4 ms·

I meant more valuable in the sense that these people who are not doing their part in improving society seem more valuable (read, make more money) than people wh

I meant more valuable in the sense that these people who are not doing their part in improving society seem more valuable (read, make more money) than people who do. How do you raise your kid not to cheat or lie OR ELSE he will live a life of leisure. How can these people not be stripped of their assets and left to rot in a vulgar jail ? Why are we rewarding these destructive behaviour ? I've read a lot of these post mortem articles. They all feel like the author wished he was Neuman, wished he got away with the millions. I am a software engineer, have been for 20 years, I always felt I was contributing to society. I've build things that make people's life easier (in exchange for teaching my kids, baking my bread or treating me when I'm sick). These predatory people do not bring anything to the table but are regarded as gods.

timwaagh 7y ago
I'm pretty sure all of them worked pretty hard their entire lives. The possible exception being Neumann, who is just a lucky guy really. But yeah programming ain't glamorous. Get into some other profession if you have what it takes. it could be worse. You could be baking bread in one of those cold baker facilities, getting up at midnight for half the money you make now.
javajosh 7y ago
>How do you raise your kid not to cheat or lie OR ELSE he will live a life of leisure? An interesting problem. The answer is partly that there is more to life than money - and as another poster mentioned, there's really not much leisure involved. The cheaters legitimately work very hard! Essentially, I think the Gervais principle [1] is largely true. And therefore it's fine, and from a spiritual perspective, strictly better, to be a loser. (And I don't think there's any harm in trying to find an exception to the principle - tilting at the windmill of an honestly made fortune!) https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
- jeromekampot 7y ago
  There is more to life than money for people who already have enough money. For the billion others, no. And let's be clear, these millions did not get created out of thin air. They are the product of the real work of real people. And no, bullshitting your way for a mere 5 (?) years of your working life cannot be compared to the 40+ years of work of anyone else. And no, putting a name on a principle does not make it common sense. But yes, making a small fortune from your hard work and genius is totally acceptable. Fair and square
  - javajosh 7y ago
    I'm a bit confused, and a little saddened, by your tone. Not to mention content (creating out of thin air? working for only 5 years? Gervais principle is common sense?). It's like you're responding to a different comment!
  - vjktyu 7y ago
    But they are created of thin air. Govs print more money to keep up with population and productivity growth. How these new money are distributed is a different question. The only thing that makes these money worth anything is a general consensus to accept them for some real work. And that consensus is driven by the desire to own things which is fueled up by the media. If everybody chooses to become a monk, these billions won't be worth anything. Overall, riding this wave of human greed isn't a bad thing: all these things around us, built by capitalism, allow us to have at least a few hours of free time per day. Before that people had to work 5am - 11pm to grow and hunt food.
- vjktyu 7y ago
  +1 for the Gervais principle. It's a short book that makes you depressed for a week, but also makes it very clear why our societies work this way. The book doesn't say anything new, but it explains with examples a few simple facts about us. However, the Gervais principle book is a very shallow version of lamrim that aims at explaining how the real world works. It also puts people into 3 categories: the clueless majority driven by forces, the small minority that's trying to escape these forces and the those who've largely escaped them and are now free. The sociopaths from the gervais principle are on the right track in general, but they make a common mistake on this path that lamrim discussed at length and so they slide into the nihilism dead end.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    > However, the Gervais principle book is a very shallow version of lamrim that aims at explaining how the real world works. It also puts people into 3 categories: the clueless majority driven by forces, the small minority that's trying to escape these forces and the those who've largely escaped them and are now free. The sociopaths from the gervais principle are on the right track in general, but they make a common mistake on this path that lamrim discussed at length and so they slide into the nihilism dead end. Bingo. That's also the best explanation of the concept I've seen. It's a good read, in an entertainment sense, and there are some lesson to be gleaned -- but the same is true with the Bible, the Koran, or the Rig Vedas.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
Because plausible deniability. It is obviously difficult to create a legal system that could prosecute any of the executives. It’s obvious that all of the well seasoned executives were hoping to pawn this off into a bigger fool, but can you prove it in court? And should that even be illegal? All that happened was a bunch of rich people paid for a guy to live like a king. They certainly suffered financial losses, even though they may still be rich. A bunch of rich people lost money gambling on a guy. Laws requiring transparency before access to public markets brought it to down to earth. It seems to me like the system worked well.
- jeromekampot 7y ago
  This would make sense if it was a closed circuit. But these millions only exist because of the real work of others who created the added value. They did not come out of thin air
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > It’s obvious that all of the well seasoned executives were hoping to pawn this off into a bigger fool, but can you prove it in court? The 'wealthy people' involved could sue in civil court and win based on a "clear and convincing" evidence standard and a proven pattern of bad behavior. You'd imagine it'd be worth a try. It would also be a reputational matter for the institutional investors who put money in the venture - sue so that people are unambiguously deterred from trying stuff like that in the future.
- jrjarrett 7y ago
  Not entirely. What about the employees of WeWork? They lose their jobs because "a bunch of rich people paid for a guy to live like a king." They lose their homes, access to health insurance, the ability to retire someday. There's a big difference between some billionaire losing some rounding errors and someone trying to provide for their family.

