Discussion: Wealth and the Progressive Movement
There always seems to be a lot of contention around "billionaires" and politics. For example, in another thread here, there was angst that Bernie's Our Revolution organization might be soliciting major funding from the likes of Tom Steyer and George Soros.
Soros aside, there do seem to be quite a number of wealthy individuals who actually support a lot of the causes many of us here do. Tom Steyer (net worth $1.6 billion), Elon Musk ($9.8 billion), and Al Gore ($300 million) all support efforts against global warming/climate change. Laurene Powell Jobs ($13.9 billion) is also a board member on conservationist organizations, but is even more involved in creating education reform and opportunities for students in poverty striken areas.
On the other side, as we all know, people like the Koch brothers and other billionaires have been pumping money into politics for decades--not only swinging most state houses Republican, but also fundamentally corrupting both major parties to serve their corporate interests.
I understand wanting to get money out of politics. I am not a supporter of SuperPACs, nor do I care about Our Revolution at all. Although I will support progressive democrats like Tulssi Gabbard, Nina Turner, Al Grayson, Raul Grijalva, and Russ Feingold--the Democratic Party is now thoroughly a corporate party to my mind.
But--these 0.1% have, literally, half the money of the country. In a battle for what this world needs, we are fighting back currently with only half the amont of money our opposition has access to right now. As any strategist can tell you, that puts us at a serious disadvantage in this fight right out of the gate.
My question to you all: Is there an appropriate role for the billionaires friendly to our causes and their ability to fund things *in the realm of politics* right now? Or should their resources only be used for non-political support of these causes? If one of them came up to you and said "I have a million dollars and I want to somehow support these progressive candidates and causes" what would it be appropriate to tell them to do?
Just a final note--discussion around this seems to get rather heated sometimes. This is going to be one topic that people here may have very different opinions on. Please just realize that most of us are fighting for the same things here, and that differences of opinion can often lead to insights and ideas that are worth consideration.
Comments
Soros put pressure on MoveOn to move on and endorse
Hillary. I don't trust him. So when your ally on one issue becomes your opponent on a different issue and says, "I win or you lose", then what? Isn't that exactly what is already going on with the veal pen crowd? Won't we just have one more mouth chirping away for their share of the grubs?
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I wondered how that happened
Do you have a link to the Soros MoveOn story? I was pleasantly surprised when MoveOn endorsed Bernie's campaign based on a majority vote. Then I was surprised again when they suddenly switched to Hillary, apparently without a vote!
Needless to say I unsubscribed from MoveOn.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
and how did Soros make most of his money
betting against the British currency.
The hell with him. Don't rate him any higher than I would Sheldon Adelson, and I can't print what I think of him either.
Sheldon Adelson? That's harsh - accurate, but harsh.
What exactly does Soros produce in his line of business? Anything tangible for people? Or for the good of the planet?
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Hedge funds are much like gambling, aren’t they? You make bets
Derivatives and so forth are bets.
Not really what Ayn Rand had in mind, either. Ayn Rand’s “industrialist as producer” ideology, for what it’s worth, often is reduced to a misleading wrapper for successful gamblers’ message that maximum power should accrue to successful gamblers.
MoveOn has always been extremely close to the Dems
Based on that, expecting them to ever consider endorsing or supporting anyone who is not a Democrat is unrealistic. When Sanders entered the Democratic primary, he thus became eligible for endorsement, and won it because MoveOn members strongly identify with the issues he raised. I can imagine that if the leadership tried to override that, there would have been a mass defection. Naturally as soon as Clinton won the nomination, they endorsed her. That's not a value judgement, it's just reality. MoveOn = Democratic Party.
Soros expects access in exchange
For his donations.
