My solopreneur story

MMR updates are superficial. Weak signal. I'm confident most are absent of critical info and some are entirely made up. I don't disbelieve anyone in particular, but when a mechanism of virality proliferates, it often gets deployed without the backing substance.

"How I XYZ" around money is similarly misleading. Most entrepreneurs I know cannot recreate their own success – when they set out on a new venture, they need to look with fresh eyes, invent some new techniques, and discard a lot of methods that previously worked. If entrepreneurs aren't even able to reuse their own "how I xyz," then how will a stranger with even less nuance be able to learn or apply much from the blog post? Again, some of these stories have great lessons, but as a category I believe they are more noise than signal.

Finally, the sheer obsession with money saddens me. The great entrepreneurs of our world are hardly motivated by money – to them, money is a tool that they factor in as they work to realize a vision, not an end goal. How ethically/morally impoverished is this technical class to be so obsessed with money? There's a term for this – greed. I know that a lot of jobs suck, a lot of stuff in life is expensive, we need money to do a lot of basic things, etcetera. But money is not the only solution, and more money is not an even better solution. I don't think this incessant messaging around money is virtuous – I think it is both a product of greed and a means of harnessing the greed in others. (And where are the entrepreneurs bragging about impact?)

(For the record, I am not jealous – I make my money doing literally whatever I want, on projects that I find much more exciting, with ample time left over for nature walks, rock climbing, reading, and more. Unlike these authors, the money I make is not the most interesting part of my story.)

Right. Like you don't own anything but still somehow sell it on the open market.

Apparently, "you can't have your cake and eat it, too" is a capitalist prejudice as comrades in the USSR would have ensured us.

You claim that you're not fixated on ideology, but in the same breath you talk about core values of capitalism.

The corporate board (actually the board of directors) jointly supervise a company. It's not the decision making body (that's the CEO), and therefore is not analogous to a politburo. Fun fact: the Communist Party of China has both a Politburo and a Central Committee.

The media (or more precisely, the most of the media in the US, because many countries have broadcasters not financed through private capital) aren't owned by "the corporate". Media (TV, newspapers) are usually corporations themselves, and are owned by shareholders. By capitalists. If you had enough money, you could buy them.

Money moves? Sure it moves when a corporation runs the payroll every month, or when I go buy a popsicle. Or when someone pays someone else to procure him a kidney on the black market. Money in every form and in every economic system, not just in capitalism, will be exchanged, this is because it's the very purpose of money and it's reason to exist.

You have some theories as to why most wealth is concentrated (top 1% owned 46% of global wealth in 2020). There seems to be a conspiracy narrative (the politburos are conspiring to keep the money in the hands of the rich), and a remedy (small entrepreneurs will rise and reclaim the money).

You might be aware that money is locked up in the 1%, because 1) they don't need to spend it, or very little of it, like $5 for an app. 2) the capital that they have lets them extract more money from the 99% (in the form of rent and stock dividends), so the direction of money flow is from the poor to the rich. Your conclusion is that we need more capitalism, but the right kind, not the one we have now, because the one we have right now is actually communism.