5 ms·
[flagged]
by kennywinker 3mo ago
[flagged]
- grim_io 3mo agoYou can't get this far without being greedy in a neurologically abnormal way. Most people would retire with "enough" long before.
- imzadi 3mo agoMy theory about this, as well as how it seems most powerful are abusers, is that you have to be willing to comprosmise your morality to get into that position in the first place. So it is not that being rich and powerful corrupts you, but you have to already be at least somewhat corrupt to get there at all.
- joquarky 3mo agoDo sociopaths even have a natural sense of morality?
- SauciestGNU 3mo agoMorality and empathy are orthogonal ideas, I see no reason why someone with antisocial personality disorder couldn't develop a moral philosophy.
- 21asdffdsa12 3mo agoWell, you can also get relatively rich by marrying a monster- aka the state?
- pixelatedindex 3mo agoWhat? How do you marry a state?
- pc86 3mo agoI think maybe it's an awkward attempt at some comment on politicians being able to legally insider trade?
- dgellow 3mo agoHow does that work? I don’t get the analogy
- red-iron-pine 3mo agoessentially: gubrment bad
- mikestew 3mo agoThe sociopath part is what allows one to do what it takes to get ultra rich in the first place. Other than Gates, not one comes to mind who gives anything to charity, for example (yes, I’m sure one or two exists).
- 21asdffdsa12 3mo agogates was so noble to even donate prescription medication in secret..
- Ekaros 3mo agoAnd at level that Gates operates charity of itself is form of power and influence. Not rich people spending money on these things is bad. But sometimes I just question motivations as a whole.
- red-iron-pine 3mo agomy understanding too was that his (ex)wife told him, basically, "what are young going to do with all of this?" like he has literally everything he needs, and there is this massive number -- do something, anything with it. You have unlimited time, so chose to do something
- mothballed 3mo agoIt's also not uncommon for extravagantly rich people to form family-run charity organizations to distract their nagging wife or family members with a pursuit where they can lord over employees / recipients / organizations without having any profit metrics by which they could be embarrassed by their inferior business chops. This is doubly applicable if you need to distract a nagging hag while you're off banging Russian bridge players.
- sph 3mo agoThe first part of your comment is correct, the second part is both wrong and unnecessary glazing of Gates. There's plenty sociopaths that give to charity, because it's a socially accepted display of wealth, and because it is quite convenient for tax purposes.
- genocidicbunny 3mo agoIt's both. Getting into the multi-billionaire levels of wealth takes a certain mindset that can probably be easily associated with some neurological disorders and personality traits that one could describe as 'monstrous'. But becoming that rich also disconnects you from the reality of the average person. Your time by necessity to maintain and grow such levels of wealth is going to be spent among other people who are either in a similar position, or want to be in a similar position and are trying to ride the coattails up the wealth ladder. And try as you might to avoid it, it will skew your mental state towards that disconnect unless you take significant effort to avoid the benefits that being at that level of wealth brings to you. Most people who would be willing to eschew said benefits are also probably not the ones trying to seek out such positions of wealth in the first place, so they're going to be severely underrepresented in the wealthy circles.
- throw2ih020 3mo agoMost "normal" people would hit $5-30 million, realize they have enough money for themselves and their descendants to be comfortable in perpetuity with some decent wealth management, and either retire or change careers to a passion project. Going to 100s, 1,000s, or 100,000s of millions inherently filters for people who have either absurd greediness (seeing wealth as a scoreboard) or a desire for power.
- pc86 3mo agoThis is it, it's absolutely a filter beyond a certain point. I have a family member, far enough removed I'll never see any of it, that sold a business in his early 30s for something like $35-40M. Set his kids up for life with trusts, bought some toys and a second home, and been just sort of hanging out ever since (this was 15-20 years ago). He's happy, has a ton of hobbies, and if you ever suggested he start another business or start putting his name on cap tables he'd laugh his ass off. It would never even occur to him that he should try to double, triple, 10x his money, because he already has 10x more than he'll ever spend. And for what it's worth his kids are remarkably well adjusted and nice, if a little bit out of touch about what most people deal with.
- throw2ih020 3mo agoSame, my father was a doctor and had tons of doctor friends from med school and work. Pretty much all of them just cared about 1. making sure the family was provided for and had excellent education, 2. patient outcomes and 3. being comfy at home.
- senordevnyc 3mo agoI totally understand the point you're trying to make, but also...if your friend put their $40M in an S&P500 index 20 years ago, it'd be worth $238M today. So more like 6x rather than 10x, but still, not bad.
- throw2ih020 3mo agoThe people I know personally with that level of wealth will typically set up family trusts to do that and manage how the wealth is distributed to the family, generally some stipend for living expenses + covering education and healthcare costs. The original people setting up the trust give up direct access to that portion of the money for the benefit of their heirs and beneficiaries. i.e. it's no longer "their" money in the personal sense.
- orphea 3mo agoThe latter. We even know what that monster is. It's psychopathy.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]