In the 1990's Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software boom era of competitive growth there were a couple big players like Oracle, SAP and PeopleSoft and several next tier ones. JD Edwards was one of those next tier players that was full of innovation and had growth ambition. The executive team of JDE was approached by Oracle, Larry Ellison with an offer to buy. Like Microsoft and other top dogs in industries they try to buy those companies that provide products they can't produce as well and/or fear being surpassed by in a free market.
JDE leadership did something that few do in that situation: They said "no" to their suitor. Something that Larry Ellison wasn't used to hearing, "no." Which infuriated him. He got up from the negotiating table and ominously, nastily, demonstrably, with flailing hands and arms, spit spewing out of his mouth as he growled, "I *WILL* own you! I will bury you! If it's the last thing I do I'll make sure you'll rue the day you said "no" to ME!!" A petulant, angry child who nobody ever said no to.
The JDE team took his threats seriously. Oracle made overtures to JDE shareholders. Their offer was rejected. JDE's board and shareholders adopted several poison pill corporate defenses their legal team came up with. Succeeding - momentarily - in preserving their independence from Oracle. But the ERP market was changing rapidly. And Oracle wanted to be the Microsoft of ERP and all big corporate software. And JD Edwards was undercapitalized compared to the rest of the market.
Top JDE brass, not wanting to ever be under Oracle after the experience they had with Ellison looked at PeopleSoft as a friendly partner to merge with. They put the deal together to bring them both together. All was well - seemingly.
And then Ellison swooped in and Oracle bought out PeopleSoft. He was not to be denied. His Oracle now owns JD Edwards. Just like he promised/threatened. Oracle has even kept the JD Edwards name around, their feature, best of class OneWorld/EnterpriseOne still branded and supported under Oracle. I suspect just to rub the noses of JDE leaders in it, an "I Won" flag planted on his trophy kill. Several of JDE's former top brass who audaciously said "no" to Ellison have since passed away. Kind of young. I'm sure of natural causes.
That's who Larry Ellison is. Just in case anyone had any questions.
Most of the history I share above was widely reported at the time. The internet hasn't preserved much of it though. Here's a piece from 2010 {updated 2016) that recaps a portion of it. From when JDE was acquired by PeopleSoft in a friendly merger, and then Oracle's rapid, hostile acquisition of PeopleSoft.
The prior Oracle attempted hostile takeover of JDE isn't mentioned, will take more internet scouring to find.
Some of the background color I describe wasn't widely reported at the time...but...I knew people in those meetings. The Denver Post alludes to it:
"Ellison is also among the most feared executives in corporate America, well-known for his aggressive style and hardball tactics.
“He’s pretty cutthroat,” said Sloane Stricker, chief technology officer for Broomfield-based Datavail, which provides database support services. “And if you asked somebody, they’d rather work for Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.”"
"The internet hasn't preserved much of it though."
—I believe it may be more accurate to say that this information is slowly being purged. I have watch a slow, disturbing change in search results that began in 2015 and has incrementally gotten creepier, more curated, and full of far more holes.
Yep. Even the archive sites. Every once in awhile I read through older Stacks I wrote, find many dead links. Sometimes I'm able to find same info in another source. Sometimes not. I have to come up with keyword search combinations, Boolean parameters (even though most search engines now ignore), and generally get more clever in ferreting out. I'm pretty good, but the time it takes for buried/forgotten content becomes a cost-benefit decision.
I'm pretty sure one day I'll have to scour Dark Web for info. It's all out there still, just drowned out by volume and restricted search engines. I don't know my way around Dark Web, would like to find search engines that will scour it, even just basic versions that rely on Boolean, like early internet pre-Google was. Is how I cut my teeth in scouring web. Most today never learned. I'd guess less than 2% of even your more sophisticated readers know Boolean, slightly more have only heard of it.
Additional background re: JDE. Ed McVaney co-founded and led it. Was kindofa badass. Not the type to back down, not even to an Ellison type. He went to Iraq right after Bush's invasion. To help with its reconstruction. He decided early on it was better for him to get around in a nondescript private car with hired local security guide than to run around with military or large security detail. I think when he figured out what a clusterfark that was he came back to the states.
I was in his home a few times for fundraisers, he had many. I was just a face in the crowd, one of many guests, didn't know him personally. But I had other connections to him he'd never have known about, I was too small a fry.
I was friends with one of his mid-level managers. Who had been working on a project involving a database. His team he had assigned to it couldn't figure it out, had been stumped for 6-8 weeks and it needed doing ASAP, was holding back the whole thing.
He told me I could probably do it. I had no real experience in programming beyond learning Basic in high school on an Apple 2. He figured I was smart, resourceful and creative enough I could figure it out before his experienced, trained team could; they had pretty much given up, said wasn't possible with the resources they had. He thought differently.
He gave me his library card for local university to check out books on relational databases. I checked them out, read (more like skimmed) them that weekend, went to the JDE worksite Monday, had a solution figured out by Thursday. I Beta tested it that weekend for integrity, worked through glitches, was up and running by following Monday. His experienced, trained team was let go a few days later, after saying, "wow, we didn't know it could do it like that." New eyes, "unburdoned by what had been."
Pros often get blinded by their own expertise. I just kept coming back to relational database theory I had just studied, theory said it would work, the tool and resources I had were sufficient. They could only think in layers of complexity, talking themselves out of simple solutions.
I ended up traveling the US and to international offices to train others on the install. Just from skimming a couple books one weekend, no prior experience.
Oh, sorry, thought you asked what software do I know now.
I help freedom activists become better advocates with their elected officials. Along the lines of what I was doing when I'd go to fundraisers at McVaney's house in the long ago. But more removed.
Never pursued much more. I did a few more projects using same template for different clients, but was only side hustle. I enjoyed solving the puzzles, auditing and mapping client's business processes, workflows, could customize elegant solutions, lot of attention to detail, no quit. Able to anticipate future needs, uses for data clients never thought would need. I'd build in functionality hidden in back end knowing they'd eventually want, much easier to do at creation than overlay on top of finished product. When they'd inevitably ask for add-on I just had to make it visible, easy peasy...but charged like it was more work. It was, intellectual property has value.
But it gets old and mundane for me after awhile. I need people interaction, sociable.
MS Access, SQL and Visual Basic. Nothing too advanced. I'm sure could pick more up just like I did, but not interested
You’re writing this as if it’s well recorded history, but none of these quotes are findable anywhere on the internet. It appears you’re paraphrasing from remembered third party reporting on the matter.
Still, if it were true it wouldn’t be unusual. Ballmer threw chairs around. Jobs and Gates were both famous for their potty mouths and hyper-competitive approach.
What I take away from this is that Ellison is the kind of guy who buys companies. JD Edwards lives on in both name and software, which is an unusually good outcome for an acquired company. Many acquisitions end with the product being erased, or the team being laid off, or both.
The Denver Post article linked in another comment on this thread does a pretty good job of validating what I wrote. Did you bother to read it? The relevant quote is excerpted for you - just in case your the type of troll who's too lazy to actually click a link while demanding proof.
But, you are right in the sense that the DP article merely alludes to the specific behavior that I describe...that is from someone I knew who was in the meeting I wrote about. It. Fits.
And you can see that the DP article even shared an observation that if given the choice workers would choose to work for Warren Buffet or Bill Gates to Larry Ellison. Since you mentioned him.
Alistair Penbroke, you may choose to believe or not believe what I wrote. I related what I knew, and the DP article fits what I wrote. If you'll only be satisfied by a signed affidavit witnessed by at least two people so that it's admissable into a court of law as evidence then I do not have that for you.
OJ Simpson was acquitted because jurors claimed they didn't have sufficient evidence to convict. There are many who believe he wasn't guilty of murdering his ex. Most people saw enough to believe he was, and could care less about the jury verdict, believing a guilty man got away with murder. I think you would've been in the former, not the latter group of people. Because you *want* to believe differently and absent a smoking gun you believe he's innocent.
Thing about it is that most people reading my comment will believe what I shared, with the DP article serving as sufficient evidence. You choose to believe differently without a smoking gun. And the beauty of it is that I really don't care if you believe me or not. I know most readers have more common sense and know OJ was guilty, and Ellison likely did what I describe. It is for them I write, not you, a lost cause.
I click right in, no paywall. Perhaps it's a VPN issue or a different browser will help.
