Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

deadcarl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#71

Post by credit_guy »

kubb wrote: post #16

This point of view implies that the revered "great men" should be stripped of their wealth and power as much as possible. They're not necessary for history, so no need to disproportionally allocate resources to them.

> so no need to disproportionally allocate resources to them.

Maybe I'm squinting too hard, but it seems to me you are talking about Musk here. We are not allocating any resources to him. He took some risks, started some ventures, some failed, but some succeeded spectacularly. He made lots of people wealthy in the process. I own a few shares of Tesla and they appreciated since I bought them. I did not become rich, but I did benefit from Musk's activities, and millions other people did. The society did not "allocate resources to Musk", and society did not "allocate resources" to J.P. Morgan or to Rockefeller or to Ford or to Bezos.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#72

Post by terribleperson »

credit_guy wrote: post #71
kubb wrote: post #16

This point of view implies that the revered "great men" should be stripped of their wealth and power as much as possible. They're not necessary for history, so no need to disproportionally allocate resources to them.

> so no need to disproportionally allocate resources to them. Maybe I'm squinting too hard, but it seems to me you are talking about Musk here. We are not allocating any resources to him. He took some risks, started some ventures, some failed, but some succeeded spectacularly. He made lots of people wealthy in the process. I own a few shares of Tesla and they appreciated since I bought them. I did not become rich, bu…

What is the stock market if not a way for society to allocate resources?

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#73

Post by Danox »

He the Kaiser wanted to be Bismarck and failed spectacularly, just like the Czar of Russia, his cousin and his other cousin, the king of England three incompetent spoiled, entitled aristocrats, who had no clue their only real contribution thru failure was ushering in the era of a professional standing Army first popularize by Cromwell and Matthias Corvinus (who became king at 14) in earlier centuries where actual talent briefly became more important than being born into the aristocracy and therefore being allowed to command and run the military irregardless of your actual ability.

The last Russian Czar and his dad were spectacular in their failure, his dad losing to the Japanese in the far east, and the son losing everything World War I, his family and his crown basically a trifecta…

Hey, wait that sounds like modern America, where a would be dictator/king wants to run the military with his corrupt drunken henchman what could go wrong?

What happened to Hungary? Well the aristocracy disbanded, the professional military, and Hungary paid the price in the coming centuries. being conquered and partitioned many times, the Hungarian-aristocracy was more concerned about lording it over their estates than doing anything for the good of the country some things just never change.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#74

Post by ifwinterco »

nixon_why69 wrote: post #24
matusp wrote: post #8

Of course mediocre and bad leaders make their mark on history. But Carlyle's Great Men theory is more about paradigm shifts that Great Men can will into existence, not just random noise they bring along. The problem with GM theory is that there is only a handful of examples to support it. Napoleon is one such example, and it was undoubtedly the inspiration why the theory was proposed in the first place. People were t…

I think the wrinkle of "men (or maybe women) at a particular hingepoint had their personal foibles that shaped history" is valid. There were structural forces that led to WW2 but Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler et al being their particular personalities absolutely shaped how it unfolded.

From a UK perspective Churchill had a huge personal role in dragging the UK into the war against the initial public sentiment.

Not impossible if a few people at the top of the UK power structures had made different decisions then the UK could have stayed out of the war entirely, and the effect of that on the outcome would obviously have been drastic

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#75

Post by credit_guy »

terribleperson wrote: post #72
credit_guy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so no need to disproportionally allocate resources to them. Maybe I'm squinting too hard, but it seems to me you are talking about Musk here. We are not allocating any resources to him. He took some risks, started some ventures, some failed, but some succeeded spectacularly. He made lots of people wealthy in the process. I own a few shares of Tesla and they appreciated since I bought them. I did not become rich, bu…

What is the stock market if not a way for society to allocate resources?

So you'd ban stock markets? Or ban people from investing in companies where one shareholder is a billionaire?

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#76

Post by terribleperson »

credit_guy wrote: post #75
terribleperson wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the stock market if not a way for society to allocate resources?

So you'd ban stock markets? Or ban people from investing in companies where one shareholder is a billionaire?

Did I say that? No, I responded to the claim that people were not allocated resources by society.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#77

Post by Terr_ »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #27

Reminds me a quote I heard recently about wealth inequality and how the very rich can do dumb things without consequences (to them anyway) and it was along the lines of 'we don't have a merit-based system, because our system does not need merit to function'.

The converse is true too: Inequality is emergent from the math, not from individual merit.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#78

Post by vintermann »

_dain_ wrote: post #20
rbanffy wrote: post #14

When you look at white noise from up close, you see dramatic changes, periods of calm, and what seems like patterns. Only when you step back, you realise all that drama you read is mostly inconsequential. What will be the impact of Napoleon 1000 years from now? Of Columbus? If instead of Hitler Germany had Rohm? It’s all monkeys and typewriters all the way down. What matters are the structural forces, the natural res…

We still speak today of Charlemagne, Muhammed, Caesar, Alexander. Napoleon and Columbus have secured for themselves their seats in the pantheon of history and it will take longer than a thousand years for mankind to forget about them. All these men built our world.

This is missing the point. If any of these people hadn't lived, you would have someone else in your list of world-builders, names we don't know. And you, living in that world, might be convinced your world was much preferable to our world.

The question isn't who should sit in the pantheon of great men of history. The question is, should we have such a pantheon? Are we wiser for it? Better off?

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#79

Post by vintermann »

inglor_cz wrote: post #44
CuriouslyC wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was young Columbus was lionized in schools. Now young people I talk to demonize him more and more. He wasn't even first (Viking explorers beat him there by a lot), he was just first to brutally exploit. I'm sure the things that are named after him will be renamed eventually to honor more deserving figures.

That is a very US-ian perspective. AFAIK he is still lionized in Latin America, and likely will continue to be, as he is a sorta-kinda the ur-founder of all those nations.

That may be true, but if so it will be a failure of education, and a tragedy of identity politics (was that gleeful rapist who was so loathsome even his own people sent him back to Europe in chains, really the best icon anyone could find to rally around?)

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#80

Post by vintermann »

inglor_cz wrote: post #47

When thinking about this from the perspective of rulers and war, Putin is the ultimate mediocre man of our times. He wanted to be the next Great Tsar - Expander of the Realm, forever mentioned in history textbook as the one who put the Russian World together again after Gorbachev let it collapse. But career spooks like him and his inner silovik circe don't really understand war and, at the same time, don't trust the…

I agree he's mediocre, but I can think of a lot more mediocre men in our times. I think he's a lot more concerned with what's immediately ahead for himself personally, and less interested in what history will think of him than you believe.
Post reply on HN