3 ms·

> in practice it seems that the most effective ways to obtain massive amounts of wealth contain fair amounts of corruption, fraud and swindle. I don't think th

> in practice it seems that the most effective ways to obtain massive amounts of wealth contain fair amounts of corruption, fraud and swindle. I don't think this is true. It may make for a comfortable story to tell ourselves, but I think if we examine the data, it would show that the most effective way to obtain - and maintain - massive amounts of wealth involves a lot of hard work, producing value, and yes, even a fair helping of luck. > There isn't a single billionaire in history that hasn't been eventually revealed to have done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth, most of which could be argued to bring more harm to the society than the value that was brought in the first place. This seems more like observation bias to me. Could you not also say that a mugger or drug dealer has done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth? I can understand there is a common desire to hold wealthy people to higher moral standards than "normal" people - but that seems both unrealistic and ethically misguided. I'm not saying they should have no accountability, only that we should recognise that if given the opportunity, most people would behave the same or worse. Further, I wouldn't necessarily concede that the assertion that all or most billionaires have done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth is true. Certainly some have, but most have not. I think it's also worth recognising that wealthy people have an entire set of problems that is not often discussed - they are constant targets of fraudsters and con artists. Think how that might affect one's outlook and interactions.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> I think if we examine the data, it would show that the most effective way to obtain - and maintain - massive amounts of wealth involves a lot of hard work, producing value, and yes, even a fair helping of luck. I'm fairly skeptical of this claim, to me it seems that all signs point otherwise. Would you care to share more information on what kind of data convinced you of that stance? > I'm not saying they should have no accountability, only that we should recognise that if given the opportunity, most people would behave the same or worse. I completely agree - it's in the human nature to want to keep wealth and power at all costs, even when it harms others. But to me, that seems like even more of a reason we should keep wealthier individuals in check more rigorously than an average Joe - because they're more powerful, it is much easier for them to abuse the law, and their misdeeds have a potential to cause an order of magnitude more damage to the society. > Further, I wouldn't necessarily concede that the assertion that all or most billionaires have done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth is true. Certainly some have, but most have not. Some have been proven to have done terrible things, some have not. Those who have not been proven may or may not have done terrible things. Of course, in the eyes of the law, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is just my hypothesis (albeit unverifiable) that they have, at least most of them, done terrible things. No human can accumulate that kind of wealth without screwing over someone else - not because it's impossible to do in itself, but rather because those who play by the rules would be cut down by the competition who don't. It is somewhat similar to steroid use in professional bodybuilding - natural bodybuilders can't even dream of competing for Mr. Olympia, it's just physically impossible, so anyone who even wants to try must do steroids.

bheadmaster 4y ago

> I think if we examine the data, it would show that the most effective way to obtain - and maintain - massive amounts of wealth involves a lot of hard work, producing value, and yes, even a fair helping of luck. I'm fairly skeptical of this claim, to me it seems that all signs point otherwise. Would you care to share more information on what kind of data convinced you of that stance? > I'm not saying they should have no accountability, only that we should recognise that if given the opportunity, most people would behave the same or worse. I completely agree - it's in the human nature to want to keep wealth and power at all costs, even when it harms others. But to me, that seems like even more of a reason we should keep wealthier individuals in check more rigorously than an average Joe - because they're more powerful, it is much easier for them to abuse the law, and their misdeeds have a potential to cause an order of magnitude more damage to the society. > Further, I wouldn't necessarily concede that the assertion that all or most billionaires have done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth is true. Certainly some have, but most have not. Some have been proven to have done terrible things, some have not. Those who have not been proven may or may not have done terrible things. Of course, in the eyes of the law, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is just my hypothesis (albeit unverifiable) that they have, at least most of them, done terrible things. No human can accumulate that kind of wealth without screwing over someone else - not because it's impossible to do in itself, but rather because those who play by the rules would be cut down by the competition who don't. It is somewhat similar to steroid use in professional bodybuilding - natural bodybuilders can't even dream of competing for Mr. Olympia, it's just physically impossible, so anyone who even wants to try must do steroids.