7 ms·

Secret money is hard at a certain scale. Money is property rights and people have to believe your rights exist for them to actually exist. Elon Musk is not phys

Secret money is hard at a certain scale. Money is property rights and people have to believe your rights exist for them to actually exist. Elon Musk is not physically strong but simply the beneficiary of forces that have convinced the world’s mindless executors of one arbitrary thing in his favor, but could have just as easily convinced them of any arbitrary thing out of his favor. It’s better to have $5 million than to be broke. That absolutely true. But there is a level of wealth and position where you absolutely must participate in the most evil parts of society to stay where you are. The level of money that you can quietly have is not one that rich people are impressed by. There is a higher level, which you cannot have without the support of society, and the support of society is something you do not get unless you are actively participating in terrible things, either as a willful actor or, more likely in this case, a patsy who usually has no idea what’s going on. I do wish this article had been more concrete about what those terrible things were, though. And I have no sense of where the man was truly a criminal or just way out of his depth. When people in the arts and sciences get caught up in these things, it tends to be the latter.

sixQuarks 2y ago
Not true, there are edge cases. Some billionaires have lived very frugal lives - such as the founder of dollar stores. There was also a multi billionaire who lived middle class and gave away his whole fortune towards end of life
- zusammen 2y ago
  [dead]
dustingetz 2y ago
paragraph 2: please be concrete, this claim is interesting but completely unsubstantiated as currently stated
- mandmandam 2y ago
  I don't know what reasonably substantiating such a claim would look like to you, but yeah, there's something to it. Think of it as game theory; or think of it like simple mob dynamics. Play Wolf or Mafia, and get an idea of how powerful information asymmetry can be. Look down stream at where our cobalt, our lithium, our chocolate comes from; what we've done to Africa and South America and indigenous people everywhere; look what Epstein did, and who with, and how media covered it; look at the history of colonialism; look at how people who spoke out against Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria/US torture/drone assinations/Israeli occupation and atrocities were and are being treated by the political and media class. Look at how climate protesters are smeared while polluters are green-washed; not sometimes, but as a matter of course. There's not many ways to explain all the above without the original claim as a large factor. I'd recommend Chomsky, Naomi Klein, John Perkins, Sarah Kendzior and Whitney Webb if you want to learn more.
  - dustingetz 2y ago
    i’m with you, i’ve read some chomsky, but you are speaking in absolutes. It seems historically true that most, even all wealth has come from amoral means (especially relative to today’s values) but is it absolutely true, and absolutely true today, and in the future? What if means are relative to societal values in that time? For example, I eat chicken, though I feel like I ought not to, and in 100 years I’d be surprised if that is still acceptable to do.
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > you are speaking in absolutes. No I'm not. I said "there's something to it". I'm not OP, and I think OP could be understood to be speaking as "in the vast vast majority of cases" rather than an unbreakable now-and-forever rule. It's wise to interpret people in the most charitable reasonable light, generally. > but is it absolutely true, and absolutely true today If it's true in 99% of cases, or 100%, the difference is pretty small. Seems odd to focus on. And we weren't discussing whether or not this would be true in a hundred years, but what the situation is now and historically. Certainly there is a potential for radical change; I would even call it necessary.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
> There is a higher level, which you cannot have without the support of society Is that true? I get what you are saying. In my mind it is more like: it would be nice to be wealthy, but you don't want to get wealthy enough that you show up on the radar of the world's bad actors.

sixQuarks 2y ago

Not true, there are edge cases. Some billionaires have lived very frugal lives - such as the founder of dollar stores. There was also a multi billionaire who lived middle class and gave away his whole fortune towards end of life

zusammen 2y ago
[dead]

dustingetz 2y ago

paragraph 2: please be concrete, this claim is interesting but completely unsubstantiated as currently stated

mandmandam 2y ago
I don't know what reasonably substantiating such a claim would look like to you, but yeah, there's something to it. Think of it as game theory; or think of it like simple mob dynamics. Play Wolf or Mafia, and get an idea of how powerful information asymmetry can be. Look down stream at where our cobalt, our lithium, our chocolate comes from; what we've done to Africa and South America and indigenous people everywhere; look what Epstein did, and who with, and how media covered it; look at the history of colonialism; look at how people who spoke out against Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria/US torture/drone assinations/Israeli occupation and atrocities were and are being treated by the political and media class. Look at how climate protesters are smeared while polluters are green-washed; not sometimes, but as a matter of course. There's not many ways to explain all the above without the original claim as a large factor. I'd recommend Chomsky, Naomi Klein, John Perkins, Sarah Kendzior and Whitney Webb if you want to learn more.
- dustingetz 2y ago
  i’m with you, i’ve read some chomsky, but you are speaking in absolutes. It seems historically true that most, even all wealth has come from amoral means (especially relative to today’s values) but is it absolutely true, and absolutely true today, and in the future? What if means are relative to societal values in that time? For example, I eat chicken, though I feel like I ought not to, and in 100 years I’d be surprised if that is still acceptable to do.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > you are speaking in absolutes. No I'm not. I said "there's something to it". I'm not OP, and I think OP could be understood to be speaking as "in the vast vast majority of cases" rather than an unbreakable now-and-forever rule. It's wise to interpret people in the most charitable reasonable light, generally. > but is it absolutely true, and absolutely true today If it's true in 99% of cases, or 100%, the difference is pretty small. Seems odd to focus on. And we weren't discussing whether or not this would be true in a hundred years, but what the situation is now and historically. Certainly there is a potential for radical change; I would even call it necessary.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

> There is a higher level, which you cannot have without the support of society Is that true? I get what you are saying. In my mind it is more like: it would be nice to be wealthy, but you don't want to get wealthy enough that you show up on the radar of the world's bad actors.