I think there has actually been something of a cultural shift on this topic in the last ±decade or so. The word billionaire used to have more baked-in positive cultural energy, something laudable in-itself.
Nowadays though it feels like the label has a negative tinge; not quite a bad thing, but not something that feels like a universal benefit either. This change probably tracks with the rise of populism.
It's weird to me as a German because growing up in the 90s exorbitant wealth was not seen as inherently good, if i had to guesstimate the general feeling - it was generally seen as inherently a-little-bit-worse-than-neutral (the saying "Reichtum stinkt" - meaning rich people stink, was quite common). However, and probably due to way too much cultural influence of US media (and tech) this general feeling changed a little bit more to the positive side (00s/2010s). But now that everything goes to shit, the feeling shifts again to more negative.
At least that's my nonscientific interpretation of the historical feeling in Germany since the 90s. But would love studies about it, in general.
>as a German because growing up in the 90s exorbitant wealth was not seen as inherently good
That perception didn't prevent anyone in Germany from amassing obscene wealth, often due to their political connections during and post WW2. They're just very discreet and hidden and don't flaunt it publicly.
What's needed to prevent wealth inequality is laws and enforcement, not relying on the perception of the masses since billionaires don't care what people think about them.
From 1993 to 2000 (with some attempts of later revivals) there was a TV game show in some German commercial television channel (RTL) named "Die 100.000 Mark Show" ("The 100.000 Mark Show" - (100.000 mark is a little bit more than 50.000 Euro using the conversion factor of 1.95583)) where the winners could win 100.00 mark.
This was the first game show in German TV that offered such a huge amount of prize money and was initially criticized for this.
In 1999, in Germany "Wer wird Millionär" (basically the German version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?") - initially with 1 million mark (2002 it was even changed to EUR 1 million) - started.
I can also remember that at this time the show was criticized for this large possible prize money, but got more accepted over time, in particular because the host of this show (Günther Jauch) was very popular (he was basically the reason why "Wer wird Millionär" was very popular in Germany, but many other similar quiz shows were not).
In 2000 another TV channel (Sat.1) made a heavily marketed experiment with "Die Chance deines Lebens" (The chance of your life)
where you could even win up to 10 million mark. While this was again criticized by the media, the show was a failure because it was too slow-paced, and nobody won the 10.000.000 mark in any of the broadcasted episodes (which would have caused media headlines and thus popularity).
On the other hand, from 2006 to 2015, there was a game show "Schlag den Raab" (Beat the Raab)
where you had to win against the (at that time very popular, but incredibly narcissistic) TV host Stefan Raab in a lot of games. There were also variants of this TV show in other countries, but only in the German version the winning sum was very large (at least EUR 500.000, with the money going into a jackpot if Stefan Raab won in the episode, so (see Wikipedia article) winning sums up to EUR 3.5 million were achieved).
Basically the fact that the winning sum was very large (in opposite to the versions in other countries), and the fact that this winning sum was "fair" because winning against the (very narcissistic) TV host Stefan Raab is a huge achievement (this was marketed very aggressively by Stefan Raab himself) made this show highly popular in Germany, but to my knowledge the versions in other countries were not popular. Relevant is here that because Stefan Raab was so controversial and narcissistic, most people who watched the show really wanted the candidate to win (and get the "deserved" money) - if only for the fact that this made Stefan Raab look stupid.
> Nowadays though it feels like the label has a negative tinge; not quite a bad thing, but not something that feels like a universal benefit either. This change probably tracks with the rise of populism.
I feel like it is specifically income disparity and like most things, the ever presence of information. When you're working as hard as you can just to scrape by paycheck to paycheck, you're often told it's just because everyone is hurting. That message is undercut however, by the ever presence of people who have more than they know what to do with amassing more and more without even trying.
Populism is rising precisely because the billionaires are fracking society any way they can to squeeze out as much cash as possible and move it offshore.
Because America values money above everything else.
Ask anyone outside America, and that is immediately clear to them.
Yet Americans are so imbued with the normalization of transactionality in all aspects of life that they can't really understand why it's not ok that the pursuit of happiness has become simply the pursuit of riches.
Want another example? Look at how y'all consider poverty as basically a personal bad choice.
But actually, it's because people have a limit on how many other people they can keep track of. Robin Dunbar, of Dunbar's number fame, suggested the limits were around 500 people as acquaintances and around 1,500 people whom you could recognize. Beyond that, other people may as well not exist.
When communication at a distance was hard and the world was more insular, the faces you'd recognize would be mostly of people in your community. Still, even within a community, you were going to take more interest in the local movers and shakers over the hobo on the street. Our modern, interconnected global village just scales that up. We still focus on the movers and shakers and ignore the hobos just the same. But now, instead of everyone in a community recognizing the same 600 locals, everyone in the world now recognizes the same 600 people.
