Live data from Hacker News

Side Effects of the Growth of Wealth (1999)

nytimes.com

21–25 of 25 posts

Re: Side Effects of the Growth of Wealth (1999)

#21
post #11

> As for Rule Three, it is for the non-Calvinists who reject Rule Two, "who are not paralyzed by guilt and who are too uneducated to express their resentment legally." For them "there is only one possible form of expression: to break the law, by engaging in criminal activities such as murder, armed robbery, violent assault, rape and the smoking of marijuana in pipes or home-made cigarettes." Followers of Rule Three e…

I think that might be the point.

Re: Side Effects of the Growth of Wealth (1999)

#22
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many wealthy people do you know? How do you know how much self-reflection they do?

Several, including a close family member and several relatives. I've also met lots of others and the pattern looks very clear to me.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Re: Side Effects of the Growth of Wealth (1999)

#23

There is definitely something in it when the article links turbo-capitalism to "the destruction of authenticity". I find that wealthy people lack authenticity and more often than not, they seem to be completely unaware of their predicament. They've seemingly lost their ability for self-reflection (if they ever had it) - That's why many of them trust financially-motivated personal growth gurus, success coaches, high-e…

From your tone, I would guess you feel offended that other people are richer than you so you're looking for ways to find faults with them to convince yourself that it's actually you who's superior. Perhaps you should compare who is doing the most good to other people. To me, that's a more important quality than the nebulous ones you identified - "authenticity" and "self-reflection". You can always find some arbitrary…

I don't see myself as superior. I'm jealous of wealthy people. My real motivation for writing the previous comment is that I'm just not good at pretending and so I'm bitter about missing out on opportunities because of that.

For example, I see that the kinds of people who get funding are those who are really good at presenting themselves in a particular way. You don't need to be smart, you just need to look/act smart, talk fast and tell the prospective investor exactly what they want to hear - In the current economy, only people who are really good at faking seem to succeed.

Those who are good at faking are those who don't realise that they're faking. "Fake it till you make it" is the name of the game. Nobody can lie better than those who lie to themselves.

Re: Side Effects of the Growth of Wealth (1999)

#25
post #11

> As for Rule Three, it is for the non-Calvinists who reject Rule Two, "who are not paralyzed by guilt and who are too uneducated to express their resentment legally." For them "there is only one possible form of expression: to break the law, by engaging in criminal activities such as murder, armed robbery, violent assault, rape and the smoking of marijuana in pipes or home-made cigarettes." Followers of Rule Three e…

Not everyone who jaywalks is following the third law, but jaywalking might be a good indication that you are! From what I can tell, the idea of those three laws is to emphasize the first two. Anyone who isn't falling for the mentality of the first two risks, by their 'out of the box' tendencies, being tossed in the clink with the rapists and murderers.

In ultra-capitalist America, they are saying, money's power is protected at the cost of some human freedoms, such as the freedom to smoke homemade cigarettes that didn't feed into the industry. If you don't make the sacrifices required by the first two laws, you might find yourself sacrificed. It's safest to conform.

Post reply on HN