When I run into paywall/VPN issues I try the different archive sites, like archive.org (which now blocks most NYT and WSJ sites). Archive.org actually has the same article:
..or archive.ph or archive.vn (which doesn't block NYT and WSJ sites. Many different country code variations of same format). These archive sites do not have a version to share this specific story.
It's a rare instance no archive version is saved. Very useful to get past paywalls. Note: all archive sites rely on users to save versions (timed snapshots) behind paywalls to pass them on to future readers. If users don't save them then they will remain effectively locked behind paywalls. I try to be a giver and a taker...maybe you're not a lost cause, after all!
Something I saw when I was a teenager, it is so simple to understand. I have nothing but gratitude to those who honestly earn enormous wealth, it is the criminals, those who don't care who gets hurt or who will actually be made to pay the price for their ill gotten gains. Someone like "Doctor" Fauci, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers of this world. Even some of the things these people do add value, or at least seem to, but their lack of inner virtue, of that sense of connection to others which seems to be missing, the fact that the emptiness inside drives them to find that luxuries and indulgences are not enough, they need the thrill of control and escape without consequences for any injuries they may cause to others. Those who take advantage of the psychopaths that are attracted to the easy money and prestige of public office in order to rob the public are a big problem. The fact that justice can be purchased like yachts is a problem. Problems can be solved.
Yes AND a spiritually wealthy soul would not be spending their billions to enslave others via financial wealth. In the same token one person can generously create a domino effect to help others, so too, is the opposite, (in the sense that we can only help others to the proportion they are willing to help themselves) meaning none of those billionaires would have power to coerce and invade the privacy of others if not given the consent to do so. The mass participation keeps the loop in tact. The government corporation (mafia) works with the billionaires to create these campaigns that plea to the emotional part of mankind making them easier to control. Like the Facebook censorship, now they backtrack and use PR stunts to make it seem like they care like something will be different (just like politics) while it's all just a rouse to appease the masses when they get a bit ruffled. Once the propaganda is laid out everyone goes back to the monotony of the rat race, quiet and with a false sense of safety pretending everything is ok or that someone else will do something, while the world burns. Just like Trump doubling down on his jabs and AI while those who don't want to see what is happening turn a blind eye and refuse to recognize both sides play for the same team and it's not team humanity. Money doesn't make someone bad, it's their choices that money gives them to amplify that creates the toll. Thus, we all must remember that even if we only have $1 the way we spend our currency is a direct reflection of the world we want to create and that $1 matters more than we realize through our every day endeavors. We can create true value exchanges inside a wisdom economy or we can allow the same top down hierarchy to dictate and dominate the trajectory of our lives. Overlooked topic you touched on today, great piece. Billionaire Blame doesn't change anything, it only reinforces the lack mindset and victimhood we're allowing in to our own consciousness through handing our power away.
The real problem with billionaires is that you’re not one. If you put in the effort and work and sacrifices to achieve it what would YOU do with that money power???
I would find a seamount in the Doldrums, in international waters. I would convert it into an artificial island and create my own private-law jurisdiction (roughly à la H. Hoppe).
I would invite other wealthy people to create a business or habitation presence there. I would continually expand the footprint outward as far as willing investors and the sea bottom allowed, slowly creating a private-law "country." I would welcome anyone who shared the ideals of market anarchism and wanted to thrive there.
I would not seek to control anyone's lives. I would use the power of market-anarchic solutions to keep the peace.
If I already had billions I would save the world. I would be able to risk losing money on developing my inventions and business ideas. Even though I do play the lottery I am not making any plans based on winning. So I am continuing to research and develop. One of my ideas is similar to your artificial island concept. If the structure is connected to the ocean floor, sea mount or otherwise, it can be called an island. If it is not then, according to The Law of the Sea, it is a floating platform “vessel” and must fly an existing national flag. If not then it is considered piracy. Once you build your artificial island you should expect to be in the glare of the eye of Sauron. But I do believe that we should be colonizing the oceans, even before we try to colonize other planets. Colonizing the oceans is actually the best place to practice for going into space. My ocean colonization idea incorporates several existing, proven technologies such as OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) which produces energy from temperature differences in ocean waters. Another is mineral accretion for the construction and has been used to repair existing reefs and build new, artificial ones. It can be used to build megastructures of unlimited size and has structural integrity similar to concrete. And another is a cheap freeze desalination process that would piggyback off the OTEC system. This technology is already being used in a project in Hawaii. With virtually unlimited space, water, and cheap energy, artificial islands can be superefficient.
I am familiar with TSI but no, I have not spoken with them. Right now I am focusing on getting land to build a supersufficient, poison-free farmstead. It should be fully functional in about five years and become a profitable business. I have been researching the franchising process and intend to do that with farmsteads. Even if I win the lottery I will still do this. The only difference more money would make is in magnitude and speed of development of this business model. The market for this is huge.
I have been thinking about a concept very similar to this. I probably would never do it myself, but I have been wondering if anyone else was, and about the viability of the model. And if there is any way to interface something like this with the DN.
I think we should talk. Maybe not now, but in a couple of months, after I have thought things through a bit more.
Absolutely, hit me up anytime. And yes, my franchising model approach definitely meshes well with your Distributed Network concept because what I would be ultimately building is a distributed network of agricultural production. If I am the McDonalds of franchising with both corporate owned “stores” and franchisees, I would also have partners that are not under our brand but could be contract suppliers as long as they meet our zero poison standards. I look forward to hearing from you.
That is why I first mention wealthy people. We would need market agencies to arise with the ability to project force in defense.
And as far as preppers go, they certainly would not be able to defend against all predators if they came at once. But that isn't a likely scenario. When things melt down, most people will die quick, because they are not prepared. Once that unfolds, I'd rather be the one with food and gear than the one without.
If I had it, I'd be building a REDOUBT for HUMANITY 1.0. No gene therapies, no mRNAs, no Nano tech, clean water, low cost (zero point) energy (it exists), farming good eco practices.. no censorship, freedom and education for all, trade/economies ideas technology, and trying to survive the coming Armageddon (read Revelations, because its coming for the World)
As is Harari (sp), Ray Kursweil (sp) and even good ole Elon with the neural lace...and the satellite global 'surveillance' starlink.... Not to mention Gates of Hell, and his ilk.
Billionaires are just extrapolating the same problem that anybody has when they are selfish with their money- they use it to manipulate others rather than help them.
We have a many homeless people in Australia, but the problem is not a lack of homes, the fact is that the rich have purchased many homes but don't rent them out. There are thousands of homes that lay empty because it is not worth the effort to rent them out as (some) people don't respect them and don't pay the rent.
What happens is that there is a demand for houses (because many are all owned by rich people who won't rent them out,) and that makes the house prices go up, which gives a good return on the investment to the rich people, so they don't NEED to rent them out!
Lack of respect from some of the poor for their rented houses makes the rich able to get richer by limiting the housing stock.
All other people then suffer, except those who own their own house, and the rich who own many houses.
Greed and selfishness and disrespect from all people leads to oppression and injustice and more greed and selfishness and disrespect from all people.
... and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry. Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth! (Isa 5:7-9)
Well, we’re not rich at all, but when we moved into our current house, our last one was underwater because of the 2008 mortgage bubble. So instead of selling and losing all that money, we rented. We rented to one family for 11 years. We charged less than the market rate for rentals in the area—so much so that we lost money each month on the mortgage. But we thought we were being nice and helping out a family that didn’t have much.
How did they repay that kindness? By trashing the house so badly that it took $40,000 to refurbish after we finally got them out. Not all of that cost was from damage they did, but a lot of it was. Damage, pets, smoking, neglect, kicking holes in doors, etc.
Rich, poor, and in between, everyone runs the gamut.
Sad to say but it seems no good deed goes unpunished. I recently offered to let a homeless woman on SS (shall remain nameless) live in one of my homes and offered her a job with my company. She spat in my face and told me I was suspect from now on.
Yes, I have heard of so many similar examples, yet governments keep passing laws against the landlords that make it more difficult get tenants out, or even being able to be choosy as to who goes into the house in the first place- ie no pets.
Governments are the cause of the "housing crisis" by not allowing landlords to get rid of tenants that don't look after the property, so landlords just keep a property and don't rent it out.
I am not sure, but I know that if you put it in as a condition then trying to enforce it is impossible, I gave up renting out houses after my first experience. I just own one house and live in it.
