3 ms·

> I don't see how anyone can read about these crypto projects and see anything other than an extremely elaborate scam. My theory is that we live in a society t

by danans 5y ago

> I don't see how anyone can read about these crypto projects and see anything other than an extremely elaborate scam. My theory is that we live in a society that has long glamorized the get-rich-quick scheme (until it is revealed as a scam), and there a lot of people who have seen other people getting rich through technology investments (as opposed to technology work), and they don't want to "miss the boat" this time.

canadaduane 5y ago
I wonder what would happen if we (as a society) took each case of got-rich-through-a-get-rich-quick-scheme and analyzed it like we do post-mortems--with "the social contract failed here, what went wrong?" kind of twist. No one's to blame. We just want it to be more effective and productive for everyone next time.
nikanj 5y ago
We go further than that: we glamorize the get-rich-quick schemes even after they're revealed as scams. The scammers get to keep their money, and launch successful careers as motivational speakers / authors (of books detailing their crimes) / etc. The Wolf of Wall Street was widely admired even though he was a criminal.
- danans 5y ago
  Yeah, I think of it as the "what can you get away with" mentality, and it feels like it's gotten more pervasive.
LordDragonfang 5y ago
I mean, that kind of gets at the fundamental conceit of Marxist critiques of capitalism, doesn't it? That there are two classes of individual, an upper class of those who primarily get their income by owning assets and not doing work (the titular capitalists) and an underclass of those get their income for doing actual work (the proletariat). Everyone is incentivized to join to the upper class by easiest and most accessible means possible, and get-rich-quick schemes are the natural endpoint of that incentive.
- danans 5y ago
  > that kind of gets at the fundamental conceit of Marxist critiques of capitalism, Sure, Marx's critiques have stood the test of time pretty well. > Everyone is incentivized to join to the upper class by easiest and most accessible means possible, and get-rich-quick schemes are the natural endpoint of that incentive. I agree, but there is generally a inverse correlation between easy/accessible and real/successful. Sure, some people got a truly easy path to "rich" (massive inheritance, lucky bet on the right stock, seizing previously state-owned industries because of your connections), but they are statistically rare. So I'd argue that by the time we get to the get-rich scam scenario, very fewer are entering the upper class (or even the middle class) via these schemes. Also, by "rich" here I don't mean "comfortable and able to pay the mortgage, an annual vacation, etc", but rather the more contemporary definition of "F-you money".
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    Oh, agreed upon on all points. I should have emphasized that I meant the attractiveness of those methods is based on whether they appear easy and accessible, regardless of their actual efficacy. By the nature of capitalism, which relies on there being many proletariat and few capitalists, any method that was actually easy, accessible, and effective would quickly have the ladder pulled up as the market corrects (or in many cases, legislates away) the "error", indeed leading to that inverse correlation.

by danans 5y ago

canadaduane 5y ago

I wonder what would happen if we (as a society) took each case of got-rich-through-a-get-rich-quick-scheme and analyzed it like we do post-mortems--with "the social contract failed here, what went wrong?" kind of twist. No one's to blame. We just want it to be more effective and productive for everyone next time.

nikanj 5y ago

We go further than that: we glamorize the get-rich-quick schemes even after they're revealed as scams. The scammers get to keep their money, and launch successful careers as motivational speakers / authors (of books detailing their crimes) / etc. The Wolf of Wall Street was widely admired even though he was a criminal.

danans 5y ago
Yeah, I think of it as the "what can you get away with" mentality, and it feels like it's gotten more pervasive.

LordDragonfang 5y ago

I mean, that kind of gets at the fundamental conceit of Marxist critiques of capitalism, doesn't it? That there are two classes of individual, an upper class of those who primarily get their income by owning assets and not doing work (the titular capitalists) and an underclass of those get their income for doing actual work (the proletariat). Everyone is incentivized to join to the upper class by easiest and most accessible means possible, and get-rich-quick schemes are the natural endpoint of that incentive.

danans 5y ago
> that kind of gets at the fundamental conceit of Marxist critiques of capitalism, Sure, Marx's critiques have stood the test of time pretty well. > Everyone is incentivized to join to the upper class by easiest and most accessible means possible, and get-rich-quick schemes are the natural endpoint of that incentive. I agree, but there is generally a inverse correlation between easy/accessible and real/successful. Sure, some people got a truly easy path to "rich" (massive inheritance, lucky bet on the right stock, seizing previously state-owned industries because of your connections), but they are statistically rare. So I'd argue that by the time we get to the get-rich scam scenario, very fewer are entering the upper class (or even the middle class) via these schemes. Also, by "rich" here I don't mean "comfortable and able to pay the mortgage, an annual vacation, etc", but rather the more contemporary definition of "F-you money".
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  Oh, agreed upon on all points. I should have emphasized that I meant the attractiveness of those methods is based on whether they appear easy and accessible, regardless of their actual efficacy. By the nature of capitalism, which relies on there being many proletariat and few capitalists, any method that was actually easy, accessible, and effective would quickly have the ladder pulled up as the market corrects (or in many cases, legislates away) the "error", indeed leading to that inverse correlation.