If rich people who have a conscience,
want to use their wealth in support of the common good, that's great, but there needs to be laws to prevent them from impropriety, and they should have no more say in an election than I do. A rich person with a conscience would donate to help protect the integrity of our voting system.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I fully agree
But, it seems to me that unless we get more money into the political process on our side, we're perpetually stuck where we're at right now. The problem is that we're already at a place where some people have more influence than you or I in elections. Complaining that it isn't fair, or trying to get laws changed with the current crop of bought politicians isn't going to get us very far with regard to outcomes.
I do really like your idea of having them spend some money to ensure non-rigged elections--although I'm sure some would think of that as improper influence.
Let them contribute, but with a small limit - say $50.
What can the average person donate? $27? When you start sending hundreds, thousands, and millions, it gets the wrong kind of attention and those that send $27 get no attention. That's my take on it.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Bernie had money to spare
Bernie had money to spare without relying on them. He faltered for lack of name recognition and a hostile media. The problem with the rich is they support only social liberalism, as in gay rights, antiracism, or antisexism, but generally get huffy and object to our economic agenda. It is obvious they use social liberalism to worm their way into our organizations.
We need to completely change the relationship
between money and politics. Open source, fully transparent, anonymity protecting, social media has to step up and offer an alternative, along the crowd-funding model, to replace the political party model.
Edited to qualify social media.
Beware the bullshit factories.
you ask:
Nobody needs a billion dollars. Nobody needs a million dollars. People who find themselves with such monies, their job is to get rid of it. They should start randomly mailing it to people. All over the world.
Where is the cut off?
A billion, sure.
A million at 5% gets you a median/below-average income pension. Assuming you can get 5% that is. It also gets you 20 years at that level if you only consume the principal and ignore inflation.
Another useful number is the amount of wealth per capita in the US is about $257K (= $85T / 330M), or a quarter of that. This includes retirees and infants, though, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to say that everyone in the country is entitled to roughly $1M of the national wealth when they retire.
So while I agree with the sentiment, I don't think you appreciate just how much the average person is being ripped off.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
global yearly median income
is $2630. So I would say all those average people are being ripped off by those who think all the Americans are entitled to a million dollars.
That's an interesting answer to my question...
I phrased it in terms of wealth (which was that the essay was talking about) but the same question applies to income. I calculate that distributing US wealth evenly around the world would come to about $11K per capita. Your figure of median income is great for talking about the current distribution of wealth, but if you want to talk about distributing something evenly in the future, you want the average because when you are done, the median will have changed into the average, but the average will not have moved. Average annual world income is roughly $10K per capita.
Your argument, then, is that the moral cutoff is the average. Anyone in the US who makes more than $10K should give it away "randomly", and anyone with a net worth over $11K should give that away too. Incidentally, your income is really a measure of resource consumption and includes social services like health care and food stamps, so that is exactly how much you make.
I'm not sure how to do this in the US short of camping in a national forest and hiding from the rangers (and yes, I know that people do this). Plus if we all did that, our economic output would drop to zero and we would no longer have income/wealth to distribute. So it is a reasonable question, and I don't think your answer works (at least not today). My number may be too high, but yours is absurdly low.
The "randomly" part bugs me too. You may have just meant that rhetorically, but it gets to the root of my question. I would respond that you should give selectively to the country with the lowest cost of living as your donation would have the most impact there. And you should obviously prefer those below the average income/wealth level in that country. Costs of living vary between countries for all sorts of reasons ranging from climate to education level.
Incidentally, your argument is a well known one in moral philosophy and is called "abnegation". Australian philosopher Peter Singer got some press a couple of years ago for pushing this idea, and you can read a critique by another philosopher here.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
you have
an amusing, if bewildering, penchant for attributing to me things I haven't said, as if you believe you possess some sort of Being John Malkovich-type ability to roam around inside my brainpan, and then report back on what you found there. But, alas, I fear you're exploring another cranium altogether. ; )
First, after you assert that "everyone in the country is entitled to roughly $1M of the national wealth when they retire," you say of me "I don't think you appreciate just how much the average person is being ripped off."
