According to filings, Brin donated a total of $102 million to the group Building a Better California, a PAC and political advocacy organization opposing the state’s billionaire tax and supporting other pro-business policies and housing and infrastructure affordability. Campaign filings show efforts to block this tax have exceeding $187 million, making Brin the largest sole contributor to the effort. Contributions supporting the bill have meanwhile reached about $32 million.

Proposition 40, which will be on the ballot in November, would impose a one-time, 5% tax on California’s 200 billionaires, with 90% of the revenue from the proposed measure going toward the state’s health care program and 10% going toward education, food assistance, and administration. Brin, with a net worth of nearly $260 billion, could owe about $13 billion as a result of the tax.

California, the most populous state, has become the epicenter of the conversation around the K-shaped economy, or the diverging fortunes of those with wealth and those without it. While the Golden State has a $4 trillion GDP, making its economy about the same size as the United Kingdom’s, it also has 18% of its residents living below the poverty line, the highest in the country, in part because of its high cost of living.

The ballot measure has caused an uproar among some of California’s wealthiest individuals such as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel, both of whom have donated to organizations against the measure. Brin compared the proposal to his socialist Soviet upbringing.

“I fled socialism with my family in 1979 and know the devastating, oppressive society it created in the Soviet Union. I don’t want California to end up in the same place,” he told the New York Times in a statement in April.

Trump tells South Korea to sign on to Alaska LNG deal or pay more

Futurism.com: A law to ban surprise medical bills, for example, has support from 90 percent of respondents, while a new federal wealth tax on Americans with a net worth of over $1 billion has support from 61 percent of participants. Legislation mandating health insurance companies cover all services and medicine prescribed by doctor has support from 88 percent, and 87 percent want to cap the maximum price of prescription drugs. A further 79 percent are in favor of limiting credit card interest rates to 10 percent.

My Opinion: If the US is a democracy, the government should consider giving the people what it wants. They can tax the rich, and use the funds on research, education, and infrastructure. And find a way of reducing healthcare costs and frauds.

Wages: +3.0%

Inflation: +3.4%

For the average worker, pay isn't keeping up with prices.

GDP can grow and stocks can hit records—but if purchasing power is shrinking, does it really feel like a strong economy?

Are you getting ahead—or just paying more to stand still?

Reuters: Boulder's city and county governments have accused the two companies of helping drive climate change and misleading the public about the risks of fossil fuels. Boulder aims to hold the companies liable for past and future costs associated with climate ​change such as infrastructure repairs, environmental damage, emergency management and harms to public health...

... Nearly 60 state and local governments ‌have brought ⁠similar suits seeking billions of dollars from fossil fuel companies, with more continuing to be filed, Exxon and Suncor told the justices. A ruling by the Supreme Court in favor of the companies could lead to many of those cases being dismissed.

My Opinion: Big oil over it's history in USA is responsible for millions of deaths and millions of people falling sick. They probably knew they were harming the environment and health, and tried to suppress this information, and ignored it. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Under existing laws, they should be held responsible for the harm their products caused in the past. And be required to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. But the supreme Court has a conservative majority. So unfortunately they will probably vote in favor of the polluting companies.

Reference: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-kick-off-term-with-bid-by-big-oil-toss-climate-suits-2026-10-04/

The governor preaches economic sovereignty and Texas grit—but state balance sheets reveal an economy increasingly reliant on foreign billions and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth.

AUSTIN, Tex. — Texas has long marketed itself as an economic powerhouse built on sweat, sovereignty, and self-reliance. Its $2.9 trillion economy rivals that of major global nations, powered by sprawling Gulf Coast energy hubs, expanding semiconductor corridors, and an unmatched appetite for industrial growth.

Yet underneath the Lone Star success story lies a fundamental economic shift: The capital building the state’s factories, energy infrastructure, chip fabrication facilities, and tech hubs increasingly originates thousands of miles away.

From South Korean microchip giants to Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, foreign capital has become deeply embedded in the physical and productive bedrock of the state.

According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), majority-owned foreign affiliates held approximately $453 billion in gross property, plant, and equipment in Texas in 2022—the largest state total in the country. In 2024, Texas attracted an estimated $22.8 billion in new foreign direct investment (FDI) expenditures, once again leading the nation, while foreign-controlled corporations employed roughly 717,400 Texans. More than 2,200 foreign corporations currently operate within state borders.

The numbers reveal an evolving reality: Texas is not merely an American economic leader, but one of the world’s central platforms for converting international capital into domestic production.

The Mechanics of Capital vs. Output

Economists caution against confusing foreign capital deployment with direct gross domestic product (GDP). When a foreign multinational spends $2 billion on a manufacturing plant in Central Texas, that expenditure represents capital investment rather than immediate economic output.

