Scott Galloway Says One in Three Billionaires Have an Escape Plan
Benzinga reported Sunday that entrepreneur and NYU professor Scott Galloway believes roughly a third of billionaires are quietly maintaining personal escape plans rather than working to stabilise the society that made them rich.
Bunkers, Jets and New Zealand Properties
Speaking on “The Diary of a CEO” podcast, Galloway outlined what these so-called “go plans” typically involve. Private jets, reinforced bunkers and remote properties in countries like New Zealand are among the most common arrangements, he said.
Galloway labelled the attitude “nihilist.” He argued that extreme wealth now insulates the ultra-rich from the very problems gripping everyone else. Private aviation eliminates airport security lines. Concierge medicine replaces strained public healthcare. Elite private schools and personal security details complete the separation.
Because the wealthiest Americans no longer share everyday inconveniences, Galloway argued, they have little practical incentive to fix the systems most people depend on.
Background: A Long-Running Critique of Concentrated Wealth
Galloway has spent years documenting how concentrated wealth reshapes political incentives. His core argument, repeated across books and media appearances, is that the top 0.1% wield outsized influence over elected officials while remaining structurally disengaged from civic deterioration. Sunday’s comments extend that thesis into disaster-preparedness territory.
He urged billionaires to redirect resources toward making the planet more liveable rather than funding Mars colonisation or stocking emergency bags for personal use.
Also Read: How the Fed Thinks About Wealth Inequality and Financial Stability
AI, Loneliness and the Regulation Gap
A significant portion of the conversation turned to artificial intelligence. Galloway pushed back on catastrophic predictions made by some tech executives, suggesting the warnings are partly designed to justify enormous fundraising rounds and inflated valuations.
He did concede that AI will meaningfully disrupt white-collar work. Legal document review, customer service operations and administrative roles are already changing, he said.
His sharpest concern, though, was social rather than economic. Galloway warned that younger generations are substituting real human relationships with digital alternatives, including AI companions and algorithmically driven online communities. He described this as the technology’s greatest single risk.
On the question of whether figures such as OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman should be trusted to self-regulate, Galloway was blunt. Regulators, not individuals, need to set the boundaries for AI development, he said. Without formal guardrails, the technology’s social costs will continue to accumulate unchecked.
Read Next: What Pew Research Found About Americans and Economic Inequality
