3 ms·

Why should I think this man has special insight into the state of the world? He is quite rich, that is true. But if anything, by definition that means he is dee

Why should I think this man has special insight into the state of the world? He is quite rich, that is true. But if anything, by definition that means he is deeply out of touch with the needs, desires, and problems of the vast majority of the people on this planet.

whatshisface 6y ago
Taking your comment at absolute face value, this essay is about technological progress, not the needs desires or problems of anybody.
- sigmar 6y ago
  It isn't an essay. It is a collection of quotes grouped by topic.
- kennywinker 6y ago
  "progress" has a few definitions. It can mean simply "forward motion", in which case you are right. Or it can mean what I usually take it to mean: "gradual betterment" - unless you're a shark, what's the point of moving forward if not to improve. How can you improve if you don't understand what "better" is?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
To play devil's advocate: for capitalists to remain capitalists, they must successfully allocate capital, which requires a knowledge of the "needs, desired, and problems" of the consumer class. And the stock market is a mechanism for transferring capital from inefficient allocators to efficient ones. That's the theory, anyway. In practice many capitalists accumulate capital in ways that are unfair and uncompetitive.
- kennywinker 6y ago
  > which requires a knowledge of the "needs, desired, and problems" of the consumer class > In practice many capitalists accumulate capital in ways that are unfair and uncompetitive. I don't think this is the right binary. It's not a choice between "better allocation" or "unfair". In my lifetime I've seen capitalism reward exploitation, cruelty, and abuse, without having some unfair/noncompetitive advantage. Walmart pays domestic employees a non-living wage, and exploits weak labor and environmental laws and "free trade" to produce goods at lower prices, and uses weaknesses in the political system ($$$) to avoid paying taxes. That's pure capitalism working as intended, not dirty trickery.
read_if_gay_ 6y ago
Because he’s self made. He got rich precisely by being in touch with the needs, desires, and problems of people. And also by being successful at investing, which also requires ability to read trends etc. Would you also argue Warren Buffet (literally nicknamed oracle of Omaha) has no special insight because he’s rich?
- kennywinker 6y ago
  Being a good gambler does not make you a good person. Warren Buffet has insight on what it's like to be rich, and insights on how to win at capitalism. That does not qualify him to speak about progress in general. Peter Thiel may be good at reading what trends will make him money, but I don't believe that makes him qualified to say what would make the world better (i.e. progress).
  - 1996 6y ago
    If you agree with the premise that people will spend money for what will make them better off instead of worse (following their own judgements criteria, which can't be dismissed, as flawed as they may be, this is the principle behind democracy), then getting rich by winning at capitalism means this person aggregated the population preferences better than other persons. This means they became rich as a consequence of everyone being made better off. So I would personally value their insights. For example, I may not believe that having pizzas or french fries delivered still fresh and hot to my home by having them cooked inside a car means "progress", but if enough people are ready to pay for that, it is progress. We are all better off based on the majority opinion. Reality is the ultimate judge. What makes people better off will earn money, freely given away by these people ("Shut up and take my money!")
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      > This means they became rich as a consequence of everyone being made better off. So I would personally value their insights. This is, frankly, libertarian bullshit. Many capitalists have gotten rich off of making weapons, enslaving others, exploiting loopholes in the legal system, or generally rent collecting. The examples are too many to list but IBM in Nazi Germany and Enron come to mind. It's a grave error in judgement to confuse wealth with knowledge, wisdom, or ethics.
notJim 6y ago
> Why should I think this man has special insight into the state of the world? You shouldn't, you should read it for yourself and make up your own mind. If a lot of people say something is interesting or good, it's probably worth at least having a look. My conclusion from skimming it is that it's fairly interesting, although I disagree with most of his conclusions.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  Which conclusions do you disagree with?

whatshisface 6y ago

Taking your comment at absolute face value, this essay is about technological progress, not the needs desires or problems of anybody.

sigmar 6y ago
It isn't an essay. It is a collection of quotes grouped by topic.
kennywinker 6y ago
"progress" has a few definitions. It can mean simply "forward motion", in which case you are right. Or it can mean what I usually take it to mean: "gradual betterment" - unless you're a shark, what's the point of moving forward if not to improve. How can you improve if you don't understand what "better" is?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

SpaceRaccoon 6y ago

To play devil's advocate: for capitalists to remain capitalists, they must successfully allocate capital, which requires a knowledge of the "needs, desired, and problems" of the consumer class. And the stock market is a mechanism for transferring capital from inefficient allocators to efficient ones. That's the theory, anyway. In practice many capitalists accumulate capital in ways that are unfair and uncompetitive.

kennywinker 6y ago
> which requires a knowledge of the "needs, desired, and problems" of the consumer class > In practice many capitalists accumulate capital in ways that are unfair and uncompetitive. I don't think this is the right binary. It's not a choice between "better allocation" or "unfair". In my lifetime I've seen capitalism reward exploitation, cruelty, and abuse, without having some unfair/noncompetitive advantage. Walmart pays domestic employees a non-living wage, and exploits weak labor and environmental laws and "free trade" to produce goods at lower prices, and uses weaknesses in the political system ($$$) to avoid paying taxes. That's pure capitalism working as intended, not dirty trickery.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago

Because he’s self made. He got rich precisely by being in touch with the needs, desires, and problems of people. And also by being successful at investing, which also requires ability to read trends etc. Would you also argue Warren Buffet (literally nicknamed oracle of Omaha) has no special insight because he’s rich?

kennywinker 6y ago
Being a good gambler does not make you a good person. Warren Buffet has insight on what it's like to be rich, and insights on how to win at capitalism. That does not qualify him to speak about progress in general. Peter Thiel may be good at reading what trends will make him money, but I don't believe that makes him qualified to say what would make the world better (i.e. progress).
- 1996 6y ago
  If you agree with the premise that people will spend money for what will make them better off instead of worse (following their own judgements criteria, which can't be dismissed, as flawed as they may be, this is the principle behind democracy), then getting rich by winning at capitalism means this person aggregated the population preferences better than other persons. This means they became rich as a consequence of everyone being made better off. So I would personally value their insights. For example, I may not believe that having pizzas or french fries delivered still fresh and hot to my home by having them cooked inside a car means "progress", but if enough people are ready to pay for that, it is progress. We are all better off based on the majority opinion. Reality is the ultimate judge. What makes people better off will earn money, freely given away by these people ("Shut up and take my money!")
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    > This means they became rich as a consequence of everyone being made better off. So I would personally value their insights. This is, frankly, libertarian bullshit. Many capitalists have gotten rich off of making weapons, enslaving others, exploiting loopholes in the legal system, or generally rent collecting. The examples are too many to list but IBM in Nazi Germany and Enron come to mind. It's a grave error in judgement to confuse wealth with knowledge, wisdom, or ethics.

notJim 6y ago

> Why should I think this man has special insight into the state of the world? You shouldn't, you should read it for yourself and make up your own mind. If a lot of people say something is interesting or good, it's probably worth at least having a look. My conclusion from skimming it is that it's fairly interesting, although I disagree with most of his conclusions.

ZephyrBlu 6y ago
Which conclusions do you disagree with?