Which is also how they become so rich. Need to buy a widget? You're not going to seek out a hobo to see if he has any in his beat up old shopping cart, are you? (well most won't, anyway) You're going to go to straight to the guy you already know. When communities were insular that meant some small number of people in the community were richer than the rest, but there was a pretty hard limit on how rich they could become when there were only so many local buyers. The difference now is, again, a matter of scale. When the entire world wants to buy from the same person, that hard limit becomes multiplied by a very large multiplier.
The AI boosters are sort of telling. Their bull case is that AGI/robotics could replace 100% of global GDP, which doesn't seem to register as a weird thing to want. Replace all labor on the planet and I'll be stinking rich!! That's an insane thing to want, regardless of whether it's even possible.
The second part of your first sentence is like a full-on universe that they haven't even started to consider, which invalidates the first part completely.
In America it seems the pursuit of happiness requires pursuit of riches. Just the fact that there is very little social safety net, people can go homeless due to medical bills, and the whole pull yourself up from your own bootstraps (because socialism and bailouts are only reserved for the wealthy and connected) —it seems obvious that valuing money becomes the main concern.
Without the money you can’t really live let along thrive or be happy without constant anxiety.
This reminds me of when Trump was obsessed with Kristen Stewart's and Robert Patterson's breakup and would post about it all the time, and also when Elon Musk got involved with #freeBritney and was obsessed with Britney Spears.
Like... why on earth are these grown men with very busy important jobs injecting themselves in these celebrity dramas, why are they tweeting about it, why do they think we care, and why is the media covering it!!
Like don't get me wrong sometimes I enjoy celebrity gossip (hurrah, Prince Andrew was stripped of his title and lost his tax-payer paid for house!), but I generally only comment about it to my partner and don't tweet about it, and also I am not President of the United States nor CEO of three companies. And if I was I would keep those things to myself and not interject to the world so they could all know my hot takes.
It is unsurprising that "grown men with very busy important jobs" are also amused by entertainment, consume it, and want to talk to others about it. For the simple reason that they are also humans, and humans like that kind of stuff.
Seems like overly long copium about nothing in particular. The author makes some assertions, like that elizabeth warren is a viable candidate or that the republican party will weaken in coming years due to demographic changes, or that shale gas is a bubble. But the way in which it is written reveals an insecurity that this may not be the case.
The author expresses frustration that the new york times has a variety of perspectives.
>It often seems as though the Democratic and Republican parties are unconsciously perceived as the wife and husband in a very, very traditional marriage, since the former is supposed to defer to and please the latter, and the latter is free to run roughshod over the former
I think the author may be a bit trapped by their habit of seeing everything along gender lines
It's not that all obvious to me. Where I live the richest don't get this kind of attention very much. People know they're the richest and all that but you don't see their opinions broadcasted on every social media and news outlet. On the contrary, they're mostly out of sight, out of mind!
Because they aren't buying newspapers. American rich people don't all have the common sense to just be rich and enjoy their opulent life discretely, they need to also insert themselves into the national dialogue.
The US has never had a situation where the rule of law collapsed, and mobs were actively trying to kill the elite. ("Elite" here meaning those with extreme amounts of money or social status.) In places like Europe, they remember things like that.
So if you're an elite there, you don't make waves or have a high profile, because you know from history that doing so can attract attention of a kind that you really don't want.
But in the US, that's not in your history. So, especially if you're rather narcissistic, you think of using your wealth to get attention.
> Think of being a billionaire as a rare disease, though far less rare than it was a few decades ago—except that it’s a disease that’s self-inflicted, deserves no sympathy, and is easily cured by dispersal of the huge bolus of money choking their empathic awareness.
I don't think people are a disease. I think of billionaires as people who mostly started businesses that were very successful. The fact that they started a successful business suggests they know something about the world that others don't (some insight). Millionaires can be lucky (happen to invest in Manhattan real estate or crypto) but to accumulate a billion is a different thing all together and a high signal that the person is extraordinary in some regard.
This line of thinking is why I think the tech industry has become so morally bankrupt.
I don’t mean to judge because I think many people come to similar conclusions but I believe there has been a concerted effort to equate accumulation of wealth with genius, and to portray this anti-social behavior of endlessly accumulating wealth in a positive light.
I really think this phenomenon should be studied because it will likely lead to some catastrophic outcomes for the country.
Where did I say genius? They did something impressive so a useful model is to say "they know something about this world" or "there is something unique about them".
Not sure what you're referring to as anti-social behavior, but yeah I imagine extreme wealth generation means the person is likely to have some personal characteristic that could manifest as anti social. The smartest people I know are all ADHD or some other abnormality.
How exhausting must it be to think that anyone with success got so through illicit means or luck. It's much healthier to come in with the assumption that there's something to learn from that person.
I think the crux of this is that wealth is equated with success at the expense of all other qualities or accomplishments.
As a result of this perspective, hoarding of wealth has become the norm and even the goal for many.