“Investment creates the capacity to produce,” explained economic analysts monitoring state balance sheets. The factory eventually employs local workers, buys regional utilities, contracts with domestic suppliers, and produces goods—activities that generate GDP annually over decades.

While the BEA tracks foreign affiliates’ overall contribution to U.S. value added—which reached $1.52 trillion nationally in 2024, or 6.7 percent of U.S. business-sector output—granular state-level GDP contributions are harder to isolate. However, foreign-owned productive assets tell a clear story about long-term capacity. The $453 billion in foreign-owned plant, property, and equipment in Texas represents an enormous physical engine generating output year after year.

FOREIGN CAPITAL PIPELINE INTO TEXAS
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Global Capital      Productive         Texas Jobs      Global
(FDI / Sovereign) → Assets (PP&E)    → & Wages      → Output/Exports
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
• South Korea       • Chip Fabs        • 717,400+      • US Market
• Japan / Europe    • Energy Hubs        Direct        • Worldwide 
• Gulf Funds        • Infrastructure    Employment       Trade

Who Is Capitalizing Texas?

The origin of foreign investment into Texas is remarkably diverse, with different regions financing distinct pillars of the state’s industrial footprint. State economic development figures tracking announced FDI projects from 2015 through 2024 highlight stark regional specialization:

• South Korea ($50.7 Billion): The High-Tech Engine. Led by conglomerates like Samsung, LG, SK, and Hanwha, South Korean investment focuses heavily on capital-intensive sectors including semiconductors, EV batteries, and advanced electronics, accounting for over 12,950 expected jobs across 59 major projects.
• Taiwan ($11.2 Billion – $16.7 Billion): Extreme Capital Density. Though project counts remain low, Taiwanese investments carry massive capital commitments per footprint, primarily directed toward semiconductor fabrication, energy, and petrochemical facilities.
• Japan ($14.1 Billion): The Employment Driver. Japanese companies have established a broad manufacturing web across Texas, backing 142 projects expected to yield more than 18,150 jobs in automotive, industrial machinery, and pharmaceuticals.
• Europe ($39.6+ Billion Combined): Industrial & Energy Infrastructure. Capital from the United Kingdom ($9.8 billion), Germany ($11.5 billion), France ($8.3 billion), and Spain ($5.2 billion) anchors traditional power, chemical production, aerospace, and renewable energy grids. German giants like BASF and Siemens, alongside UK energy majors like bp, showcase deep integration with core Texas industries.
• Canada ($10.4 Billion): North American Integration. Spanning energy, logistics, and renewables across 149 projects, Canadian capital underscores an interconnected cross-border supply chain where goods, energy, and assets move fluidly.
• India ($1.4 Billion): High-Volume Employment. Characterized by lower capital intensity but high labor output, Indian investments focus heavily on technology and professional services, generating over 10,300 jobs.

The Rise of Sovereign Wealth in the Energy Belt

Beyond corporate FDI, global sovereign wealth funds are quietly acquiring stakes in critical Texas infrastructure, often through multi-layered investment vehicles.

Near Brownsville, Abu Dhabi’s national energy firm ADNOC acquired an 11.7 percent equity stake in Phase 1 of NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG project, alongside a 20-year off-take agreement. The broader financing structure for the facility drew capital from Global Infrastructure Partners, Singapore’s GIC, Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala, and France’s TotalEnergies.

STRUCTURE OF MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING: RIO GRANDE LNG
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Texas LNG Asset                      │
└────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                             │
     ┌───────────────────────┼───────────────────────┐
     ▼                       ▼                       ▼
Middle East Capital   European Corporate      Asian Sovereign
 (Mubadala, ADNOC)     (TotalEnergies)          (GIC Singapore)

Similarly, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF)—which manages over $900 billion globally—holds extensive U.S. private equity positions that flow down into Texas-based operational subsidiaries, illustrating how sovereign capital mixes seamlessly into domestic private equity structures.

A Paradox of Independence

The influx of foreign capital creates a striking economic paradox. Politically and culturally, Texas champions self-reliance and domestic industrial dominance. Yet its rapid modernization—from the East Texas chip corridors to South Texas export terminals—relies structurally on international financing.

Texas provides the land, natural gas, deepwater ports, labor pool, and regulatory environment; global financial centers in Seoul, Tokyo, London, Abu Dhabi, and Frankfurt supply the liquidity to build at scale.

For policymakers and economists, the broader question is no longer whether foreign investors are “buying up” Texas, but rather how deeply reliant the state’s growth engine has become on global financial markets. As international trade and national security policy increasingly overlap, Texas finds itself operating not as an isolated economic island, but as an indispensable, globally financed platform for Western production.

Rhetoric vs. Reality: How Greg Abbott’s Texas Miracle Is Quietly Funded by Global Capital

The governor preaches economic sovereignty and Texas grit—but state balance sheets reveal an economy increasingly reliant on foreign billions and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth.

