you a list of its competitors / analogs.
What does it mean that Bloomberg takes the field, for his opponents?
The problem with his opponents is that he is the only type of contender who has the technology to fight a fake news war, conducted on social media and thanks to social media. Because if Facebook is the data Coop, Bloomberg is Chef Maxime. This is the only type of contender who is able to calculate how much Trump earns really, and with a margin of a few percentage points, and blame him on TV. That sounds like nothing to you, but Trump won by posing as a great entrepreneur, which he probably isn't, and he's never been. To say, Bloomberg sells a KYC service, (Know Your Customer), which is called Bloomberg Entity Exchange.
What does this mean for your allies? Bad news there too. First of all, report everything to the speech "The left is the party of the elites". Ok, Bloomberg is a philanthropist and has done so many things "left" for the city of New York, but there is always a guy who could buy a small town in the American province using the budget of the coffee machines in his company.
The second point is that it does not belong, nor even to scresh, nor does it lick the ass, to the Kennedy clan. And when you are not of the Kennedy clan (do you know that family that looks Beautiful but has even MORE scandalous sexual habits? Here, they are the Kennedys), I said, if you are not in the Kennedy clan, then you have against Hillary, Bill & co . As it was against Obama. Surely Bloomberg could beat Clinton for authority, (it is not that it takes much, lately it has fallen in a bit "lowered" level) but it would be against the clan that has monopolized the democrats for generations. It would not be easy, let alone economic.
What's more, he is a man who comes from capitalism, in a moment in which to win among the democrats is … a socialist. And with this word you can also calculate the real odds that Sanders wins the US election.
As a result, Bloomberg must do, in the Democrats, what Trump did with the Republicans: defeat all party institutions and beat all party candidates. Trump had to beat a Bush (very powerful clan, equivalent of the Kennedys on the left) and run from "outsider", so as Bloomberg will have to do.
But there is a big tactical difference between Trump and Bloomberg. The Republicans wanted to win the post-Obama. While the American Democrats do not want to win: for them this election serves to permanently fuck Sanders and get rid of Clinton, who has become decidedly cumbersome.
They are therefore sending to the slaughter the most unlikely candidates, like Sanders, to prepare for the 2024 elections. Unless you believe that a declared socialist has the least chance of winning in the USA. And I'm not talking about a socialist in the sense that we give to the term in Europe. I'm talking about someone like Bertinotti, or a Cossutta.
So Trump had to convince his party and his base to be able to win, because this they wanted both the party and the base, while in the case of the Democrats, they are playing for the defeat-which-solves-a-feud-internal. (where have I seen this scene before?).
Bloomberg's only way of winning in the Democratic Party is to inflict on Sanders and Clinton a defeat so majestic and powerful (and humiliating) that they are forced to get out of the way and change the strategy of the Democrats. The problem is that Clinton would then cry to the Kennedys, who between a sadomasochistic orgy and a gangbang party (the sexual morality of that family remembers the bonobos, if you fill them with ecstasy and hormones) will probably decide to put their sticks in between the wheels.
To be sure, this reconstruction is extreme: in the case of Obama, the Kennedy clan decided to change the battlefield, after Obama obtained the personal esteem of Ted Kennedy himself (for which Clinton felt betrayed, and blamed her husband). Find many summaries of this on old articles. ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/30/how-ted-kennedy-helped-change-the-course-of-the-2008-election/ )
Consequently, it is not impossible for the Kennedy to change their mind once again, if Bloomberg had the right connections. In any case, this would be the second setback against the sub / clan to which the Clintons belong.
Bloomberg therefore has the steepest route to the one that had Trump against the Republicans. And if he came out as a loser, he could not stand in 2024, that is, he would burn.
There are two cases: either they really believe it, or they have been called to reassure the markets, and make it clear that the Democrats are not becoming "commies", despite Sanders, the Ocasio Cortez and the great support they receive.
What does it mean for people? Crook. As demonstrated in New York, Bloomberg has an idea of "social policy" which consists of supporting the poor and the persecuted. It is the idea of a charitable society that helps those who have fallen. But if you have not fallen, Bloomberg does not have much to say to you: his concept of "middle class" is quietly placed above half a million dollars / year, which in the US is not such a high figure but not so low.
There remains a man who swims in a pool full of sharks, eating piranhas, eating dingo dogs, eating dead children dressed with Microsoft Powerpoint.
As moral as it is, we are always talking about the morality of a cannibal.
Maybe he eats you with cutlery. But nothing more.