If wealth means success, then make number go up = success, even if that incentivizes bad behavior. If wealth means success, our role models become degenerates.
I am not making a moral judgement that wealth is success or should be pursued.
I am simply saying some people pursue wealth, like others pursue raising a family, excelling in a sport, starting a YouTube channel, whatever.
If they're successful at it, I assume they know something about the world.
Successful marriage and raising good kids: I assume you know something about psychology, the human condition, relationships
Sports: I assume you know something about training and hard work
YouTube: Marketing, trends, production
Starting a business and becoming a billionaire is another pursuit and if you're successful I assume you know something about the world. You're successful in the sense that you set out to start a business that made a lot of money and you succeeded. That is all.
I don't think pursuing one is greater than the other. I'm glad people in the world pursue all these things. Personally I don't want my children to try to become billionaires (or athletes, YT stars for that matter). If they have talents in this space, it may be worth pursuing but it's a great sacrifice in all other aspects of life. But chasing it without the talent or unique insight into the world would almost certainly fail.
> They did something impressive so a useful model is to say "they know something about this world" or "there is something unique about them".
It may be tempting to say "they must know something others don't" or "there's something unique about them." But that's exactly the kind of thinking GP is pushing back against. Whether or not you say "genius" or not is semantics. But it's true that in some cultures, being rich is seen as a sign of wisdom or superiority. I see it sometimes on HN and I've definitely seen in public discourse. But I can't relate very much to it.
This may be a cultural gap but where I come from, wealth doesn't carry that kind of moral weight. It's like, sure Alex might be super rich. But are they honest, humble, and kind? Those qualities matter far more than how much money and assets they have.
Yes, there are billionaires where I'm from too, but no one treats them as inherently special. What people truly admire are virtues like groundedness and community service. When someone uses their skills with sincerity and a spirit of giving, that's when people say, "there's something unique about them." And this is going to be true as much for a rich bloke as it'd be for a poor bloke. Wealth has nothing to do with it.
No one is talking about moral weight. You keep bringing morality into it.
A lot of people want a lot of money (for their family, personal or vanity purposes)
Some people accumulate a lot of wealth in their lifetime.
We can look to those people to gather insights as to how to accumulate wealth. We do that in literally every other field. People read about how Michael Felps or Lebron James trains, or how Magnus studies chess.
No one thinks James or Felps or Magnus are somehow morally superior, they're just good at their craft and work hard. If you want to get good at swimming, basketball or chess, it's worth considering insights they have into the craft. No one should treat any of these people special, but there is something unique about them and you can learn from people. That is all.
Some people have been indoctrinated into looking at others and feeling envy (cultural gap?) but don't be delusional into thinking its all random and there's nothing to learn.
I could agree with most of your comment except for this:
> Some people have been indoctrinated into looking at others and feeling envy (cultural gap?) but don't be delusional into thinking its all random and there's nothing to learn.
Envy is a natural human emotion. What do you feel envy about? Rhetorical question. Not expecting an answer unless you want to volunteer this information. I'm no psychologist nor a philosopher but I'd hazard a guess that whatever you feel envy about says something about what you or your culture thinks are desirable virtues.
It looks like you are somehow projecting your type of envy onto me and my culture. I don't think I've ever felt envy about someone being rich. Someone is super rich? Very good for them. I am not super rich but I earn well to live a comfortable life. Good for me too.
But I feel envy too when I meet someone who is an absolute gentleperson who is not only doing very well for their family but also for the community around them. I admire them. At the same time I feel envy.
Now, I'm not saying one envy is better than other. Not at all. I'm just saying cultural differences can be big and it's sometimes very hard to imagine or visualize each other's culture because our own culture seems so natural to us that the other culture seems unnatural.
So to your rhetorical:
> cultural gap?
Yes, absolutely!
> but don't be delusional into thinking its all random and there's nothing to learn.
Absolutely! A person who wants to become super-rich has a lot to learn from someone who is super-rich. I don't want to be super-rich. I want to be excellent in other virtues which I think were mostly indoctrinated by my culture. So I look up to people with those virtues and learn from them. That's kinda why we don't really look at a super-rich person and immediately think "there is something unique about them" (which is where this thread began above) even if it's true. But we do see a person with great community spirit and think "there is something unique about them".
Can you point to a billionaire who didn't achieve that fortune without some nefarious skullduggery going on? You don't earn a billion dollars, you take a billion dollars. They're all sociopaths.
It depends on from where, and while JK Rowling, Notch, Rhianna, Jim Simmons, and Taylor Swift's money isn't 100% absolutely clean, because that money comes from somewhere, they also aren't Saudi princes having people eat poop. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg might count. Dolly Parton isn't quite a billionaire in terms of dollars, but is proof that you don't have to be a shitbag to have a lot of money.
It's strange to me that you conclude that accumulating six zeros indicates luck, but accumulating nine zeros indicates skill. Why doesn't it indicate just more extraordinary luck?