Great though provoking piece, Christopher. It always struck me as odd that many politicians on the right or the left, who hate billionaires to the point of wanting to tax them massively, also tell us they “support the free market.” This is a complete lie because the two positions are contradictory.
Robert Reich has publicly supported limiting the wealth of Americans at $100 million each, yet consistently advocating support for the “free market.” It’s totalitarian nonsense.
And if this were a fully free market—id est, no involuntary governance whatsoever—billionaires' ability to use their wealth to mess with our lives would be reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced.
(Anarchism doesn't "fix" the problem; it just makes it somewhat better.)
My oh my, my sentiments exactly. I think the real problem with so many billionaires is that they become extremely bored with life because they can have anything they want. Thus, the final frontier, so to speak, it to move into the position of becoming self-appointed Gods. They have a greater tendency to think they know what is best for all of us underlings. No freaking way. I hope Stargate blows up on the launch pad and turns into No-go-gate.
"I think the real problem with so many billionaires is that they become extremely bored with life because they can have anything they want. Thus, the final frontier, so to speak, it to move into the position of becoming self-appointed Gods."
Bill Gates comes to mid. He solved a lot of problems for people with his computer knowledge and then spread out into the 'helping' mode where he arrogantly sought to help people solve their own problems rather than let them solve their own as he had done. He got involved in areas where he had no knowledge and caused a lot of problems.
Devil Bill did what he did intentionally. He/she/it is Satan incarnate, a transvestite, and a Talmud thumper. He did what he did because he hates humanity.
Yeah, what I was trying to say with a few more words. We all have a drive to greater happiness and satisfaction, but many get sidetracked thinking it is pleasures and luxuries that will give that to them, but the wise soon discover what their ego (false sense of self) tells them is a only dead end, and like the socialist dummies refuse to learn the lessons reality is teaching and who think it will just work if they do more of it, so they carry it to its sorry destructive extremes.
The call us materialistic, but they are the ones who are obsessed with >things<. Who has more things? What do they do with those things? Are they being 'socially responsible' with those things? How are all the things distributed? Give us control over the distribution of things. Things things things.
I do not care one whit about other people's things. I only care what they do to me.
Ah, Muse! Compliance is a favorite of mine. I played that one often during the corona virus scam but not quite as often as I played Uprising. The two songs felt like bookends during that period of time.
Well said, Chris. As sociologist Bill Domhoff has methodically proven over the last 50 years, the corporate rich are the key drivers of both public opinion and public policy. It's important to note that this is what's called "distributive power" - that is, not total control, but "great or preponderant influence." As we saw during the COVID era, even without the force of law, the pressure to conform to certain policies or norms is incredibly strong.
To envy rich people is as evil as greed for wealth and the power it buys. Almost no one believes what Jesus said about rich people. The reason it is so difficult for a rich man to enter heaven is that the more he gets the more he wants, and that consumes all of his time and energy.
Worth the read. And sadly true. These megalomaniacs need to be pruned. Unlike to happen because the normies can't make it happen, but likely they'll do them selves in anyway .. the law of unintended consequences that they think they know, but they really really do not, its such a beyotch ain't it? I'm waiting joyously for it to happen... good bye suckers you and your entire families are DOA (as if they really CARE about any people, funny that). All because you thought you could control things you cannot and got a big God complex. Ha ha ha ... laughing in eternity from the other side...(because the devil IS in the details, aint' he, and God well God takes his time but is right on time if you know what I mean)
Based on the knowledge and acquaintances I have, most billionaires and multi-multi millionaires are not psycho weirdos. They made their money legit and don't do anything super-weird with it.
But a small number of them get psycho God complexes and that is a REAL problem for humanity.
I am excited about the possibilities for AI in solving problems even though I don't even know what an 'algorithm' is. But I don't want it to ever be in the hands of people who would use it to spy upon or control innocent people. No regulations by government on it or to use it for control.
No government is the answer. I say it is easy through the 9th Amendment which forbids all taxes and regulations and therefore all government. If it had been written like Madison wrote the 1st, it would say, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of individuals to take any innocent actions they choose in the pursuit of their happiness. These include the 5 rights of property of INNOCENTLY acquiring, possessing, using, defending and disposing of any conceivable item of property except another human being." That means that if you have a right to earn and keep your own property including money, then no one on earth can take it from you without your voluntary consent. NO TAXES. Therefore, no government. And if you have the sole right to use your property, there can be no regulations. The Bill of Rights, with its awesome 9th Amendment , cancels out all government powers over the innocent.
I've been trying for about 50 years by myself. My friends, family and neighbors of course think I'm crazy but I know better. The 9th Amendment is about our unenumerated rights and it contains some other provisions such as writs of mandamus, corum nobis, habeas corpus and, the most important one, Quo Waranto, which I discussed in a note to other notes and by which any citizen can oust any or all government officials from office. I filed such an action with AG Merrick Garland a year ago, knowing he was corrupt ad wouldn't do his job. I was right so the task of prosecuting every corrupt or incompetent officials, and they all are, fell onto my shoulders. I notified the political parties, Biden, Trump, Harris, media, etc of the action and, as I expected, received not one response. To follow through would have meant the end of government and, to those incapable of thinking, that was unthinkable. But Quo Warranto remains a hydrogen bomb in our quiver against tyranny.
You can file a claim of monetary damages against their bond, with the bond holder, usually an insurance company. This increases the cost of doing business for the municipality employing the bad actor doing harm.
We have a new AG in Pam Bondi who is less corrupt than Merrick but she, like all lawyers, does not understand the 9th. I'll be filing a new Quo Warranto action with her when she gets approved. We'll see.
Another comment about jurisdiction. We the innocent people have jurisdiction over everyone in government, not the other way around. They proudly assert that they are our 'public servants' but there is not a single public servant who does not want to be our public master. Yet everyone of them is a predator and parasite on us and that gives us as innocents jurisdiction to threaten and use force against any criminal preying on us. They are subject to our will, not vice versa.
What you describe is the way it ought to be, but it is not the way it is. One might imagine that it is the way (some of) the Founders believed it ought to be.
The salient notion to me, however, is my strong suspicion that it can never be that way. If you create a system that allows people involuntary rule over you (or, more precisely, if such a system is imposed on you), it will never be anything other than a master-slave relationship.
In American adjudication, it is the people, not the government who are sovereign. Yick Wo v. Hopkins and other cases. But that just makes sense. People in government are just human beings and the rights of all human beings are precisely the same - the right to take any innocent actions they choose in the pursuit of their happiness. There are no beings with a 'superior' right to take harmful criminal actions against the innocent. But the innocent are superior beings eating to inferior criminals and do have a right to use force against them in defense of their rights.
What if Mark Zuckerberg wasn't sitting front and center at the inauguration as the face of Facebook (supposedly newly cowed into submission concerning censorship), but was instead there as the face of CZ Biohub?
Christopher, there are a few people I have met (you only virtually) that I resonate deeply with and learn from. Whenever I hunt down your latest post I always learn something and my perspective changes. And that feels like Grace. A perspective shift changes reality. Thank you for this. And the subtle shifts you provide me with. I know writing takes time. It is not about what rich people spend. Ultimately, it is not about wealth but about fear and manipulation which is a form of distortion.
And thank you also for continuing to support my writing. That is huge for me!
I feel like I have been on a great journey of discovery for my whole life. I started out much further from the truth and have been walking towards it every since. Like a mountain, it keeps getting closer, and now I feel like my approach is getting more asymptotic—like, I might not actually touch it (perhaps none of us can actually touch it) but it feels like it's really really close now.
Muse song always earns my respect! I've always been a fan of their earlier stuff; everything until Resistance is gold (I do enjoy some of their latter work, but it's not *as* compelling to me, haha). In either case they're still one of my favorite bands! Although, I'm really enjoying The Warning as well.
Contemptible musings (pun intended) incoming:
[I actually haven't read Marx in-depth, so my personal policy has usually been to avoid treating someone's name like a curse word if I haven't engaged with their ideas in a substantial manner. Essentially, I think everyone says things that are worth taking away, as well as things worth leaving behind, so if I'm not instinctively negative towards him, that's the reason why :P]
I don't have especially strong opinions on economics, but I *will* say that I don't think inequality is the problem as much as absolute poverty is, in many places around the world. Someone being able to amass the wealth required to own a yacht, while someone else is toiling away right across the street is pretty harrowing (not hyperbole or first world problem), and it's a bit difficult to perceive that state of affairs as the yacht guy being a net benefit to society.
