Yes but our intuition says wealth inequality is wrong. Rational thinking may contradict this but perhaps our evolutionary biology does not. A member of the tribe that gets most of the food may get kicked out of the tribe.
That sounds very plausible to me. We're not necessarily stuck with evolved intuitions; sometimes we can dislodge them with a compelling enough argument...
I agree somewhat with the article, who wouldn't want to be rich? Unfortunately I've come to believe that to aspire to and reach billionaire status, it takes a certain personality type that tends towards the sociopathic and obsessive. The kind of person who can easily develop a "god complex". The kind of person who may begin to believe they're so far superiour to the "masses", that they begin to fancy the idea that only they are fit to rule those ignorant masses. Thinkin' of you Elon you whore. (sorry, not sorry).
This is wrong on so many levels. The basis of the argument is that rich people get rich because they produce products or services people want. Not really, they get money for that, but they don't become extraordinarily rich because of it. Musk is rich because he created pioneering companies and is a brand of his own. Tesla is not a high quality product by any means, it's a marketing gimmick that people fuel with money. The same way rich people skew polls to favour Trump by betting large amounts of money on him. Bezos is so rich because he skews the market in his favour by becoming so big that his company is crushing local markets. And yet, workers in companiesh working for both people are doing their jobs in awful conditions, only for those same billionaires that are being defended to get a bit more money, to become a bit more rich. There's no financial or economic sense for billionaires to exist. They rarely invest their own money in science or any other human progress - they gather other's people money. Billionaires are very few in numbers with enormous resources at their disposal - resources they cannot put into useful manners because it's incomprehensible for humans to think that big. So instead of not only battling poverty, but moving the good life scale up for hundreds of millions of people, they take an ego trip on being called billionaires. Musk is spending one million dollars every day for his own personal financial gain and agenda - not to better the life of people, but for his own future financial gains. He spent 44 billion on a service only to push his own agenda on its users. It's unimaginable what kind of good that kind of money would do to the world, and yet its peanuts to him. Again - there's no actual benefit of the existence of billionaires. The only value is when they give away their money to charity or non-profit science and thus taking themselves out of that label.
Yes but our intuition says wealth inequality is wrong. Rational thinking may contradict this but perhaps our evolutionary biology does not. A member of the tribe that gets most of the food may get kicked out of the tribe.
That sounds very plausible to me. We're not necessarily stuck with evolved intuitions; sometimes we can dislodge them with a compelling enough argument...
Oof, yeah. You’re talking about altering folk economic beliefs. What do you make of evolutionary/cognitive approaches to studying them? For example: http://pascalboyer.net/articles/2018BoyerPetersenFolk-Econ.pdf
I agree somewhat with the article, who wouldn't want to be rich? Unfortunately I've come to believe that to aspire to and reach billionaire status, it takes a certain personality type that tends towards the sociopathic and obsessive. The kind of person who can easily develop a "god complex". The kind of person who may begin to believe they're so far superiour to the "masses", that they begin to fancy the idea that only they are fit to rule those ignorant masses. Thinkin' of you Elon you whore. (sorry, not sorry).
😂
This is wrong on so many levels. The basis of the argument is that rich people get rich because they produce products or services people want. Not really, they get money for that, but they don't become extraordinarily rich because of it. Musk is rich because he created pioneering companies and is a brand of his own. Tesla is not a high quality product by any means, it's a marketing gimmick that people fuel with money. The same way rich people skew polls to favour Trump by betting large amounts of money on him. Bezos is so rich because he skews the market in his favour by becoming so big that his company is crushing local markets. And yet, workers in companiesh working for both people are doing their jobs in awful conditions, only for those same billionaires that are being defended to get a bit more money, to become a bit more rich. There's no financial or economic sense for billionaires to exist. They rarely invest their own money in science or any other human progress - they gather other's people money. Billionaires are very few in numbers with enormous resources at their disposal - resources they cannot put into useful manners because it's incomprehensible for humans to think that big. So instead of not only battling poverty, but moving the good life scale up for hundreds of millions of people, they take an ego trip on being called billionaires. Musk is spending one million dollars every day for his own personal financial gain and agenda - not to better the life of people, but for his own future financial gains. He spent 44 billion on a service only to push his own agenda on its users. It's unimaginable what kind of good that kind of money would do to the world, and yet its peanuts to him. Again - there's no actual benefit of the existence of billionaires. The only value is when they give away their money to charity or non-profit science and thus taking themselves out of that label.