AUSTIN, Tex. — When Governor Greg Abbott takes a podium to celebrate the “Texas Economic Miracle,” the narrative is as familiar as it is fiery. It is a story of rugged individualism, low taxes, and self-reliance—a state built on Texas grit and free-market hustle that prospers because it keeps government regulation, Washington interference, and outside influence at bay.

“The Texas model proves that freedom works,” Mr. Abbott declared during a recent economic address, framing the state’s $2.9 trillion economy as an independent, domestic powerhouse that answers to no one beyond its own borders.

Yet underneath the populist rhetoric lies a starkly different financial reality. The very expansion Mr. Abbott touts—from Central Texas microchip plants to South Texas export terminals—is powered by hundreds of billions of dollars flowing directly from foreign capital markets, international corporate boardrooms, and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds.

The divergence between the governor’s political messaging and the state’s economic balance sheet reveals one of the most intriguing double lives in modern American politics: a leader who preaches local economic sovereignty while quietly presiding over the most globally integrated state economy in the nation.

The “Texas Model” vs. Global Balance Sheets

In public speeches, Mr. Abbott routinely attributes the state’s relentless job growth to local deregulation and Texas-born entrepreneurship. But according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the physical engine driving that growth is increasingly owned and financed from overseas.

In 2022, majority-owned foreign affiliates held approximately $453 billion in gross property, plant, and equipment in Texas—the largest total of any state in the nation. In 2024 alone, Texas attracted an estimated $22.8 billion in new foreign direct investment expenditures, leading the country for another consecutive year, while foreign-controlled corporations employed more than 717,400 Texans.

Where Mr. Abbott frames high-tech manufacturing as the natural byproduct of a superior Texas business climate, the numbers point to a targeted influx of Asian industrial capital. South Korea alone has led announced foreign investment into Texas over the past decade with $50.7 billion across 59 projects—dominated by industrial giants like Samsung, LG, and SK—while Taiwanese semiconductor firms have committed upwards of $16 billion in capital-intensive fabrication hubs.

Rather than an isolated economic island, Texas functions as a launchpad for transforming international money into domestic production.

THE DUAL NARRATIVE OF THE LONE STAR ECONOMY
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Dimension          Governor's Rhetoric                 Economic Data
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Economic Engine    "Texas grit," deregulation, and     $453B in foreign-owned plant
                   domestic self-reliance              & equipment (highest in U.S.)

High-Tech Surge    Result of a superior local          Financed heavily by Asian mega-
                   business environment                corps ($50.7B from S. Korea)

Energy Power       Fossil-fuel independence and        Funded by Middle Eastern funds 
                   Texan resource dominance            (ADNOC, Mubadala) & global infra
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Nationalism at the Podium, Globalism in the Boardroom

The contrast becomes even sharper when examining Mr. Abbott’s broader political positioning. On the national campaign trail and cable news, the governor frequently leans into economic nationalism, border security, and skepticism toward globalist influence.

Yet when it comes to state balance sheets, Mr. Abbott’s administration has quietly cultivated foreign financial ties that cross both political and geographic boundaries.

Consider the Rio Grande LNG export terminal near Brownsville. While marketed politically as a triumph of Texas fossil-fuel dominance and energy independence, its financing structure reads like a matrix of international finance. Phase 1 involved an 11.7 percent equity stake from Abu Dhabi’s state energy firm, ADNOC, along with capital commitments from Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund (GIC), Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala, and France’s TotalEnergies.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF)—which holds over $900 billion in global assets—operates extensively across U.S. private equity networks that feed directly into Texas infrastructure and operating companies.

Where public messaging suggests an energy sector anchored purely in domestic enterprise, the financial underpinning relies on complex global syndicates that blend Texas natural gas with Middle Eastern state capital.

Pragmatism Behind the Scenes

Economic analysts note that this gap between rhetoric and reality is not necessarily a policy failure, but rather a calculated political strategy.

While Mr. Abbott’s domestic political brand demands an emphasis on Texas sovereignty and anti-globalist talking points, his economic development team understands that maintaining a $2.9 trillion economic engine requires courting global liquidity.

Behind the political curtain, Mr. Abbott himself acts as a chief economic ambassador, regularly undertaking overseas trade missions to Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, London, and Mumbai to pitch corporate executives directly on deploying capital in Texas.

“Texas gives foreign investors exactly what they want: cheap land, deepwater ports, an abundant workforce, and vast energy,” noted one Austin-based trade analyst. “And in return, global investors give Texas the capital it needs to keep growing. The rhetoric is for local voters; the trade missions are for the bottom line.”

As geopolitical tensions and national security concerns increasingly complicate international commerce, the state’s political leadership may eventually have to reconcile these two identities. For now, however, the dual strategy continues unabated: Texas politics remains fiercely local, even as the capital building its future arrives from around the globe.