For important things like health and education, if that pattern continues across generations (ie the rich can afford better) and hierarchies grow more entrenched, then I do fear that wealth *mobility* is significantly undermined and the economy tends towards a less free or meritocratic state. I'm not married to this idea, though, but I suppose I do think it's fair for people to make value judgments about *some* billionaires being better than others ... e.g. Andrew Carnegies over the Bernard Arnaults. Wealth is merely the vessel through which one can act out their existing values (or lack thereof), so why not try to be good (and encourage it), as opposed to decapitating hydras?
At the same time, I do think something that's often ignored is that the wealth inequality that's observed today isn't the result of an organic free market, and rather due to corporate bail-outs, which probably impedes wealth mobility as well (hence more Rothschild-esque scenarios, and fewer Carnegies). That then incentivizes sociopathic collusion rather than more "altruistic" ways of doing a lot of things ... hence one ends up with those public-private partnerships.
Perhaps, my only tentative conclusion would be that conclusion could entail that wealth is rather reflective of power--e.g. if one can bribe their way out of justice, then there are many standards that won't effectively apply to them in the sense that they would for someone else. That's ultimately a reflection of inner constitution, or lack thereof ... and if power over others is the problem, then the same could be said for government, the entity to which one's been in a contract with since before they were born.
I often joke that we live in an unfree market with a reigning profit motive, but I do think that if many weren't so inclined towards consumerist/hedonistic avenues as opposed to more edifying pursuits, they'd be less likely to seek out artificial gods through "most important election of your life" politics... further compounding by the weird conflation of liberty with libertinism. Bread-and-circuses distractions are easy to sell to people in a saccharine manner ("if you do this, if you buy that, you'll get yours!") that doesn't let on the lack of personal meaning needed to buy into it.
But that's, er, just my two cents, unaccounted for by inflation.
"I actually haven't read Marx in-depth, so my personal policy has usually been to avoid treating someone's name like a curse word if I haven't engaged with their ideas in a substantial manner."
—Marx made a large number of predictions. They ALL failed. In just about every case, the opposite of what he predicted is what actually came to pass. He was trying to make socialism "scientific." But it turned out to be junk science. Some of his analysis of existing problems was okay, but most of that was garbage too.
We must also check the fruit that the tree produced. Every single political manifestation of Marxian ideas produced failure, oppression, mass murder, or all three. 150 human souls wiped out in pursuit of this man's ideas. At some point, you have to say that a rotten tree produces rotten fruit.
"I do think that if many weren't so inclined towards consumerist/hedonistic avenues as opposed to more edifying pursuits, they'd be less likely to seek out artificial gods through "most important election of your life"
—How does one bring about such a change in people?
That's a pretty big question that I don't have a definitive answer to—no longer young enough to know everything! :(
I think the change has to stem from the self, as opposed to a more, er, nifty top-down mechanism. How *does* one convince anyone to "check out" of more asinine pursuits? Many of those influences capitalize on people's need for social belonging ("you wouldn't want to be *uncool*, would you?!") or distraction from otherwise grueling aspects of life ("feeling sad? medicate yourself through meds!"), and because the prescribed solutions appear so saccharine / Pinocchio Island-esque, it takes more force of will to be critical towards them.
I think a solution to this could be inculcating some sort of higher meaning, which doesn't necessarily have to be a god, but rather, some set of values that can serve as a tether amidst the barrage of influences to which one is exposed—I wrote this a while ago, when ranting about some of the culture shock I experienced when I started college:
"I don’t have any conclusive answers, and I’m somewhat skeptical of any narrative that proclaims to have any, whether it be any answers, or some silver bullet implementation of meaning. However, if one were to hold onto their inherent conscience, examining every heuristic that is often uncritically employed in their life, I think they’d be closer to becoming a meaning generating individual. We do need some sort of meaning; the choice is between taking a step above and beyond to create it, and letting our impulses—and limbic system—take the wheel."
It's the adoption of that en masse that's the greater challenge, in my view. However, I think that if more enduring notions (e.g. authenticity and the willingness to go against the grain) were expressed more often in the art/media that people are continually exposed to, it'd make for a more productive climate. But I fear that I'm delving into my pretentious "fewer Sabrina Carpenters, more Lzzy Hales, plz!" hypothesis now :O
"But I fear that I'm delving into my pretentious "fewer Sabrina Carpenters, more Lzzy Hales, plz!" hypothesis now :O"
—I love Lzzy Hale. I didn't know anything about Sabrina Carpenter, so I looked at two songs on YT.
Sabrina Carpenter, from my cursory glance, is over-produced "songs" written by AI and sung in pathetic indy-girl accent by a girl whose been told she's prettier than she actually is.
Lzzy Hale is crazy, authentic, a great singer and musician, and hot AF.
I am not sure exactly what your "pretentious" hypothesis is, exactly, but you had me at "more Lzzy Hales."
Hahaha, I have a tendency to boil down a lot of societal problems into "it's because the music on the radio is vapid!", which doesn't bode well with most people. I could probably write a whole wall of text about it, but will try to be brief (probably should've said suggestion rather than hypothesis).
Ultimately, I think meaningful art is meant to challenge someone, or to leave them with something to think about. It might be abrasive or not easily understood (or appreciated!) by the masses, but there's still something that's enduring. I wasn't alive back then, but even '90s MTV had a whole range of varied and unique artists (NIN, TOOL, and Soundgarden?!) that I really wouldn't be able to imagine today. I'm partial to alt-rock (especially the grunge scene), but even Tori Amos and Alanis Morissette had substance to their work.
In contrast, I think the radio is quite conducive to creating a somnambulist society, in that it prefers anodyne "shopping mall" music as opposed to anything that would require effort to appreciate—at the same time, the overall distinction between “edgy/subversive” and radio-friendly is no longer as defined, and instead, there’s an infantilizing component to what’s considered offensive behavior now (like Brave New World).
The mainstream is thus left to be extremely unchallenging, and certainly doesn't invite anything enduring. Individuality is certainly not encouraged, except in the deceiving "look at me, I have blue hair and 50 pronouns!!!" sense. That's not to say that authentic artists don't exist, but just that they're still compartmentalized in niches that don't reach 'normie' ears (partly due to the streaming age). For instance, I only discovered Lzzy Hale or Maria Brink because I'm inclined to seek out heavier / angstier music, but they're not household names (every time someone wears a Taylor Swift Eras Tour t-shirt, an angel loses its wings :P).
Now, as to how those authentic artists could break out of those compartments, I don't know... but it'd be an interesting state of affairs to see for sure (and definitely more #FreedomFridays!).
—I love In This Moment. Maria Brink is some kind of metal Valkyrie.
—If good music is being artificially blocked from young ears, that is uncool. But are we sure that it is possible for the good stuff to become mainstream anyway? Is it not possible that a share of the human population are, and will always be, simply normies who will like pop crap?
To some degree, this has always been the case, and perhaps more so now. There are layers. Some people out there listen to stuff that is way more obscure, and think that Halestorm is sellout crap. And you can keep going deeper, until you find people who think that unless you are listening to German existentialist torture-metal made by dwarves, you might as well be a Swiftie.
In the 70s, people made fun of disco, because it was popular and because it wasn't rock. (I was just a kid, so I did not have much of a dog in that fight.) But disco at least was real music being made by real people, so that other real people could dance and get buzzed and hook up in clubs. I am not convinced that Taylor Swift is even real.
Okay, she's probably real. But pop today seems even more hyper-produced than anything before. It's pretty gross. And I take back some of what I said above—yes, there will always be normies, and yes, some people will always have bubblegum taste. But I think more people would like the good stuff if they had more exposure to it.
But then (and excuse me for being all over the map), to some degree, what becomes popular, and the degree to which it does, is driven by the distribution of taste. More people are going to like pop than like metal, and more people are going to like metal with clean vocals than will like screamo, and more people will like screamo than will like industrial dubstep house metal with lyrics exclusively sung in Latin by the ghosts of dead pirates.
And would we even want the more obscure stuff to become mainstream? If it did, wouldn't it lose something? The shitters who work in the big corporate music giants would take it and package it and autotune it and ruin it.
Look what happened to whatsherface…oh man, now I am blanking…middle-aged-brain…have to look it up…LIZ PHAIR. "This song will be great for you, Liz, trust us." Indie artist goes pop; her real fans see it as inauthentic; her career ends. Maybe we don't want everything to be mainstream?