Because great wealth is accumulated through a series of bets. Moderate wealth (6 zeros) could be single or few transactions.
For instance, you could have bought $1,000 worth of Bitcoin in 2010 much like people bet $1,000 on a sports game. You got lucky and became a millionaire.
To become a billionaire I guess you could have bought $100k on Bitcoin as a gamble but that requires much higher conviction and discipline. If you're the type of guy to gamble $100k on random crap you're likely not going to be rich for long.
But realistically people become billionaires by building businesses. And this requires a series of decisions. Picking the field, raising money, picking co-founders, hiring, product development, sales, etc.
In other words its like flipping a coin to determine if there is bias. One flip doesn't tell you anything. Multiple flips tells you more. And the more flips, the more confident you are on bias. Getting to a billion usually requires a huge number of decisions so that the outcome tells you a lot more about bias (in this case real skill or insight of the individual)
It seems like the key to your argument is having more money to gamble with, like would come from family money. Like if your father owned an emerald mine, or your parents gave you a quarter million to start a business, or you started a hedge fund with a million dollars raised from “family and friends.”
That argument makes sense if your question is what are the odds a specific person becomes a billionaire through sheer luck, but the real question is would a population of billions of people worldwide produce billionaires even if the process of becoming a billionaire involved randomly succeeding a number of times in a row.
The answer is yes for surprisingly unlikely outcomes for any particular individual. Using your coin flipping example, assume everyone in the US was flipping a coin a number of times in a row and the billionaire winners were those who got all heads. It would take ~20 coin flips per person to produce the actual number of American billionaires. Clearly the chance of any specific individual flipping a coin 20 times and getting heads all 20 times is ridiculously small, but there are a lot of people in the US and math is math. Should we ask what special qualities those all heads people possess? Allow them outsized influence in how our country runs and how we live our lives?
Alternatively, there are a lot of people out there. Flip enough coins and some will come up heads 10 times in a row. You don't need some special talent, you need to start with money and connections and hit the right number of coinflips.
You jump to political labels awfully fast, based on a mere two sentences.
> pretending not to understand things
I'm not pretending anything. I also don't think I'm misunderstanding here.
> thus making discourse impossible.
You replied to me, so apparently discourse is possible.
Let me add to the discourse: I think our fundamental difference is that you view massive wealth accumulation as success, whereas I view it as failure.
It's reasonable for any person to want material goods, e.g., food, clothing, shelter, even entertainment, as well as some measure of security. However, at some point, a normal person is satisfied with their personal wealth. If you're never satisfied, always need more, more, more without limit, that's a psychological problem, and possibly a social problem too.
You have a strong emotional connection to the idea that rich people are rich because they're strong and wise. All the arguments you're making in this thread are post hoc justifications for this belief, which simply isn't supported by reality.
Sure, that could be what results in billionaires. But I guess you would have to identify what opportunities you would have to take to become a billionaire that you don't take because it would be too mean.
What's the model here? I hear billionaires "exploit" people, but anyone that's ever had to manage people, especially low wage employees, quickly realizes you can't just treat people like crap. Not for moral reasons, but it doesn't work. People will just quit on you on the spot.
I've never heard any business owner espouse this theory because they're faced with the reality that building a business is hard and just being a dick doesn't work.
To me it only suggests they are sociopaths. The common folk should generally just understand that billionaires are inherently evil, and everything they say and want will cause harm to society as a whole.
It also suggests, typically, that they just inherited generatinal wealth from their sociopath ancestors.
I think there has actually been something of a cultural shift on this topic in the last ±decade or so. The word billionaire used to have more baked-in positive cultural energy, something laudable in-itself.
Nowadays though it feels like the label has a negative tinge; not quite a bad thing, but not something that feels like a universal benefit either. This change probably tracks with the rise of populism.
It's weird to me as a German because growing up in the 90s exorbitant wealth was not seen as inherently good, if i had to guesstimate the general feeling - it was generally seen as inherently a-little-bit-worse-than-neutral (the saying "Reichtum stinkt" - meaning rich people stink, was quite common). However, and probably due to way too much cultural influence of US media (and tech) this general feeling changed a little bit more to the positive side (00s/2010s). But now that everything goes to shit, the feeling shifts again to more negative.
At least that's my nonscientific interpretation of the historical feeling in Germany since the 90s. But would love studies about it, in general.
>as a German because growing up in the 90s exorbitant wealth was not seen as inherently good
That perception didn't prevent anyone in Germany from amassing obscene wealth, often due to their political connections during and post WW2. They're just very discreet and hidden and don't flaunt it publicly.
What's needed to prevent wealth inequality is laws and enforcement, not relying on the perception of the masses since billionaires don't care what people think about them.
> Reichtum stinkt
Funny, in Dutch we have "Rijke stinkerd" which means basically "stinking rich person".
