4 ms·

Society would be better off glorifying entrepreneurs than instagram celebrities. Also most founders do not get a multi-hundred X income multiplier. Instead the

Society would be better off glorifying entrepreneurs than instagram celebrities. Also most founders do not get a multi-hundred X income multiplier. Instead they fail and often go into debt. Yes there are some outsized winners, but the vast majority don’t. That’s why we should be elevating those individuals to promote a culture of risk-taking.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Instagram celebrities are just entrepreneurs of fame. Many have made entire fortunes by monetizing social media exposure.
- andreilys 5y ago
  Sure and I’d rather society glorify those who decide to start things - mom & pop shops, new products, services, etc. than someone who takes photos of themselves to create an online persona that they go on to monetize.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    There's often a thin line. A lot of these influencers end up peddling products or services of their own- after achieving fame, it's best to diversify one's business. And the online persona do at the very least provide a service to the public: entertainment.
triceratops 5y ago
Hey now, those Instagram celebrities are "influencers". They're entrepreneurs too. I don't think either is particularly worthy of "glorification". I'd reserve glory purely for people who help other people without much monetary reward.
- andreilys 5y ago
  So someone like Henry Ford who helped popularize cars gets no glory, but someone who dedicates their life to running an orphanage for free does? Sure the latter is important, and we should talk about them too. But civilization progresses due to risk-takers like Ford who spot an opportunity and dogmatically pursue it.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > So someone like Henry Ford who helped popularize cars gets no glory, but someone who dedicates their life to running an orphanage for free does? Yeah that sounds about right to me. Ford got a ton of money, what's he need glory on top of that for?
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Because we don’t need to glorify pursuits that aren’t advancing society. I’d rather we had another newly minted billionaire employing 60k people with middle class jobs than one more man who helps old ladies cross the street for free.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        It's clear we have very different ideas about what "advancing society" is. I tend to think that people like MLK are the ones that advance society. The man helping old ladies cross the street is advancing society. Successful businesses advance the economy. A billionaire who employs 60k people hasn't done anything altruistic. It's a business, not a charity. The skills and time of those 60k people made the billionaire a billionaire. Why would I laud either side in a fair exchange? I might praise the skill and foresight of the billionaire. I might praise the skill and hard work of the workers. But neither is "advancing society". They're pursuing their own interests.
        kortilla 5y ago
        Because just keeping the economy going is advancing society. It’s the base that keeps all of the researchers fed, clothed, warmed, etc. Anyone contributing to keeping that functioning is critical. The only people who don’t care about the economy are ones who haven’t lived through a truly bad one. It’s not some thing that just happens in a vacuum to make people rich. It’s what drives 99% of the production of all goods and services in the US. The endowments for all of our top research universities depend on the economy, etc etc. You call it “just a business transaction”, but employing 60k people with good paying jobs in a financially sustainable way is incredible because it means they are producing more than the value of all of those salaries to the wider society. Producing a surplus is how we advance. You can argue that some businesses are leeches because externalities or whatever, but that can be fixed with taxation. When it comes down to it we need to operate at break even or a surplus as a society or we are fucked.
Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago
> Society would be better off glorifying entrepreneurs than instagram celebrities. How about that happens after they retire at 80? That would be a good balance. You glorify an entrepreneur and soon enough he'd be pushing BS vaporware products or using his cult of personality to raise endless equity at absurd valuation or outright scamming the government (Musk cough cough...conman cough cough)

Apocryphon 5y ago

Instagram celebrities are just entrepreneurs of fame. Many have made entire fortunes by monetizing social media exposure.

andreilys 5y ago
Sure and I’d rather society glorify those who decide to start things - mom & pop shops, new products, services, etc. than someone who takes photos of themselves to create an online persona that they go on to monetize.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  There's often a thin line. A lot of these influencers end up peddling products or services of their own- after achieving fame, it's best to diversify one's business. And the online persona do at the very least provide a service to the public: entertainment.

triceratops 5y ago

Hey now, those Instagram celebrities are "influencers". They're entrepreneurs too. I don't think either is particularly worthy of "glorification". I'd reserve glory purely for people who help other people without much monetary reward.

andreilys 5y ago
So someone like Henry Ford who helped popularize cars gets no glory, but someone who dedicates their life to running an orphanage for free does? Sure the latter is important, and we should talk about them too. But civilization progresses due to risk-takers like Ford who spot an opportunity and dogmatically pursue it.
- triceratops 5y ago
  > So someone like Henry Ford who helped popularize cars gets no glory, but someone who dedicates their life to running an orphanage for free does? Yeah that sounds about right to me. Ford got a ton of money, what's he need glory on top of that for?
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Because we don’t need to glorify pursuits that aren’t advancing society. I’d rather we had another newly minted billionaire employing 60k people with middle class jobs than one more man who helps old ladies cross the street for free.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      It's clear we have very different ideas about what "advancing society" is. I tend to think that people like MLK are the ones that advance society. The man helping old ladies cross the street is advancing society. Successful businesses advance the economy. A billionaire who employs 60k people hasn't done anything altruistic. It's a business, not a charity. The skills and time of those 60k people made the billionaire a billionaire. Why would I laud either side in a fair exchange? I might praise the skill and foresight of the billionaire. I might praise the skill and hard work of the workers. But neither is "advancing society". They're pursuing their own interests.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        Because just keeping the economy going is advancing society. It’s the base that keeps all of the researchers fed, clothed, warmed, etc. Anyone contributing to keeping that functioning is critical. The only people who don’t care about the economy are ones who haven’t lived through a truly bad one. It’s not some thing that just happens in a vacuum to make people rich. It’s what drives 99% of the production of all goods and services in the US. The endowments for all of our top research universities depend on the economy, etc etc. You call it “just a business transaction”, but employing 60k people with good paying jobs in a financially sustainable way is incredible because it means they are producing more than the value of all of those salaries to the wider society. Producing a surplus is how we advance. You can argue that some businesses are leeches because externalities or whatever, but that can be fixed with taxation. When it comes down to it we need to operate at break even or a surplus as a society or we are fucked.

Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago

> Society would be better off glorifying entrepreneurs than instagram celebrities. How about that happens after they retire at 80? That would be a good balance. You glorify an entrepreneur and soon enough he'd be pushing BS vaporware products or using his cult of personality to raise endless equity at absurd valuation or outright scamming the government (Musk cough cough...conman cough cough)