Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, they aren't the same as "unreflectingly capitalistic" and "pre-occupied with monetary success". They have become inextricably linked. Maybe early in the 19th C. you'd be right. After the rise of american industry and maufacture and its corresponding propaganda (edison, etc.) AND after the cold war, "capitalism", "democracy", "patriotism" all became intertwined. Such that today The American Dream is almost…
The extent to which you have littered your own biases throughout this thread, and then expected everyone to regard them as the true interpretation, is absurd and childish. If that's doesnt read hollow and pathetic to you I dont know what could. It's complete mythologising of two people "building" a company, it's display of hurt feeling over the fact that $10bn doesnt impress people enough, its utter pre-occupation wi…
> To an American it's obvious that two people didn't personally build the company
Yes, but it's also obvious who gets the credit (, and who doesnt).
> I'm amazed you can't find one positive interpretation to agree with
Sorry I dont find the acquistion of wealth anything to celebrate in itself and that's the point of the article.. so no, obviously i dont think there's a positive interpretation here and it isnt "cynicsm": it's reading it without buying into its assumptions.
> But we should not blame Americans for this. Americans do the right thing, they recognize and celebrate success. The blame is exclusively with Europeans who are still uncomfortable and envious with big exits
Yes Americans do the right thing and "celebrate success", they try not to tax "job creators" and make sure "hard working risk takers" get the "credit they deserve". Ideological, all of it.