Once I respond that "global yearly median income is $2630. So I would say all those average people are being ripped off by those who think all the Americans are entitled to a million dollars," you commence another Malkovichian duck-dive, and there come up with with this mind-reading:
No. That's not what I said. What I initially said was:
Would it be too much trouble for you to attend to what I've actually written, rather than to just shit you've made up, and then attributed to me? Or, I suppose, you can continue to argue with yourself, using me as a version of one of your selves. Since apparently that is your preferred mode of discourse.
My comment started with a question
I assumed that your short, rather cryptic, response was an honest attempt to answer that question, and I didn't understand it, so I did my best to infer what you meant in order to continue the conversation. Clearly, you are not interested in that, so let's just move on.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Great essay!
Would you mind if I re-posted this in it's entirety at r/WayoftheBern?
"Polls don't tell us how well a candidate is doing; Polls tell us how well the media is doing." ~ Me
Sure Thing!
Please feel free. I think it'd be a good idea to get some alignment on what is acceptable money in politics on the left.
I am actually a purist--I'd like company money out of politics entirely (the nation should be run by citizens alone), and I'd like everone only able to provide that maximum limit (whatever it is now--$2,700 per candidate?).
But since that's not the way it actually is right now, I kind of feel like we're bringing knives to a gun fight. With global warming threatening our very future, we don't have unlimited time, and with tge current laws in place and income disparity increasing dramatically, our end of the funding stick is only getting shorter and shorter as time goes on.
Just trying to think if there are acceptable ways to use those potential resources.
I'm with you
There's ideal, and there's what needs to be done to be effective, and the area in between is proving really contentious.
"Polls don't tell us how well a candidate is doing; Polls tell us how well the media is doing." ~ Me
"Angst"? Really? "Angst"?
The 'Angst' is about whether Our Revolution is going to be an org to promote a progressive agenda, or will it just be a Dem Status-Quo machine. Weaver is a Hellery tool and I don't trust him. And by making the org a 501c4, it cannot by law work with or communicate with any candidates or politicians. Our Revolution was originally pitched as an org to help down ballot progressives. It cannot do that now by law.
If you trust OurRev, then by all means, plow your hard earned cash into it.
My guess is with a month OurRev will be running TV ads supporting Hellery's positions. Probably even the progressive ones that Hellery has no intention of following thru on after you cough up your vote.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Nick Hanauer too
His explanation of how he can't buy enough pants to stimulate the economy is hilarious.
But should individuals be able to distort the political process "for good"? Right now, CarbonWA's carbon tax initiative is in conflict with Tom Steyer through his support for the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy. There have been a number of articles on how the Gates foundation can distort government health policies around the world.
No one needs a billion dollars. Tax it and vote on what to do with it.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
The important point
I think you have put your finger on one of the main points in the argument about inequality: "No one needs a billion dollars." I'm 80 and can remember when local bosses and banksters made more money than the rest of us but never so much more that they were invisible in gated communities, private jets, limos with tinted glass, or walls of hired thugs/policemen. Corruption was local not nationwide. To be sure, the Rockefellers and their peers were as exclusive as today's wealthy but were despised for it. Look at movies from the 30s, 40s, and 50s and see how the rich are portrayed. The rest of us could succeed in modest ways that were satisfying both materially and ethically. I think Hanauer's article is a good one because he makes this point quite well. But Reagan was a consummate salesman for the terminally greedy and helped change our New Deal understanding to a trickle down shell game.
Our distaste for wealth inequality has nothing to do with envy but everything to do with fairness and proportion. The fortunes of the .01% can't possibly be spent in one person's lifetime as Hanauer's pants illustration shows. Greed on the present day scale is psychopathic and the sooner we treat it as such the sooner we will save ourselves and the planet from destruction. I'm not hopeful but a 90% income tax bracket, high estate taxes starting at a much lower threshold, a reeducation as to the meaning of "commonwealth", repudiation of trade treaties and legislation that only help the rich, slimming and regularizing skewed tax codes, stopping nation wide voter suppression and election fraud, and prosecution of corrupt organizations such as too-big-to-fail financial institutions and the Clinton Foundation are some of the actions we need to demand and implement. What we have now is an aristocratic upper class that keeps everything it grabs and pays a pittance for the robbery.