—"in that it prefers anodyne "shopping mall" music." I think that things may have gotten better when it comes to that. When I was a kid, shopping malls and stores actually played MUZAK. It was a running joke. But that is over now. I hear plenty of classic rock when shopping. So that is an improvement.
—"The mainstream is thus left to be extremely unchallenging, and certainly doesn't invite anything enduring. Individuality is certainly not encouraged, except in the deceiving "look at me, I have blue hair and 50 pronouns!!!" YES. The tide has turned now. The center of edgy counterculture is moving away from the left. Theirs is now packaged and boring and predictable and mainstream. They think they're edgy rebels but they're not. They won. And now they will become sclerotic and conservative and reactionary, like the winners do. The process is underway. The blue hair is just transitional, on their way to becoming tongue-clucking dowagers in powdered wigs. Libertarian/conservative/anarchist is the new counterculture.
Okay, so that was all over the map. Whatevs; I just woke up. Interesting conversation, though!
"However, if one were to hold onto their inherent conscience, examining every heuristic that is often uncritically employed in their life, I think they’d be closer to becoming a meaning generating individual."
—Boom. Nice.
"We do need some sort of meaning; the choice is between taking a step above and beyond to create it, and letting our impulses—and limbic system—take the wheel."
—So, IIUC, it's the difference between higher consciousness and base desires? Between actively choosing based on free will, rather than just being swept away by the tide of one's base impulses?
"I think a solution to this could be inculcating some sort of higher meaning, which doesn't necessarily have to be a god, but rather, some set of values that can serve as a tether"
—I cannot presume that you have read every installment of the DN, so please tell me if I am repeating myself here, but I have been talking about this. What will it take to hold our (distributed) nation together?
It can't be some totalizing system, nor can it be an exclusive religion. Those would make the tent smaller, not bigger.
It MUST be the principles/protocols of natural law—that is sine qua non, and the core of all of it. But is that enough?
"capitalize on people's need for social belonging ("you wouldn't want to be *uncool*, would you?!") or distraction from otherwise grueling aspects of life ("feeling sad? medicate yourself through meds!"), "
—I think about this a lot vis-a-vis the distributed nation concept. I hate the thought of anyone feeling lonely!!
"it's a bit difficult to perceive that state of affairs as the yacht guy being a net benefit to society."
(Passionately felt words incoming here, but please know that it's not personal!)
—This is a common perception, but it just just perception. It is rooted in compassion, but it fails to calculate the actual nature of human economics.
We begin with a planet that does owe any of us an existence, and does not care if we live or die. So we have to hunt and gather just to stay alive. That is the basic nature of our existence.
Then things grow more complex, as we begin to specialize, trade, and advance. Eventually, we get to where we are now.
But the basic nature remains. It's easier to feel like things are unfair when we see a wealth gap, but nothing has changed. We must hunt and gather in order to stay alive, and we are owed nothing. Even though there are people who are right next door who have more.
It is really really important to stop believing that the yacht is somehow taking something away. It isn't. It is adding. More people are able to "hunt and gather" because the guy wants a yacht.
Again, the problem here is the belief in zero-sum-game economics. I know it's hard to shake, but we must! The guy who wants the yacht can only afford it if he ADDS something. (Again, we are setting aside the problem that *some* get rich through cronyism, etc.) In normal economic terms, he can only afford the yacht if he grows the economy in some way.
You must see that economies grow, right? If not, we would still all be passing around the same 100 seashells that we were trading 40,000 years ago. People take previously unconverted things—natural resources, land, ideas, and labor—and turn them into something valuable. Something that others want, and will trade their own ideas, property, and labor for. That grows the economy.
The person who can afford the yacht can only do so by growing the economy in some way. He provided a product or wrote a screenplay or whatever. People took their money (which was their reward for growing the economy in other ways) and give it to the rich guy for the thing that he has done. Lots of people buy the product, go see the movie, go watch the baseball game, whatever. Each one just provides a small amount of his own money. One guy gets rich as a result.
Thus, the guy across the street has not lost anything because of the yacht. There is not a single thing in the yacht that that poor person was about to use until—yoink!—the rich person took it away. "Hey, I was about to use that tree!" "Hey, any minute now, I was going to dig underneath my shack and extract that petroleum!" Nope.
The rich person got rich by growing the economy and then uses some of that surplus to buy another item (in this case, a yacht), which grows the economy even further. All of a sudden, there is a demand for someone to cut wood, make varnish, learn how to be good at boat building, learn how to be good at sailing, learn how to paint hulls, make sandpaper, farm hemp, make rope, etc. etc. etc. outwards to 10,000 other jobs, all interconnected.
Nothing about the yacht takes away anything. but it does create new opportunities for other people to "hunt and gather." Opportunities that did not exist until the rich person created enough of a surplus that the yacht was desired.
The yacht is absolutely a net benefit to society. I have never heard any analysis to the contrary that was even remotely cogent. And every analysis I have heard is tied to the same ideology that slaughtered a nine-digit number of human souls in a single century, all in pursuit of the belief that no one should be allowed to have a yacht.
It seems that the scarlet plague will forever be here, infecting young minds. It infected mine, when I was young! It is rooted in compassion, but it is so wrong and dangerous.
Thank you for the responses! I'll probably respond in parts as well.
I should clarify that I'm not endorsing any state control; it's more that although I don't think positive rights should be maintained through force, I do think that someone—to steal an analogy—who doesn't save a drowning child because it might ruin his $100 suit is in the wrong, *even if* he didn't cause that kid's predicament.
Similarly, the yacht-guy isn't taking away resources from the guy toiling away (and may have created jobs), but with the jobs scenario, if said jobs took place in sweatshop conditions and basic standards aren't being met, it wouldn't be completely untoward to find it poignant or unjust—*even if* the individual accepting that contract finds it marginally better than the alternative (no job / opportunity to "hunt and gather"). This is even more the case if said individual is in a terrible bargaining position (hence how "races to the bottom" are common business practices—even cruise industries adopt flags of convenience to that end). Yacht-guy may not have *caused* any of this to occur, but he can still choose to act in more or less altruistic ways.
I'm not saying that it's justified for society to implement more altruistic incentives through force (ie "pay your taxes or else straight to jail!"), and I do agree that the market should be free, but that's where I think the "Carnegies vs. Arnaults" value judgments (ie voting with one's dollars) matter. It often seems as though billionaires are either spurned as intrinsically parasitic Bond villains, *or* automatically assumed to be the product of trail-blazing industrialism.
"It seems that the scarlet plague will forever be here, infecting young minds."
Hey, now that's bordering on patronizing! -_-
I kid, but if it's any hope, I once had my 7th grade social studies teacher get pretty mad at me because I suggested that the Industrial Revolution was not, in fact, slavery—her rationale was that the factory conditions were not good, while mine was that if someone is still voluntarily agreeing to said arrangement, then it can't be slavery. She then responded with a pithy Cathy Newman-esque "so you're saying that this is good?!?!", and completely missed my point. I still resent her for this!
"I do think that someone—to steal an analogy—who doesn't save a drowning child because it might ruin his $100 suit is in the wrong, *even if* he didn't cause that kid's predicament." […] " basic standards that aren't being met, *even if* the individual accepting that contract finds it marginally better than the alternative (no job / opportunity"
—Yes. it's the difference between MUST morality and SHOULD morality. MUST morality can be enforced through protective force. (You MUST pay me back for burning down my house; you MUST NOT steal; etc.) SHOULD morality cannot be enforced, but you should still do it. (Pay your workers a living wage; be nice to Susan; help a drowning person.)
It is the crucial distinction between enforceability and non-enforceability. Any system that enforces SHOULD morality is itself violating MUST morality, because it is inappropriately using force.
So yeah—be a nice billionaire, absolutely. And the not-nice ones suck!
"isn't the result of an organic free market, and rather due to corporate bail-outs, which probably impedes wealth mobility as well (hence more Rothschild-esque scenarios, and fewer Carnegies"
—BOOM. Now you're talking. The problem isn't that our market is too free—it's that it's not nearly free enough. Get rid of government. That gets rid of corporate personhood. That gets rid of extracting money from us to give them bailouts, grants, loans, and special treatment. That gets rid of one business's ability to game the system at the expense of their competitors. That gets rid of the vector by which billionaires impose their business needs upon us, forcing us to buy their products. That also gets rid of most of the force-vectors by which billionaires try to play God, once they re bored with their wealth.