Relevant concerning this topic:
From 1993 to 2000 (with some attempts of later revivals) there was a TV game show in some German commercial television channel (RTL) named "Die 100.000 Mark Show" ("The 100.000 Mark Show" - (100.000 mark is a little bit more than 50.000 Euro using the conversion factor of 1.95583)) where the winners could win 100.00 mark.
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_100.000_Mark_Show
This was the first game show in German TV that offered such a huge amount of prize money and was initially criticized for this.
In 1999, in Germany "Wer wird Millionär" (basically the German version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?") - initially with 1 million mark (2002 it was even changed to EUR 1 million) - started.
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wer_wird_Million%C3%A4r%3F
I can also remember that at this time the show was criticized for this large possible prize money, but got more accepted over time, in particular because the host of this show (Günther Jauch) was very popular (he was basically the reason why "Wer wird Millionär" was very popular in Germany, but many other similar quiz shows were not).
In 2000 another TV channel (Sat.1) made a heavily marketed experiment with "Die Chance deines Lebens" (The chance of your life)
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Chance_deines_Lebens
where you could even win up to 10 million mark. While this was again criticized by the media, the show was a failure because it was too slow-paced, and nobody won the 10.000.000 mark in any of the broadcasted episodes (which would have caused media headlines and thus popularity).
On the other hand, from 2006 to 2015, there was a game show "Schlag den Raab" (Beat the Raab)
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlag_den_Raab
where you had to win against the (at that time very popular, but incredibly narcissistic) TV host Stefan Raab in a lot of games. There were also variants of this TV show in other countries, but only in the German version the winning sum was very large (at least EUR 500.000, with the money going into a jackpot if Stefan Raab won in the episode, so (see Wikipedia article) winning sums up to EUR 3.5 million were achieved).
Basically the fact that the winning sum was very large (in opposite to the versions in other countries), and the fact that this winning sum was "fair" because winning against the (very narcissistic) TV host Stefan Raab is a huge achievement (this was marketed very aggressively by Stefan Raab himself) made this show highly popular in Germany, but to my knowledge the versions in other countries were not popular. Relevant is here that because Stefan Raab was so controversial and narcissistic, most people who watched the show really wanted the candidate to win (and get the "deserved" money) - if only for the fact that this made Stefan Raab look stupid.
> Nowadays though it feels like the label has a negative tinge; not quite a bad thing, but not something that feels like a universal benefit either. This change probably tracks with the rise of populism.
I feel like it is specifically income disparity and like most things, the ever presence of information. When you're working as hard as you can just to scrape by paycheck to paycheck, you're often told it's just because everyone is hurting. That message is undercut however, by the ever presence of people who have more than they know what to do with amassing more and more without even trying.
Populism is rising precisely because the billionaires are fracking society any way they can to squeeze out as much cash as possible and move it offshore.
I've noticed lots of protest signs with the word "Billionaires" on them. Also "King"...
Because America values money above everything else. Ask anyone outside America, and that is immediately clear to them. Yet Americans are so imbued with the normalization of transactionality in all aspects of life that they can't really understand why it's not ok that the pursuit of happiness has become simply the pursuit of riches. Want another example? Look at how y'all consider poverty as basically a personal bad choice.
But actually, it's because people have a limit on how many other people they can keep track of. Robin Dunbar, of Dunbar's number fame, suggested the limits were around 500 people as acquaintances and around 1,500 people whom you could recognize. Beyond that, other people may as well not exist.
When communication at a distance was hard and the world was more insular, the faces you'd recognize would be mostly of people in your community. Still, even within a community, you were going to take more interest in the local movers and shakers over the hobo on the street. Our modern, interconnected global village just scales that up. We still focus on the movers and shakers and ignore the hobos just the same. But now, instead of everyone in a community recognizing the same 600 locals, everyone in the world now recognizes the same 600 people.
Which is also how they become so rich. Need to buy a widget? You're not going to seek out a hobo to see if he has any in his beat up old shopping cart, are you? (well most won't, anyway) You're going to go to straight to the guy you already know. When communities were insular that meant some small number of people in the community were richer than the rest, but there was a pretty hard limit on how rich they could become when there were only so many local buyers. The difference now is, again, a matter of scale. When the entire world wants to buy from the same person, that hard limit becomes multiplied by a very large multiplier.
The AI boosters are sort of telling. Their bull case is that AGI/robotics could replace 100% of global GDP, which doesn't seem to register as a weird thing to want. Replace all labor on the planet and I'll be stinking rich!! That's an insane thing to want, regardless of whether it's even possible.
IMO it's a reasonable thing to want /alongside a massive and historic global reform package that redistributes the massive windfall it represents/.
Wanting to replace all human labor under our current political economy is just a thinly-veiled wish for mass suffering, chaos, and death.
The second part of your first sentence is like a full-on universe that they haven't even started to consider, which invalidates the first part completely.