timwaagh 7y ago

I'm pretty sure all of them worked pretty hard their entire lives. The possible exception being Neumann, who is just a lucky guy really. But yeah programming ain't glamorous. Get into some other profession if you have what it takes. it could be worse. You could be baking bread in one of those cold baker facilities, getting up at midnight for half the money you make now.

javajosh 7y ago

>How do you raise your kid not to cheat or lie OR ELSE he will live a life of leisure? An interesting problem. The answer is partly that there is more to life than money - and as another poster mentioned, there's really not much leisure involved. The cheaters legitimately work very hard! Essentially, I think the Gervais principle [1] is largely true. And therefore it's fine, and from a spiritual perspective, strictly better, to be a loser. (And I don't think there's any harm in trying to find an exception to the principle - tilting at the windmill of an honestly made fortune!) https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

jeromekampot 7y ago
There is more to life than money for people who already have enough money. For the billion others, no. And let's be clear, these millions did not get created out of thin air. They are the product of the real work of real people. And no, bullshitting your way for a mere 5 (?) years of your working life cannot be compared to the 40+ years of work of anyone else. And no, putting a name on a principle does not make it common sense. But yes, making a small fortune from your hard work and genius is totally acceptable. Fair and square
- javajosh 7y ago
  I'm a bit confused, and a little saddened, by your tone. Not to mention content (creating out of thin air? working for only 5 years? Gervais principle is common sense?). It's like you're responding to a different comment!
- vjktyu 7y ago
  But they are created of thin air. Govs print more money to keep up with population and productivity growth. How these new money are distributed is a different question. The only thing that makes these money worth anything is a general consensus to accept them for some real work. And that consensus is driven by the desire to own things which is fueled up by the media. If everybody chooses to become a monk, these billions won't be worth anything. Overall, riding this wave of human greed isn't a bad thing: all these things around us, built by capitalism, allow us to have at least a few hours of free time per day. Before that people had to work 5am - 11pm to grow and hunt food.
vjktyu 7y ago
+1 for the Gervais principle. It's a short book that makes you depressed for a week, but also makes it very clear why our societies work this way. The book doesn't say anything new, but it explains with examples a few simple facts about us. However, the Gervais principle book is a very shallow version of lamrim that aims at explaining how the real world works. It also puts people into 3 categories: the clueless majority driven by forces, the small minority that's trying to escape these forces and the those who've largely escaped them and are now free. The sociopaths from the gervais principle are on the right track in general, but they make a common mistake on this path that lamrim discussed at length and so they slide into the nihilism dead end.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  > However, the Gervais principle book is a very shallow version of lamrim that aims at explaining how the real world works. It also puts people into 3 categories: the clueless majority driven by forces, the small minority that's trying to escape these forces and the those who've largely escaped them and are now free. The sociopaths from the gervais principle are on the right track in general, but they make a common mistake on this path that lamrim discussed at length and so they slide into the nihilism dead end. Bingo. That's also the best explanation of the concept I've seen. It's a good read, in an entertainment sense, and there are some lesson to be gleaned -- but the same is true with the Bible, the Koran, or the Rig Vedas.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Because plausible deniability. It is obviously difficult to create a legal system that could prosecute any of the executives. It’s obvious that all of the well seasoned executives were hoping to pawn this off into a bigger fool, but can you prove it in court? And should that even be illegal? All that happened was a bunch of rich people paid for a guy to live like a king. They certainly suffered financial losses, even though they may still be rich. A bunch of rich people lost money gambling on a guy. Laws requiring transparency before access to public markets brought it to down to earth. It seems to me like the system worked well.

jeromekampot 7y ago
This would make sense if it was a closed circuit. But these millions only exist because of the real work of others who created the added value. They did not come out of thin air
zozbot234 7y ago
> It’s obvious that all of the well seasoned executives were hoping to pawn this off into a bigger fool, but can you prove it in court? The 'wealthy people' involved could sue in civil court and win based on a "clear and convincing" evidence standard and a proven pattern of bad behavior. You'd imagine it'd be worth a try. It would also be a reputational matter for the institutional investors who put money in the venture - sue so that people are unambiguously deterred from trying stuff like that in the future.
jrjarrett 7y ago
Not entirely. What about the employees of WeWork? They lose their jobs because "a bunch of rich people paid for a guy to live like a king." They lose their homes, access to health insurance, the ability to retire someday. There's a big difference between some billionaire losing some rounding errors and someone trying to provide for their family.