"I suppose I do think it's fair for people to make value judgments about *some* billionaires being better than others"
—It absolutely is. I know some billionaires who got rich doing/making things people wanted to buy, and who aren't hurting anyone with their money. I know some personally, and a ton of others indirectly. In fact, only a few billionaires are super villains, as far as I can tell.
" if that pattern continues across generations (ie the rich can afford better) and hierarchies grow more entrenched, then I do fear that wealth *mobility* is significantly undermined and the economy tends towards a less free or meritocratic state."
—It is certainly true that the Pareto distribution is a phenomenon that we cannot seem to escape. The rich do get richer, etc. But…
The Pareto distribution is a fact of human life, not a fact of "capitalism." It exists everywhere.
In 1950, there was MORE economic inequality in the USSR than there was in the U.S. Inequality cannot be done away with, no matter how much force we use to try.
The difference is that in a relatively free market, while inequality exists, everyone is better off. The rich get massively richer, but the poor do better too. Indeed, a freer market, and a freer political environment, are the only forces in human history ever to lift the lot of the poor.
It is easy for humans to lose perspective. We do it in our individual lives, and in our perception of the world. So, instead of seeing the big picture, we just see the relative picture. So, we might see a gap between rich and poor today. But we will fail to notice that the LOWEST income quintile today is richer than the MEDIAN income quintile in 1950. We lose the perspective and see the gap as a disaster, completely ignoring the big picture. It is always valuable to ask oneself "compared to what?" before attempting assessments of a "problem" we perceive.
That is not to say that we should not act. But the only "action" that anyone has come up with thus far makes things worse, not better.
Similarly, there is no place where economic mobility is higher than in free market economies. Is it perfect? No. But it is better in comparison to all the other options. So perhaps the solution is to make the economy even freer, not less free. It won't eliminate inequality, poverty, or dysmobility. But it will improve those more than anything else.
—I know maybe 10 songs, most of which I like to varying degrees. It's harder in one's 50s to keep up with all the music than it was in one's teens, but I think I do a pretty good job of not just listening to the same old stuff, year in and year out. :-)
I perceive a leftish tinge to their politics: "When God decides to look the other way/And a clown takes the throne" released in 2017—well, that sends a message. But I am perfecting happy to adopt their lyrics when they are clearly correct on the merits.
In the 1990's Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software boom era of competitive growth there were a couple big players like Oracle, SAP and PeopleSoft and several next tier ones. JD Edwards was one of those next tier players that was full of innovation and had growth ambition. The executive team of JDE was approached by Oracle, Larry Ellison with an offer to buy. Like Microsoft and other top dogs in industries they try to buy those companies that provide products they can't produce as well and/or fear being surpassed by in a free market.
JDE leadership did something that few do in that situation: They said "no" to their suitor. Something that Larry Ellison wasn't used to hearing, "no." Which infuriated him. He got up from the negotiating table and ominously, nastily, demonstrably, with flailing hands and arms, spit spewing out of his mouth as he growled, "I *WILL* own you! I will bury you! If it's the last thing I do I'll make sure you'll rue the day you said "no" to ME!!" A petulant, angry child who nobody ever said no to.
The JDE team took his threats seriously. Oracle made overtures to JDE shareholders. Their offer was rejected. JDE's board and shareholders adopted several poison pill corporate defenses their legal team came up with. Succeeding - momentarily - in preserving their independence from Oracle. But the ERP market was changing rapidly. And Oracle wanted to be the Microsoft of ERP and all big corporate software. And JD Edwards was undercapitalized compared to the rest of the market.
Top JDE brass, not wanting to ever be under Oracle after the experience they had with Ellison looked at PeopleSoft as a friendly partner to merge with. They put the deal together to bring them both together. All was well - seemingly.
And then Ellison swooped in and Oracle bought out PeopleSoft. He was not to be denied. His Oracle now owns JD Edwards. Just like he promised/threatened. Oracle has even kept the JD Edwards name around, their feature, best of class OneWorld/EnterpriseOne still branded and supported under Oracle. I suspect just to rub the noses of JDE leaders in it, an "I Won" flag planted on his trophy kill. Several of JDE's former top brass who audaciously said "no" to Ellison have since passed away. Kind of young. I'm sure of natural causes.
That's who Larry Ellison is. Just in case anyone had any questions.
Good lord!!!
Most of the history I share above was widely reported at the time. The internet hasn't preserved much of it though. Here's a piece from 2010 {updated 2016) that recaps a portion of it. From when JDE was acquired by PeopleSoft in a friendly merger, and then Oracle's rapid, hostile acquisition of PeopleSoft.
https://www.denverpost.com/2010/02/26/oracle-wields-hefty-muscle-in-colorados-tech-sector/
The prior Oracle attempted hostile takeover of JDE isn't mentioned, will take more internet scouring to find.
Some of the background color I describe wasn't widely reported at the time...but...I knew people in those meetings. The Denver Post alludes to it:
"Ellison is also among the most feared executives in corporate America, well-known for his aggressive style and hardball tactics.
“He’s pretty cutthroat,” said Sloane Stricker, chief technology officer for Broomfield-based Datavail, which provides database support services. “And if you asked somebody, they’d rather work for Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.”"
"The internet hasn't preserved much of it though."
—I believe it may be more accurate to say that this information is slowly being purged. I have watch a slow, disturbing change in search results that began in 2015 and has incrementally gotten creepier, more curated, and full of far more holes.
Yep. Even the archive sites. Every once in awhile I read through older Stacks I wrote, find many dead links. Sometimes I'm able to find same info in another source. Sometimes not. I have to come up with keyword search combinations, Boolean parameters (even though most search engines now ignore), and generally get more clever in ferreting out. I'm pretty good, but the time it takes for buried/forgotten content becomes a cost-benefit decision.
That how they want it.
I'm pretty sure one day I'll have to scour Dark Web for info. It's all out there still, just drowned out by volume and restricted search engines. I don't know my way around Dark Web, would like to find search engines that will scour it, even just basic versions that rely on Boolean, like early internet pre-Google was. Is how I cut my teeth in scouring web. Most today never learned. I'd guess less than 2% of even your more sophisticated readers know Boolean, slightly more have only heard of it.
Additional background re: JDE. Ed McVaney co-founded and led it. Was kindofa badass. Not the type to back down, not even to an Ellison type. He went to Iraq right after Bush's invasion. To help with its reconstruction. He decided early on it was better for him to get around in a nondescript private car with hired local security guide than to run around with military or large security detail. I think when he figured out what a clusterfark that was he came back to the states.
I was in his home a few times for fundraisers, he had many. I was just a face in the crowd, one of many guests, didn't know him personally. But I had other connections to him he'd never have known about, I was too small a fry.
I was friends with one of his mid-level managers. Who had been working on a project involving a database. His team he had assigned to it couldn't figure it out, had been stumped for 6-8 weeks and it needed doing ASAP, was holding back the whole thing.
He told me I could probably do it. I had no real experience in programming beyond learning Basic in high school on an Apple 2. He figured I was smart, resourceful and creative enough I could figure it out before his experienced, trained team could; they had pretty much given up, said wasn't possible with the resources they had. He thought differently.
He gave me his library card for local university to check out books on relational databases. I checked them out, read (more like skimmed) them that weekend, went to the JDE worksite Monday, had a solution figured out by Thursday. I Beta tested it that weekend for integrity, worked through glitches, was up and running by following Monday. His experienced, trained team was let go a few days later, after saying, "wow, we didn't know it could do it like that." New eyes, "unburdoned by what had been."
Pros often get blinded by their own expertise. I just kept coming back to relational database theory I had just studied, theory said it would work, the tool and resources I had were sufficient. They could only think in layers of complexity, talking themselves out of simple solutions.
I ended up traveling the US and to international offices to train others on the install. Just from skimming a couple books one weekend, no prior experience.
That is an amazing story!
What do you do now?
Oh, sorry, thought you asked what software do I know now.
I help freedom activists become better advocates with their elected officials. Along the lines of what I was doing when I'd go to fundraisers at McVaney's house in the long ago. But more removed.
For a particular think tank/entity, or freelance?