In America it seems the pursuit of happiness requires pursuit of riches. Just the fact that there is very little social safety net, people can go homeless due to medical bills, and the whole pull yourself up from your own bootstraps (because socialism and bailouts are only reserved for the wealthy and connected) —it seems obvious that valuing money becomes the main concern.
Without the money you can’t really live let along thrive or be happy without constant anxiety.
I really agree with the overall gist of the article.
Too bad it's racist and sexist, when the main point is about massive financial inequality...
This reminds me of when Trump was obsessed with Kristen Stewart's and Robert Patterson's breakup and would post about it all the time, and also when Elon Musk got involved with #freeBritney and was obsessed with Britney Spears.
Like... why on earth are these grown men with very busy important jobs injecting themselves in these celebrity dramas, why are they tweeting about it, why do they think we care, and why is the media covering it!!
https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/comments/14wwff3/doe...
https://nypost.com/2021/07/05/elon-musk-tweets-free-britney-...
https://www.imdb.com/news/ni60689959/
cause they are neither grown men nor have busy and important jobs. I know cause I am and I got no time for that shit :)
Like don't get me wrong sometimes I enjoy celebrity gossip (hurrah, Prince Andrew was stripped of his title and lost his tax-payer paid for house!), but I generally only comment about it to my partner and don't tweet about it, and also I am not President of the United States nor CEO of three companies. And if I was I would keep those things to myself and not interject to the world so they could all know my hot takes.
But yet you have time to comment here? I suspect you are also neither as well. :p
ping me when you are a celebrity and I'll retract my statement ;)
Haha I never claimed I was at all busy, a grown man, or have an important job. I'd hate that!
It is unsurprising that "grown men with very busy important jobs" are also amused by entertainment, consume it, and want to talk to others about it. For the simple reason that they are also humans, and humans like that kind of stuff.
Seems like overly long copium about nothing in particular. The author makes some assertions, like that elizabeth warren is a viable candidate or that the republican party will weaken in coming years due to demographic changes, or that shale gas is a bubble. But the way in which it is written reveals an insecurity that this may not be the case.
The author expresses frustration that the new york times has a variety of perspectives.
>It often seems as though the Democratic and Republican parties are unconsciously perceived as the wife and husband in a very, very traditional marriage, since the former is supposed to defer to and please the latter, and the latter is free to run roughshod over the former
I think the author may be a bit trapped by their habit of seeing everything along gender lines
[flagged]
Isn’t that obvious? Money buys things including attention.
It's not that all obvious to me. Where I live the richest don't get this kind of attention very much. People know they're the richest and all that but you don't see their opinions broadcasted on every social media and news outlet. On the contrary, they're mostly out of sight, out of mind!
Because they aren't buying newspapers. American rich people don't all have the common sense to just be rich and enjoy their opulent life discretely, they need to also insert themselves into the national dialogue.
The US has never had a situation where the rule of law collapsed, and mobs were actively trying to kill the elite. ("Elite" here meaning those with extreme amounts of money or social status.) In places like Europe, they remember things like that.
So if you're an elite there, you don't make waves or have a high profile, because you know from history that doing so can attract attention of a kind that you really don't want.
But in the US, that's not in your history. So, especially if you're rather narcissistic, you think of using your wealth to get attention.
> Think of being a billionaire as a rare disease, though far less rare than it was a few decades ago—except that it’s a disease that’s self-inflicted, deserves no sympathy, and is easily cured by dispersal of the huge bolus of money choking their empathic awareness.
I don't think people are a disease. I think of billionaires as people who mostly started businesses that were very successful. The fact that they started a successful business suggests they know something about the world that others don't (some insight). Millionaires can be lucky (happen to invest in Manhattan real estate or crypto) but to accumulate a billion is a different thing all together and a high signal that the person is extraordinary in some regard.
This line of thinking is why I think the tech industry has become so morally bankrupt.
I don’t mean to judge because I think many people come to similar conclusions but I believe there has been a concerted effort to equate accumulation of wealth with genius, and to portray this anti-social behavior of endlessly accumulating wealth in a positive light.
I really think this phenomenon should be studied because it will likely lead to some catastrophic outcomes for the country.
> accumulation of wealth with genius
Where did I say genius? They did something impressive so a useful model is to say "they know something about this world" or "there is something unique about them".
Not sure what you're referring to as anti-social behavior, but yeah I imagine extreme wealth generation means the person is likely to have some personal characteristic that could manifest as anti social. The smartest people I know are all ADHD or some other abnormality.
How exhausting must it be to think that anyone with success got so through illicit means or luck. It's much healthier to come in with the assumption that there's something to learn from that person.
I think the crux of this is that wealth is equated with success at the expense of all other qualities or accomplishments.
As a result of this perspective, hoarding of wealth has become the norm and even the goal for many.
If wealth means success, then make number go up = success, even if that incentivizes bad behavior. If wealth means success, our role models become degenerates.
I am not making a moral judgement that wealth is success or should be pursued.