I haven't much hope for a good outcome, but I'm willing to go on record as saying that the current crop of rich people are not our friends nor do they share our view of the world or of equity. Thinking that they will help us is naive. If we don't rise up in every way available to us, it will come to pitchforks. Even at 80, I may live to see it happen because I think the injustice and unfairness is so bad that even the stupid are seeing how unjust and unsustainable the present system is.
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
the best use would be solar and wind energy
from my view. I think they should use their money for something real. I'm tired of having the politicians bought- at this point it's an endless cycle. Adding more fuel to the fire doesn't seem productive.
Heard an interesting conversation on the Real News with Norman Solomon, coordinator of The Bernie Delegates Network on the our revolution. It's 20 min, but I found it worthwhile.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqXmX8lDJ2I]
Let me add one more thought - how about using those millions to create/support honest media? Democracy Now, The Real News, C99...
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
I uprated you, but aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggghhhh!
Noooooooooooooooo........
It's the wealthy support/ownership of media that is part of the problem, part of the whole plutocracy. Money in media is just as corrupting as in politics. The media are supposed to be the watchdogs, not the lapdogs.
Keep money out of media!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Before promoting wind energy search
Google for "wind turbine crashes to the ground" - all over the world.
We had our first in Canada here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/wind-turbine-collapse-point-tu...
To thine own self be true.
Well, anything mechanical can fail
and according to the linked article, no one was hurt and nothing else was damaged. Compared to an explosion on an oil rig, for example, this is preferable.
I noticed that the parts the maintenance workers were using were imported from Germany, as was the whole turbine, I would guess. They chose to grow their wind energy business, while we continue to subsidize oil, gas and coal.
Yeah
The worry is silly. Nobody lives (or usually stands) close enough to wind turbines that if one falls apart anybody gets hurt. Wind and solar are so very safe compared to everything else out there.
I'd take a number of Wind Turbines Failing...
Over one of those expensive teapots that were supposed to deliver electricity that was "Too Cheap To Meter" having a core meltdown any day...
Or a fossil fuel power contributing to the death of the planet...
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
I think one of the main concerns of wind turbines
is that they kill a lot of birds. At Altamont pass, here in the Bay Area, there is a huge wind farm that happens to be located where all kind of birds, including birds of prey, like to hang out and ride the wind. This has created many bird casualties. I know there are new types of wind turbines being developed that are a lot more bird friendly, but they're probably a ways off. That's the price of stopping global warming which we have to do.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I'll bet they kill far fewer
I'll bet they kill far fewer birds and other animals than industrial pollution and exploitative habitat destruction.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
There Are No Progressive Billionaires
For example:
(wiki)
Laureen Powell Jobs:
(wiki)
Nothing about any involvement in elections for either one of them. A long standing tactic of movement conservatives is to deny government funding for "liberal" causes (like climate change) so we are compelled to give financial support for "causes" instead of elections. Save the whales!
Billionaires at best will always be "fiscal conservatives" and "social liberals". Their primary goal will always be preserving their wealth and protecting their wealth from equitable taxation.
I don't know where the threshold is, but a good rule of thumb is "don't trust anyone with over ten million dollars". Al Gore is a straight up DLC Dem. I'm guessing that all "lefty" billionaires are fiscally conservative DLC Dems.
If a single billionaire poured money into electing progressives the way the Koch Brothers pour money into electing Republicans it would cause a sea change in American politics.
Ain't gonna happen. We gotta fight and win the war on our own.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
I’d settle for a billionaire funding true alternative mass media
Noisy tactical distractions mask the phenomenal lack of diversity of opinion in U.S. mass media.
No.
