4 ms·

One thing I wonder is if the upper crust of the upper crust are actually losing their wealth in relative terms (globally) by damaging the country. In essence,

One thing I wonder is if the upper crust of the upper crust are actually losing their wealth in relative terms (globally) by damaging the country. In essence, if you extrapolate the trend big money and assets in a broken country are not as valuable as the same in a healthy country (whatever the definition of that is). Now I know they can move their money overseas but I would guess that much of the US's top .1%'s money making vehicles are tied to the US in one way or another.

michaelochurch 15y ago
One thing that struck me was reading 1984. The inner-party elite of Oceania were barely middle-class by a material standard, and their society was falling further apart every year, but they held a lot of power. Materially, they weren't in an enviable position, any more than kings who died horribly of now-curable diseases are enviable, but the perverse and horrible (like O'Brien) could enjoy the shit out of their power and others' misery. The boot stomping on a face for a thousand years. Most dictators enjoy their peoples' misery, and they get more out of the power than they would out of the 1-10x bump it would give their financial status (they have enough money, and unlimited means to get it) to be leading a healthy nation instead of a failing one. Kim Jong-il? While he was alive, I bet he was one of the happiest fuckers out there. And the U.S. corporatist-fascist oligarchy isn't morally superior in inclination; it's just that there are social structures (like laws and elections) in place retarding their progress. Some people judge wealth and prosperity in absolute terms: what we can do, experiences we can have. That's how most of us on HN feel: it's a positive-sum, win-win mentality. But a lot of people see these things in purely relative terms: they like elitism and exclusion, and that others are suffering from bullshit they don't have to deal with. It makes sense when one considers that excessive financial ambitions are usually sexual in nature, and the sexual benefits derived from obscene wealth are based solely in relative social status (being "alpha"). The OP needs to be read by a lot of people (who probably won't read it): people who conflate $400k/year neurosurgeons who got "rich" and startup new-money by working their asses off (who are generally held to deserve their good fortune, and I agree) with an entrenched, culturally underaccomplished, fascistic, and depraved aristocracy of indolent, manipulative parasites that society should be getting rid of+ through whatever means necessary. (+ To make it clear, I mean we need to get rid of the aristocracy as an institution, not "get rid of" the individual people. I'd find it quite morally acceptable to solve society's problems in a way that finds them bad, if they weren't willing to decline peacefully and gracefully, but I also think revenge is an utterly stupid impulse and find it most useful to not care either way what happens to them, as long as they're removed from power.)
- moocow01 15y ago
  Wow great post. You already touched on this but to reiterate after achieving a certain amount of wealth, freedom and comfort in life, I wonder whats the point of exclusively striving for more. I can understand wanting to not be a slave to your mortgage, employer, etc etc (in fact it is something Im actively trying to do right now to dedicate myself to my own work) and generally wanting to better your life but after a certain point the marginal difference in lifestyle achieved by more wealth becomes negligible and possibly negative. I know this is going to sound like rainbows and unicorns but its hard for me to understand why the mega rich aren't all motivated to diligently invest a significant portion of their money and efforts into humanistic efforts. It seems like they understand money and investment in monetary terms but they fail miserably at understanding the non-materialistic and 'big picture' returns.
  - michaelochurch 15y ago
    Five tiers of material aspiration: Necessities, Leisure, Comfort, Social Status, and Power. The sane place to "get off" is somewhere in the middle of the Comfort tier. Leisure is freedom-to (travel, be educated), Comfort is freedom-from (housework, annoyances), and Status is mostly about the ability to maintain maxed-out Comfort (about $2-3M per year, post-tax) without doing anything of value, i.e. being able to get all that just for being "special" (the narcissist's dream). Power is the ability to dick up and down peoples' Status on a whim, because a lot of people who've maxed out the other tiers get bored and need something to do. Of course, these tiers are fuzzy. Most of us would find business-class travel to be enough Comfort, but some people require a private jet. Also, people with severe psychological issues (which can manifest as greed, which is slightly more glamorous than crippling panic attacks, I guess) will never be comfortable, which is why they soar into the Status and Power tiers but are (internally speaking) still trying to achieve basic Comfort.
  - matwood 15y ago
    I wonder whats the point of exclusively striving for more. Some people love the game and it's a way to keep score. It provides a rush, and seems to provide a high similar to drugs or gambling. Then there is the obvious power trips (probably secondary to the money at that point) that come along with continuing to win. And for some people it's simply all they know. If I suddenly became beyond wealthy tomorrow I imagine I would still program every day and continue to be interested in technology because it's what I do.
prostoalex 15y ago
Why? Asia is better for manufacturing, Europe is better for banking. US is the largest consumer market out there, but when the credit bubble bursts, Asia will provide a pretty good replacement with tons of disposable incomes concentrated there.
api 15y ago
What parasitic elites do to their host civilizations is something a little bit like the tragedy of the commons, except that the latter usually refers to exploitation of inanimate resources.

michaelochurch 15y ago

One thing that struck me was reading 1984. The inner-party elite of Oceania were barely middle-class by a material standard, and their society was falling further apart every year, but they held a lot of power. Materially, they weren't in an enviable position, any more than kings who died horribly of now-curable diseases are enviable, but the perverse and horrible (like O'Brien) could enjoy the shit out of their power and others' misery. The boot stomping on a face for a thousand years. Most dictators enjoy their peoples' misery, and they get more out of the power than they would out of the 1-10x bump it would give their financial status (they have enough money, and unlimited means to get it) to be leading a healthy nation instead of a failing one. Kim Jong-il? While he was alive, I bet he was one of the happiest fuckers out there. And the U.S. corporatist-fascist oligarchy isn't morally superior in inclination; it's just that there are social structures (like laws and elections) in place retarding their progress. Some people judge wealth and prosperity in absolute terms: what we can do, experiences we can have. That's how most of us on HN feel: it's a positive-sum, win-win mentality. But a lot of people see these things in purely relative terms: they like elitism and exclusion, and that others are suffering from bullshit they don't have to deal with. It makes sense when one considers that excessive financial ambitions are usually sexual in nature, and the sexual benefits derived from obscene wealth are based solely in relative social status (being "alpha"). The OP needs to be read by a lot of people (who probably won't read it): people who conflate $400k/year neurosurgeons who got "rich" and startup new-money by working their asses off (who are generally held to deserve their good fortune, and I agree) with an entrenched, culturally underaccomplished, fascistic, and depraved aristocracy of indolent, manipulative parasites that society should be getting rid of+ through whatever means necessary. (+ To make it clear, I mean we need to get rid of the aristocracy as an institution, not "get rid of" the individual people. I'd find it quite morally acceptable to solve society's problems in a way that finds them bad, if they weren't willing to decline peacefully and gracefully, but I also think revenge is an utterly stupid impulse and find it most useful to not care either way what happens to them, as long as they're removed from power.)

moocow01 15y ago
Wow great post. You already touched on this but to reiterate after achieving a certain amount of wealth, freedom and comfort in life, I wonder whats the point of exclusively striving for more. I can understand wanting to not be a slave to your mortgage, employer, etc etc (in fact it is something Im actively trying to do right now to dedicate myself to my own work) and generally wanting to better your life but after a certain point the marginal difference in lifestyle achieved by more wealth becomes negligible and possibly negative. I know this is going to sound like rainbows and unicorns but its hard for me to understand why the mega rich aren't all motivated to diligently invest a significant portion of their money and efforts into humanistic efforts. It seems like they understand money and investment in monetary terms but they fail miserably at understanding the non-materialistic and 'big picture' returns.
- michaelochurch 15y ago
  Five tiers of material aspiration: Necessities, Leisure, Comfort, Social Status, and Power. The sane place to "get off" is somewhere in the middle of the Comfort tier. Leisure is freedom-to (travel, be educated), Comfort is freedom-from (housework, annoyances), and Status is mostly about the ability to maintain maxed-out Comfort (about $2-3M per year, post-tax) without doing anything of value, i.e. being able to get all that just for being "special" (the narcissist's dream). Power is the ability to dick up and down peoples' Status on a whim, because a lot of people who've maxed out the other tiers get bored and need something to do. Of course, these tiers are fuzzy. Most of us would find business-class travel to be enough Comfort, but some people require a private jet. Also, people with severe psychological issues (which can manifest as greed, which is slightly more glamorous than crippling panic attacks, I guess) will never be comfortable, which is why they soar into the Status and Power tiers but are (internally speaking) still trying to achieve basic Comfort.
- matwood 15y ago
  I wonder whats the point of exclusively striving for more. Some people love the game and it's a way to keep score. It provides a rush, and seems to provide a high similar to drugs or gambling. Then there is the obvious power trips (probably secondary to the money at that point) that come along with continuing to win. And for some people it's simply all they know. If I suddenly became beyond wealthy tomorrow I imagine I would still program every day and continue to be interested in technology because it's what I do.

prostoalex 15y ago

Why? Asia is better for manufacturing, Europe is better for banking. US is the largest consumer market out there, but when the credit bubble bursts, Asia will provide a pretty good replacement with tons of disposable incomes concentrated there.

api 15y ago

What parasitic elites do to their host civilizations is something a little bit like the tragedy of the commons, except that the latter usually refers to exploitation of inanimate resources.