I am simply saying some people pursue wealth, like others pursue raising a family, excelling in a sport, starting a YouTube channel, whatever.
If they're successful at it, I assume they know something about the world.
Successful marriage and raising good kids: I assume you know something about psychology, the human condition, relationships
Sports: I assume you know something about training and hard work
YouTube: Marketing, trends, production
Starting a business and becoming a billionaire is another pursuit and if you're successful I assume you know something about the world. You're successful in the sense that you set out to start a business that made a lot of money and you succeeded. That is all.
I don't think pursuing one is greater than the other. I'm glad people in the world pursue all these things. Personally I don't want my children to try to become billionaires (or athletes, YT stars for that matter). If they have talents in this space, it may be worth pursuing but it's a great sacrifice in all other aspects of life. But chasing it without the talent or unique insight into the world would almost certainly fail.
> They did something impressive so a useful model is to say "they know something about this world" or "there is something unique about them".
It may be tempting to say "they must know something others don't" or "there's something unique about them." But that's exactly the kind of thinking GP is pushing back against. Whether or not you say "genius" or not is semantics. But it's true that in some cultures, being rich is seen as a sign of wisdom or superiority. I see it sometimes on HN and I've definitely seen in public discourse. But I can't relate very much to it.
This may be a cultural gap but where I come from, wealth doesn't carry that kind of moral weight. It's like, sure Alex might be super rich. But are they honest, humble, and kind? Those qualities matter far more than how much money and assets they have.
Yes, there are billionaires where I'm from too, but no one treats them as inherently special. What people truly admire are virtues like groundedness and community service. When someone uses their skills with sincerity and a spirit of giving, that's when people say, "there's something unique about them." And this is going to be true as much for a rich bloke as it'd be for a poor bloke. Wealth has nothing to do with it.
No one is talking about moral weight. You keep bringing morality into it.
A lot of people want a lot of money (for their family, personal or vanity purposes)
Some people accumulate a lot of wealth in their lifetime.
We can look to those people to gather insights as to how to accumulate wealth. We do that in literally every other field. People read about how Michael Felps or Lebron James trains, or how Magnus studies chess.
No one thinks James or Felps or Magnus are somehow morally superior, they're just good at their craft and work hard. If you want to get good at swimming, basketball or chess, it's worth considering insights they have into the craft. No one should treat any of these people special, but there is something unique about them and you can learn from people. That is all.
Some people have been indoctrinated into looking at others and feeling envy (cultural gap?) but don't be delusional into thinking its all random and there's nothing to learn.
I could agree with most of your comment except for this:
> Some people have been indoctrinated into looking at others and feeling envy (cultural gap?) but don't be delusional into thinking its all random and there's nothing to learn.
Envy is a natural human emotion. What do you feel envy about? Rhetorical question. Not expecting an answer unless you want to volunteer this information. I'm no psychologist nor a philosopher but I'd hazard a guess that whatever you feel envy about says something about what you or your culture thinks are desirable virtues.
It looks like you are somehow projecting your type of envy onto me and my culture. I don't think I've ever felt envy about someone being rich. Someone is super rich? Very good for them. I am not super rich but I earn well to live a comfortable life. Good for me too.
But I feel envy too when I meet someone who is an absolute gentleperson who is not only doing very well for their family but also for the community around them. I admire them. At the same time I feel envy.
Now, I'm not saying one envy is better than other. Not at all. I'm just saying cultural differences can be big and it's sometimes very hard to imagine or visualize each other's culture because our own culture seems so natural to us that the other culture seems unnatural.
So to your rhetorical:
> cultural gap?
Yes, absolutely!
> but don't be delusional into thinking its all random and there's nothing to learn.
Absolutely! A person who wants to become super-rich has a lot to learn from someone who is super-rich. I don't want to be super-rich. I want to be excellent in other virtues which I think were mostly indoctrinated by my culture. So I look up to people with those virtues and learn from them. That's kinda why we don't really look at a super-rich person and immediately think "there is something unique about them" (which is where this thread began above) even if it's true. But we do see a person with great community spirit and think "there is something unique about them".
Can you point to a billionaire who didn't achieve that fortune without some nefarious skullduggery going on? You don't earn a billion dollars, you take a billion dollars. They're all sociopaths.
It depends on from where, and while JK Rowling, Notch, Rhianna, Jim Simmons, and Taylor Swift's money isn't 100% absolutely clean, because that money comes from somewhere, they also aren't Saudi princes having people eat poop. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg might count. Dolly Parton isn't quite a billionaire in terms of dollars, but is proof that you don't have to be a shitbag to have a lot of money.
It's strange to me that you conclude that accumulating six zeros indicates luck, but accumulating nine zeros indicates skill. Why doesn't it indicate just more extraordinary luck?
Because great wealth is accumulated through a series of bets. Moderate wealth (6 zeros) could be single or few transactions.