The rich will always pursue their own interests first, then let everyone else have the crumbs. There is always an ulterior motive. It's no coincidence that the issues that progressives and billionaires agree on are those that threaten the survival of the human race on this planet. On everything else, they're happy to let you have your abortion rights and fight for racial/gender equality, so long as it doesn't hurt their bottom line. But something like single payer healthcare? Nope. A living wage? Nope. Pensions? Nope. An 80% income tax rate and a hike in the estate tax for the 1%? Dream on.
Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that 99.9% of the .1% are in it for anything other than themselves. These folks didn't get rich by being such great humanitarians. It mirrors the history of the Gilded Age, where the robber barons amassed their fortunes by unscrupulous means, then used a meager portion of it to "give back" in order to rehabilitate their shitty public images and salvage their legacies.
If someone came up to me and said...
If someone came up to me and said "I have a million dollars..."
I'm sorry, what was the question again?
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
It woulda been nice . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_(TV_series)
Only if they are willing
to pay their fair share of taxes. Most of them like hiding money or keeping their tax rate where it is now. One of our major issues is getting billionaires to pay a higher tax rate to fix infrastructure and pay for education and not just be a plutocrat, right? Why don't they make jobs here to help Americans and pay a fair wages and benefits? I think Musk has a plant opening in Nevada to make electric cars but what about the other guys?
Heidi Foglia
The focus needs to be
on fighting against the influence of money in politics. This question (a very good one) concerns the foundational structure and purpose of the movement the 99% hopes to build. The principle must remain intact, that it cannot be bought, no matter how much money is on offer. To accept big money would be to undermine the very ground we stand on.
If billionaires want to use their money to support worthy causes and reforms, so much the better. But please Mr & Ms Moneybags, stay the fuck out of our politics. It does not belong to you and it is not for sale.
native
My own two cents...
For me, as Bernie might say "in my view", the fact we even have a financial system where we even have billionaires, should be a HUGE wake up call, because it can only mean one thing, a huge number of people go with out.
First, let's remember, the way our "capitalistic" system works is based on a zero sum game, if someone wins, someone undoubtedly loses. Much of the so called "wealth" created in the last 40 years was because of a "rigged" economy, not because they worked harder or were innovative.
Secondly, let's also remember, fractional reserve lending, by any other means, is fraud. Money, is "loaned" into existence, from thin air!
It's truly difficult topic of discussion because of how insidious our "system" has been corrupted since the early founding of our republic. Over time mistaken legal rulings, like that of Santa Clara Country vs Union Pacific, where corporations were mistakenly given "legal" rights on par with humans, and equal representation, and ever since it's only gotten worse, where people like Mitt Romney think "corporations are people my friend!". (oh crap!)
Let's also remember, when one has billions, they can "manufacture consent" and even overthrow countries, as Soro's and others have help accomplish.
[video:https://youtu.be/uV3ElZS9paY]
Let's also remember that during the Wilson administration a huge propaganda campaign was utilized to turn public opinion to help Wilson lead America into WWI. This "propaganda machine" has been running non-stop ever since and the "elite" of our society has fully embraced this "invisible" method of "control" over the unwashed masses.
If one actually studies how these billionaire became billionaires, one clearly sees it wasn't by egalitarian means and the masses have clearly lost. Every TBTF banker engaged in Fraud, yet they have not been prosecuted, which clearly indicates that those words etched in granite above the supreme court, Equal Justice Under Law, doesn't mean shit.
[video:https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig]
I do not begrude people that become financially successful, that actually work for it, but "gaming" the system is not earning a living, it's ripping people off, insuring people go hungry and die.
I don't believe in benevolent millionaires and billionaires today, they make their money by "gaming" the system, not by creating opportunities or new jobs, or any of that bullshit. Gee, anyone believe that healthcare should be a human right? How many billionaires think that way? (crickets...)
Gee, look at the amount of "lazy capital" laying around in off shore tax haven's, where George Soros name appears quite a bit in the Panama papers. All that capital could eliminate world poverty within a year. I don't see any billionaire volunteering to help end world poverty.
