Marcus Aurelius is a funny guy. A caesar "teaching" people to be humble, stoic and productive ... but of course that sounds really thin coming from literally th

Marcus Aurelius is a funny guy. A caesar "teaching" people to be humble, stoic and productive ... but of course that sounds really thin coming from literally the richest guy of his time on the planet. Granted, he certainly was one of the better and more capable emperors of the Roman Empire (given the list of screwups, that's not as high praise as you might think), but way he found power and richess certainly had less to do with productivity, humbleness and stoic behavior, and rather more with his family's accomplishments. Also he is famous for his hobbies, whilst he was no disaster, he certainly was no Julius Caesar either. On occasion that leaks through in his writings. For instance he is usually far more concerned with "explaining" a slave's fate than with doing anything about it. Why is anyone a slave because of Marcus Aurelius ? Well, it's their own fault. They are the slave of their emotions, they drink and dance and don't think of tomorrow (slaves in Rome, especially the more skilled ones were treated very well. It is muslims that gave a bad name to the term slavery (although some Roman provinces contributed as well). In the Roman Empire, around Rome itself, it was not that different from being an employee. Sure there were bad jobs, and allowing employers to trade employees was horrifyingly bad for the power relationship, but if you compare to poor-rich relationships elsewhere in the same time, Rome comes out far ahead). Marcus Aurelius sounds about as fair and balanced as the American Enterprise Institute explaining why there are so many poor. It seems to boil down to not being entrepreneurial enough. Never mind the obvious fact that being an entrepreneur is only common in the top 0.1% (and there, only in name, I've yet to see examples of companies started by the 0.1% that really introduced a new product. Somebody who takes over part of a bank into an independant company is not an entrepreneur in my opinion). In the bottom 50% being an entrepreneur, an independent businessman is actually far more common than in the top-50%, mostly out of necessity. I doubt any explanation for this will be forthcoming from our libertarian think tanks. But Marcus' opinion of others is similar : if they aren't successful, that must be their own doing. If you didn't own half the farms around Rome, apparently it was because you drink too much (never mind that the Roman rich, not the poor are absolutely famous for just how elaborate their debauchery became).