For instance, you could have bought $1,000 worth of Bitcoin in 2010 much like people bet $1,000 on a sports game. You got lucky and became a millionaire.
To become a billionaire I guess you could have bought $100k on Bitcoin as a gamble but that requires much higher conviction and discipline. If you're the type of guy to gamble $100k on random crap you're likely not going to be rich for long.
But realistically people become billionaires by building businesses. And this requires a series of decisions. Picking the field, raising money, picking co-founders, hiring, product development, sales, etc.
In other words its like flipping a coin to determine if there is bias. One flip doesn't tell you anything. Multiple flips tells you more. And the more flips, the more confident you are on bias. Getting to a billion usually requires a huge number of decisions so that the outcome tells you a lot more about bias (in this case real skill or insight of the individual)
It seems like the key to your argument is having more money to gamble with, like would come from family money. Like if your father owned an emerald mine, or your parents gave you a quarter million to start a business, or you started a hedge fund with a million dollars raised from “family and friends.”
That argument makes sense if your question is what are the odds a specific person becomes a billionaire through sheer luck, but the real question is would a population of billions of people worldwide produce billionaires even if the process of becoming a billionaire involved randomly succeeding a number of times in a row.
The answer is yes for surprisingly unlikely outcomes for any particular individual. Using your coin flipping example, assume everyone in the US was flipping a coin a number of times in a row and the billionaire winners were those who got all heads. It would take ~20 coin flips per person to produce the actual number of American billionaires. Clearly the chance of any specific individual flipping a coin 20 times and getting heads all 20 times is ridiculously small, but there are a lot of people in the US and math is math. Should we ask what special qualities those all heads people possess? Allow them outsized influence in how our country runs and how we live our lives?
Alternatively, there are a lot of people out there. Flip enough coins and some will come up heads 10 times in a row. You don't need some special talent, you need to start with money and connections and hit the right number of coinflips.
Yeah, extraordinarily bad. You dont make a billion dollars by being nice, you have to step on alot of throaths to gain that kind of wealth.
You can step on a lot of throats without accumulating much at all, but in that case you’d make for a much lower profile target.
Factually wrong: https://www.datapulse.de/en/billionaire-self-made/
Also, fundamental attribution error is a thing, and survivorship bias, too.
Of course people are not diseases, what they do is, and is making things worse for all of us.
> > Think of being a billionaire as a rare disease
> I don't think people are a disease.
"Being a billionaire" isn't a person, it's a transient state of being. If you have a cold, you have a disease, you aren't a disease.
Imagine looking at the fattest people in the world and thinking, they must know something about food that others don't. Extraordinary.
Everyone else knows that gluttony is bad, not good.
[flagged]
Purely here to point out that you stole this word for word from a tweet.
Correct, it's a meme.
I wasn't aware, because I'm not on Twitter/X, but yep: https://x.com/MillennialWoes/status/1893134391322308918
> leftist discourse
You jump to political labels awfully fast, based on a mere two sentences.
> pretending not to understand things
I'm not pretending anything. I also don't think I'm misunderstanding here.
> thus making discourse impossible.
You replied to me, so apparently discourse is possible.
Let me add to the discourse: I think our fundamental difference is that you view massive wealth accumulation as success, whereas I view it as failure.
It's reasonable for any person to want material goods, e.g., food, clothing, shelter, even entertainment, as well as some measure of security. However, at some point, a normal person is satisfied with their personal wealth. If you're never satisfied, always need more, more, more without limit, that's a psychological problem, and possibly a social problem too.
"If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."
You have a strong emotional connection to the idea that rich people are rich because they're strong and wise. All the arguments you're making in this thread are post hoc justifications for this belief, which simply isn't supported by reality.
Some of them are wealthy because they are the best at playing the wealth game (and got lucky along the way).
Why does everyone care about Cristiano Ronaldo? Being the best at kicking a ball is the stupidest skill there is (IMHO).
at least becoming wealthy is a game that correlates with skills I care about.
I hate to break it to you, but Cristiano Ronaldo is a billionaire.
Note that it’s quite possible that the extraordinary thing is acute psychopathy and/or sociopathy to gather wealth at any cost.
Sure, that could be what results in billionaires. But I guess you would have to identify what opportunities you would have to take to become a billionaire that you don't take because it would be too mean.
What's the model here? I hear billionaires "exploit" people, but anyone that's ever had to manage people, especially low wage employees, quickly realizes you can't just treat people like crap. Not for moral reasons, but it doesn't work. People will just quit on you on the spot.
I've never heard any business owner espouse this theory because they're faced with the reality that building a business is hard and just being a dick doesn't work.
So no business exploits workers to a significant degree? I find this hard to believe.
[dead]
To me it only suggests they are sociopaths. The common folk should generally just understand that billionaires are inherently evil, and everything they say and want will cause harm to society as a whole.
It also suggests, typically, that they just inherited generatinal wealth from their sociopath ancestors.