I see them gaming the system, as the Clinton Global Initiate did down in Haiti, where the UN help caused the death of up to 10,000 people from Cholera because the funds needed to help the Haitian people after that devastating earth quake, were funneled to "public-private partnerships", that enrich the wealthy, not fund badly need infrastructure rebuilding caused by climate change, that killed over 200 thousand people. Let that sink in.....
Sure a donation here and one there makes for nice headlines, and great PR (propaganda), but there is always a catch, just ask John Perkins, economic hit man, for the the billionaires, ya feel me?
Stop and think for a moment, who actually works for a living? You think sitting around in a nice air conditioned office all day, talking on the phone or pushing paper is work? Do they earn a fair wage for their labor of picking up a pen or piece of paper and putting in a different pile, is work? Gee, ask the person in the 100+ heat trying to repair down electrical lines or helping flood victims in Louisiana, or the poisoned people of Flint?
Put a million dollars in a pile out in a field, then tell me what happens. Not a dern thing. Put 20 people in a field and I'm sure in short order theyll arrange for and create shelter, find water, food, make tools, just from natural available resources, no capital required. (overly simplistic to be sure, but I think you get my point, hopefully, lol)
Do you think spending billion's lobbying congress to get laws passed that make it almost economically impossible for the average American to accumulate any wealth, is a good thing? Gee, how did that housing crash go that destroyed all most all black wealth in this country?
It is specifically because of people like Soros that our country is in the terrible shape it is in. It is the millionaires and billionaires that have driven this country to the brink of imploding from complete and total corruption.
Did the people of Flint make the crappy financial arrangements for the new water system, they didn't even need? No, it was their elected officials in collusion with millionaire and billionaires that did, funded by billionaire Wall Street bankers, and look at the result.
We didn't do this, they did! We have been doing our part, keeping our head down, shoulder's to the grind stone, putting one foot in front of the other doing our darnest to just get by. Our productivity has skyrocketed but we haven't been compensated for it, but those millionaires and billionaires certainly have.
Our wages have stagnated for 30+ years. We have been systemically ripped off by these very people you speak of, is it okay to trust them, hell fucking no. Clearly their "actions" speak a lot louder than their PR campaigns, if you take the time to actually look.
We could totally wipe out poverty and hunger, on a planetary scale, but no, gotta keep my billions. We could wipe out our dependence on oil and fossil fuels, if we had their backing, which obviously we don't. Our president has opened up more oil leases for more fossil fuel extraction which only means, more green house gases, but also means more profits for, you guessed it, our lovely, and supposedly benevolent, millionaire and billionaire class. How is that helping humanity?
They are content to allow humanity to die as a result of climate change. Which, let's not forget, it's the millionaires and billionaires that keep the public dumb down, by their well funded "think tanks", bought an dpaid for propaganda machines (MSM media), which are nothing short of paid propaganda, period!
All of Humanity is at stake, and they act like their profits are more important. If they are such great human beings, let them step up to the plate an sacrifice for us, for a change. We have sacrificed enough. we have lost almost everything, but they squeeze us for more, through higher economic rents and fees, and suck our government dry of resources for the people, who, government is supposedly instituted protect, but clearly Flint and other cities around our country, PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt, it doesn't and won't protect the American people, especially from our greedy billionaire class.
Our elected officials work hand in hand with them to do it. Gee, congress can engage in insider trading, but you, me, will get jail time for doing that.
[video:https://youtu.be/nTCoU85dsLM]
Just ask any billionaire (or their #1 cheerleader, Mrs. Clinton), economic and political instability, is a "business opportunity".
[video:https://youtu.be/4o5WAhMsdtU]
End of Rant...
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
A Billion Dollars is a Stack of $100 Bills 1KM tall.
Let that sink in a moment. Then realize that the average American's pile of yearly wealth is a stack 2 inches tall.
I highly recommend the L-Curve
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu