7 ms·

> In general, though, my issue is with the system, and defenders of the system, rather than with the beneficiaries of the system. Finally, we agree on somethin

• lapcat 3y ago
  > The people who get rich are simply playing by the rules the system allows. The rich also tend to have the power to write the rules themselves, for their own benefit. > Rich or poor, we all do the same thing, we all try to maximize our income, reduce our taxes, use any crack in the system we find. This is not true at all. Individual businesspeople vary vastly in their ethics. I don't actually try to maximize my income, by any means necessary. I have personal standards that can't be measured in dollars, and I try to avoid actions that could profit me if they would screw over other people or harm society. > I struggle to understand why anyone would think this. It's unfortunate that you appear to have such a limited imagination, an inability to comprehend the possibility of other people rationally disagreeing with your beliefs. > So you think hard work is inversely correlated with making more money? Why do you present a false dichotomy? There could be little or no correlation, as opposed to an inverse correlation. In any case, I still don't know what the heck you mean by "hard work". You've already rejected the notion that manual labor is hard work, yet you refuse to explain exactly what it does mean, apparently because you fear that explaining would be some kind of "gotcha". > I cannot comprehend how someone would be unimpressed with companies at the forefront of technological progress. The only way in which I can explain your view is that you are not able to separate Musk's personality from his ventures. Again, there's an unfortunate failure of imagination here. Have you considered, for example, that I don't necessarily view them as "progress"? The irony is that I've already given some indication, mentioned more than once: "I think there are too many rocket launches polluting the atmosphere and too many satellites being put in orbit." Anyway, since you're having such trouble comprehending, have you considered, you know, asking me, instead of putting ideas in my head? On the other hand, you seem to believe that I'm obligated to admire Hitler, so given that starting point, I'm not sure there's anything I could say to explain my views to you in a way you'd understand. > Yes, I am impressed by what Hitler 'accomplished'. I am also impressed by what Bin Laden 'accomplished', for example. You're welcome to your views, but I think you'll find, if you state them explicitly to many people, that I won't be the only one who feels differently, and you're not necessarily even in the majority. > Don't hate the player, hate the game. Why not both? > Also, if Musk wanted to actually just make money, I'm sure there are better avenues than doing the hard work of creating disruptive technologies. Musk is already the wealthiest person in the world. To say "I'm sure there are better avenues" to making money just seems ridiculous to me.
  • rocgf 3y ago
    > The rich also tend to have the power to write the rules themselves, for their own benefit. This is correct, and the 'poor' do the same, within the limits of their abilities. > This is not true at all. Individual businesspeople vary vastly in their ethics. I don't actually try to maximize my income... This is the Internet and saying this is free. Even so, I don't care about you specifically, I am talking about the average behaviour at the level of the society. There is no big distinction between the 'poor' and the 'rich' in terms of their behaviour to maximize their income while bending the rules as much as possible. Typical employees (the 'poor') have way fewer levers to do this, as well as less financial education, due to the way the system is structured, but the desire to keep more of your earnings to the detriment of everyone else is the largely the same. > It's unfortunate that you appear to have such a limited imagination, an inability to comprehend the possibility of other people rationally disagreeing with your beliefs. > Why do you present a false dichotomy? There could be little or no correlation, as opposed to an inverse correlation. In retrospect, it is true that I presented a false dichotomy since I never considered that your defense might be "there is virtually 0 correlation". I maintain that you have no decent argument to make in defence of this opinion of yours. To claim that working harder is not correlated to financial reward is completely indefensible. > you're not necessarily even in the majority. I'm not sure why this would be imporant. Nuanced views are rarely 'in the majority'. > Have you considered, for example, that I don't necessarily view them as "progress"? Yes, I did, but then you are simply wrong. > Musk is already the wealthiest person in the world. To say "I'm sure there are better avenues" to making money just seems ridiculous to me. You described anyone looking to be rich as simply greedy and basically mentally ill (I forget the exact term). So Musk is greedy and vain. After he got his 100+ millions from the sale of PayPal, would an electric car company, followed by a rocket company, be the obvious way to increase that wealth? Probably not.
    • lapcat 3y ago
      > within the limits of their abilities That's the crucial distinction. Specifically, the ability to buy politicians and elections. > This is the Internet and saying this is free. Once again implying that I'm a liar... You're talking to someone who spent N years, for uncomfortably large N, as a grad student in a philosophy PhD program, so it ought to be very obvious that I'm not a ruthless wealth maximizer. In fact, I still have student loan debt from that undertaking. > There is no big distinction between the 'poor' and the 'rich' in terms of their behaviour to maximize their income while bending the rules as much as possible. It's true that there are a lot of unethical poor and middle class people. (Also a lot of ethical poor and middle class people.) My earlier suggestion, though, is that there's a correlation between wealth and lack of ethics, because "our economic system tends to select for people who are unethical and ruthless". > I maintain that you have no decent argument to make in defence of this opinion of yours. To claim that working harder is not correlated to financial reward is completely indefensible. You still, after repeated prompting, resolutely refuse to explain exactly what you mean by "hard work", so how would it even be possible for me to make any argument or defense at all? It ought to be clear from how I earlier characterized hard work (e.g., manual labor) that there's no correlation. You claimed that my characterization was silly, but it's become ridiculous how you won't say anything more about it. Perhaps what you want to say, or at least ought to say, is that some people have more natural abilities than other people, which is absolutely true, and thus some people are capable of accomplishing things that are impossible for other people, which is also true. But I wouldn't characterize that as "hard" work, at least not for the person with special abilities. To the contrary, things come easier to them. It's only hard for the people who don't have those natural abilities. I could work as "hard" as I possibly could, to the very edge of my abilities, and never become a professional guitar player or a professional tennis player (much to my dismay), because I simply don't have enough talent. > I'm not sure why this would be imporant. Nuanced views are rarely 'in the majority'. It's important because you seem to consider your own views as axiomatic and in need of no defense. > You described anyone looking to be rich as simply greedy and basically mentally ill (I forget the exact term). Pathological. But I didn't say "simply". > would an electric car company, followed by a rocket company, be the obvious way to increase that wealth? Why would it need to be "obvious"? There's no obvious way to become ultra-wealthy, otherwise everyone would do the obvious.