Never pursued much more. I did a few more projects using same template for different clients, but was only side hustle. I enjoyed solving the puzzles, auditing and mapping client's business processes, workflows, could customize elegant solutions, lot of attention to detail, no quit. Able to anticipate future needs, uses for data clients never thought would need. I'd build in functionality hidden in back end knowing they'd eventually want, much easier to do at creation than overlay on top of finished product. When they'd inevitably ask for add-on I just had to make it visible, easy peasy...but charged like it was more work. It was, intellectual property has value.
But it gets old and mundane for me after awhile. I need people interaction, sociable.
MS Access, SQL and Visual Basic. Nothing too advanced. I'm sure could pick more up just like I did, but not interested
And yes, intellectual property is property!
I feel you. I am of a sociable turn myself 🤣
You’re writing this as if it’s well recorded history, but none of these quotes are findable anywhere on the internet. It appears you’re paraphrasing from remembered third party reporting on the matter.
Still, if it were true it wouldn’t be unusual. Ballmer threw chairs around. Jobs and Gates were both famous for their potty mouths and hyper-competitive approach.
What I take away from this is that Ellison is the kind of guy who buys companies. JD Edwards lives on in both name and software, which is an unusually good outcome for an acquired company. Many acquisitions end with the product being erased, or the team being laid off, or both.
He certainly was enthusiastic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14b-C67EXY
The Denver Post article linked in another comment on this thread does a pretty good job of validating what I wrote. Did you bother to read it? The relevant quote is excerpted for you - just in case your the type of troll who's too lazy to actually click a link while demanding proof.
But, you are right in the sense that the DP article merely alludes to the specific behavior that I describe...that is from someone I knew who was in the meeting I wrote about. It. Fits.
And you can see that the DP article even shared an observation that if given the choice workers would choose to work for Warren Buffet or Bill Gates to Larry Ellison. Since you mentioned him.
Alistair Penbroke, you may choose to believe or not believe what I wrote. I related what I knew, and the DP article fits what I wrote. If you'll only be satisfied by a signed affidavit witnessed by at least two people so that it's admissable into a court of law as evidence then I do not have that for you.
OJ Simpson was acquitted because jurors claimed they didn't have sufficient evidence to convict. There are many who believe he wasn't guilty of murdering his ex. Most people saw enough to believe he was, and could care less about the jury verdict, believing a guilty man got away with murder. I think you would've been in the former, not the latter group of people. Because you *want* to believe differently and absent a smoking gun you believe he's innocent.
Thing about it is that most people reading my comment will believe what I shared, with the DP article serving as sufficient evidence. You choose to believe differently without a smoking gun. And the beauty of it is that I really don't care if you believe me or not. I know most readers have more common sense and know OJ was guilty, and Ellison likely did what I describe. It is for them I write, not you, a lost cause.
I can't read the Denver Post article because it's paywalled and disappears when I load it.
I click right in, no paywall. Perhaps it's a VPN issue or a different browser will help.
When I run into paywall/VPN issues I try the different archive sites, like archive.org (which now blocks most NYT and WSJ sites). Archive.org actually has the same article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160609075231/https://www.denverpost.com/2010/02/26/oracle-wields-hefty-muscle-in-colorados-tech-sector/
..or archive.ph or archive.vn (which doesn't block NYT and WSJ sites. Many different country code variations of same format). These archive sites do not have a version to share this specific story.
It's a rare instance no archive version is saved. Very useful to get past paywalls. Note: all archive sites rely on users to save versions (timed snapshots) behind paywalls to pass them on to future readers. If users don't save them then they will remain effectively locked behind paywalls. I try to be a giver and a taker...maybe you're not a lost cause, after all!
Something I saw when I was a teenager, it is so simple to understand. I have nothing but gratitude to those who honestly earn enormous wealth, it is the criminals, those who don't care who gets hurt or who will actually be made to pay the price for their ill gotten gains. Someone like "Doctor" Fauci, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers of this world. Even some of the things these people do add value, or at least seem to, but their lack of inner virtue, of that sense of connection to others which seems to be missing, the fact that the emptiness inside drives them to find that luxuries and indulgences are not enough, they need the thrill of control and escape without consequences for any injuries they may cause to others. Those who take advantage of the psychopaths that are attracted to the easy money and prestige of public office in order to rob the public are a big problem. The fact that justice can be purchased like yachts is a problem. Problems can be solved.
Yes AND a spiritually wealthy soul would not be spending their billions to enslave others via financial wealth. In the same token one person can generously create a domino effect to help others, so too, is the opposite, (in the sense that we can only help others to the proportion they are willing to help themselves) meaning none of those billionaires would have power to coerce and invade the privacy of others if not given the consent to do so. The mass participation keeps the loop in tact. The government corporation (mafia) works with the billionaires to create these campaigns that plea to the emotional part of mankind making them easier to control. Like the Facebook censorship, now they backtrack and use PR stunts to make it seem like they care like something will be different (just like politics) while it's all just a rouse to appease the masses when they get a bit ruffled. Once the propaganda is laid out everyone goes back to the monotony of the rat race, quiet and with a false sense of safety pretending everything is ok or that someone else will do something, while the world burns. Just like Trump doubling down on his jabs and AI while those who don't want to see what is happening turn a blind eye and refuse to recognize both sides play for the same team and it's not team humanity. Money doesn't make someone bad, it's their choices that money gives them to amplify that creates the toll. Thus, we all must remember that even if we only have $1 the way we spend our currency is a direct reflection of the world we want to create and that $1 matters more than we realize through our every day endeavors. We can create true value exchanges inside a wisdom economy or we can allow the same top down hierarchy to dictate and dominate the trajectory of our lives. Overlooked topic you touched on today, great piece. Billionaire Blame doesn't change anything, it only reinforces the lack mindset and victimhood we're allowing in to our own consciousness through handing our power away.
Bam. Well said in every respect.
The real problem with billionaires is that you’re not one. If you put in the effort and work and sacrifices to achieve it what would YOU do with that money power???
Assuming that question is not rhetorical…
I would find a seamount in the Doldrums, in international waters. I would convert it into an artificial island and create my own private-law jurisdiction (roughly à la H. Hoppe).
I would invite other wealthy people to create a business or habitation presence there. I would continually expand the footprint outward as far as willing investors and the sea bottom allowed, slowly creating a private-law "country." I would welcome anyone who shared the ideals of market anarchism and wanted to thrive there.
I would not seek to control anyone's lives. I would use the power of market-anarchic solutions to keep the peace.
How about you—what do you think you would do?
Not rhetorical. Excellent response, thank you.
If I already had billions I would save the world. I would be able to risk losing money on developing my inventions and business ideas. Even though I do play the lottery I am not making any plans based on winning. So I am continuing to research and develop. One of my ideas is similar to your artificial island concept. If the structure is connected to the ocean floor, sea mount or otherwise, it can be called an island. If it is not then, according to The Law of the Sea, it is a floating platform “vessel” and must fly an existing national flag. If not then it is considered piracy. Once you build your artificial island you should expect to be in the glare of the eye of Sauron. But I do believe that we should be colonizing the oceans, even before we try to colonize other planets. Colonizing the oceans is actually the best place to practice for going into space. My ocean colonization idea incorporates several existing, proven technologies such as OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) which produces energy from temperature differences in ocean waters. Another is mineral accretion for the construction and has been used to repair existing reefs and build new, artificial ones. It can be used to build megastructures of unlimited size and has structural integrity similar to concrete. And another is a cheap freeze desalination process that would piggyback off the OTEC system. This technology is already being used in a project in Hawaii. With virtually unlimited space, water, and cheap energy, artificial islands can be superefficient.
I have heard of the thermal conversion tech, but not the other two. WOW!
Have you spoken with the Seasteading Institute?
I am familiar with TSI but no, I have not spoken with them. Right now I am focusing on getting land to build a supersufficient, poison-free farmstead. It should be fully functional in about five years and become a profitable business. I have been researching the franchising process and intend to do that with farmsteads. Even if I win the lottery I will still do this. The only difference more money would make is in magnitude and speed of development of this business model. The market for this is huge.
I have been thinking about a concept very similar to this. I probably would never do it myself, but I have been wondering if anyone else was, and about the viability of the model. And if there is any way to interface something like this with the DN.
I think we should talk. Maybe not now, but in a couple of months, after I have thought things through a bit more.
Very cool.
Absolutely, hit me up anytime. And yes, my franchising model approach definitely meshes well with your Distributed Network concept because what I would be ultimately building is a distributed network of agricultural production. If I am the McDonalds of franchising with both corporate owned “stores” and franchisees, I would also have partners that are not under our brand but could be contract suppliers as long as they meet our zero poison standards. I look forward to hearing from you.
Cheers!
I lean toward colonizing the stratosphere, stratroshacks balloon hung.
Learn more about building a comfortable life in space at the edge of it than at the bottom of the gravity well.
Not faulting your take, Jake, skills learned both places would could come up aces, when, not if, we get off world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXpP0lj3ztQ
Cool idea, except... You would not be able to defend it from the host of predators. That is also the fatal flaw in the prepper's thinking.
That is why I first mention wealthy people. We would need market agencies to arise with the ability to project force in defense.
And as far as preppers go, they certainly would not be able to defend against all predators if they came at once. But that isn't a likely scenario. When things melt down, most people will die quick, because they are not prepared. Once that unfolds, I'd rather be the one with food and gear than the one without.
If I had it, I'd be building a REDOUBT for HUMANITY 1.0. No gene therapies, no mRNAs, no Nano tech, clean water, low cost (zero point) energy (it exists), farming good eco practices.. no censorship, freedom and education for all, trade/economies ideas technology, and trying to survive the coming Armageddon (read Revelations, because its coming for the World)
Good stuff! I wish you were a billionaire.
Thanks for sharing Unagnu. I'm on board but I see the need to eliminate certain billionaires like Darth Schwab who has other ideas for our future.
Klaus Schwab is a problem.
As is Harari (sp), Ray Kursweil (sp) and even good ole Elon with the neural lace...and the satellite global 'surveillance' starlink.... Not to mention Gates of Hell, and his ilk.
Devil Bill has got to go.
Billionaires are just extrapolating the same problem that anybody has when they are selfish with their money- they use it to manipulate others rather than help them.
We have a many homeless people in Australia, but the problem is not a lack of homes, the fact is that the rich have purchased many homes but don't rent them out. There are thousands of homes that lay empty because it is not worth the effort to rent them out as (some) people don't respect them and don't pay the rent.
What happens is that there is a demand for houses (because many are all owned by rich people who won't rent them out,) and that makes the house prices go up, which gives a good return on the investment to the rich people, so they don't NEED to rent them out!
Lack of respect from some of the poor for their rented houses makes the rich able to get richer by limiting the housing stock.
All other people then suffer, except those who own their own house, and the rich who own many houses.
Greed and selfishness and disrespect from all people leads to oppression and injustice and more greed and selfishness and disrespect from all people.
... and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry. Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth! (Isa 5:7-9)
Well, we’re not rich at all, but when we moved into our current house, our last one was underwater because of the 2008 mortgage bubble. So instead of selling and losing all that money, we rented. We rented to one family for 11 years. We charged less than the market rate for rentals in the area—so much so that we lost money each month on the mortgage. But we thought we were being nice and helping out a family that didn’t have much.
How did they repay that kindness? By trashing the house so badly that it took $40,000 to refurbish after we finally got them out. Not all of that cost was from damage they did, but a lot of it was. Damage, pets, smoking, neglect, kicking holes in doors, etc.
Rich, poor, and in between, everyone runs the gamut.
Sad to say but it seems no good deed goes unpunished. I recently offered to let a homeless woman on SS (shall remain nameless) live in one of my homes and offered her a job with my company. She spat in my face and told me I was suspect from now on.
Sounds like maybe mental illness??
Yes, I have heard of so many similar examples, yet governments keep passing laws against the landlords that make it more difficult get tenants out, or even being able to be choosy as to who goes into the house in the first place- ie no pets.
Governments are the cause of the "housing crisis" by not allowing landlords to get rid of tenants that don't look after the property, so landlords just keep a property and don't rent it out.
And we do keep coming back to governments being the main problem, don't we?
Hmmmmmm. 😁
The Australian government won't let landlords choose between pets vs. no pets? Who bloody property is it?
I am not sure, but I know that if you put it in as a condition then trying to enforce it is impossible, I gave up renting out houses after my first experience. I just own one house and live in it.
Have you read any of my writing about allodial title?
No, could you send me link?
Great though provoking piece, Christopher. It always struck me as odd that many politicians on the right or the left, who hate billionaires to the point of wanting to tax them massively, also tell us they “support the free market.” This is a complete lie because the two positions are contradictory.
Robert Reich has publicly supported limiting the wealth of Americans at $100 million each, yet consistently advocating support for the “free market.” It’s totalitarian nonsense.
Thanks for bringing this to light.
Well said, sir.
And if this were a fully free market—id est, no involuntary governance whatsoever—billionaires' ability to use their wealth to mess with our lives would be reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced.
(Anarchism doesn't "fix" the problem; it just makes it somewhat better.)
My oh my, my sentiments exactly. I think the real problem with so many billionaires is that they become extremely bored with life because they can have anything they want. Thus, the final frontier, so to speak, it to move into the position of becoming self-appointed Gods. They have a greater tendency to think they know what is best for all of us underlings. No freaking way. I hope Stargate blows up on the launch pad and turns into No-go-gate.
"I think the real problem with so many billionaires is that they become extremely bored with life because they can have anything they want. Thus, the final frontier, so to speak, it to move into the position of becoming self-appointed Gods."
—I believe you are exactly right.
Bill Gates comes to mid. He solved a lot of problems for people with his computer knowledge and then spread out into the 'helping' mode where he arrogantly sought to help people solve their own problems rather than let them solve their own as he had done. He got involved in areas where he had no knowledge and caused a lot of problems.
💯💯💯
Devil Bill did what he did intentionally. He/she/it is Satan incarnate, a transvestite, and a Talmud thumper. He did what he did because he hates humanity.
Yeah, what I was trying to say with a few more words. We all have a drive to greater happiness and satisfaction, but many get sidetracked thinking it is pleasures and luxuries that will give that to them, but the wise soon discover what their ego (false sense of self) tells them is a only dead end, and like the socialist dummies refuse to learn the lessons reality is teaching and who think it will just work if they do more of it, so they carry it to its sorry destructive extremes.
The call us materialistic, but they are the ones who are obsessed with >things<. Who has more things? What do they do with those things? Are they being 'socially responsible' with those things? How are all the things distributed? Give us control over the distribution of things. Things things things.
I do not care one whit about other people's things. I only care what they do to me.
Same here, I don't want their shoddy "free""benefits" I just want to be left alone. I can obtain my own real benefits honestly in my own way.
🧡🔥🧡
Ah, Muse! Compliance is a favorite of mine. I played that one often during the corona virus scam but not quite as often as I played Uprising. The two songs felt like bookends during that period of time.
I wore "Uprising" out during those days!
But weirdly, I only heard "Compliance" recently.
Well said, Chris. As sociologist Bill Domhoff has methodically proven over the last 50 years, the corporate rich are the key drivers of both public opinion and public policy. It's important to note that this is what's called "distributive power" - that is, not total control, but "great or preponderant influence." As we saw during the COVID era, even without the force of law, the pressure to conform to certain policies or norms is incredibly strong.
It is, and without government power, it would still be a problem. Just not as much of a problem 🤣
To envy rich people is as evil as greed for wealth and the power it buys. Almost no one believes what Jesus said about rich people. The reason it is so difficult for a rich man to enter heaven is that the more he gets the more he wants, and that consumes all of his time and energy.
I am glad you said this. I find reflexive hate for all rich people to be quite repellent.
The bad rich people are bad. The bad poor people are bad.
Worth the read. And sadly true. These megalomaniacs need to be pruned. Unlike to happen because the normies can't make it happen, but likely they'll do them selves in anyway .. the law of unintended consequences that they think they know, but they really really do not, its such a beyotch ain't it? I'm waiting joyously for it to happen... good bye suckers you and your entire families are DOA (as if they really CARE about any people, funny that). All because you thought you could control things you cannot and got a big God complex. Ha ha ha ... laughing in eternity from the other side...(because the devil IS in the details, aint' he, and God well God takes his time but is right on time if you know what I mean)
Based on the knowledge and acquaintances I have, most billionaires and multi-multi millionaires are not psycho weirdos. They made their money legit and don't do anything super-weird with it.
But a small number of them get psycho God complexes and that is a REAL problem for humanity.
I am excited about the possibilities for AI in solving problems even though I don't even know what an 'algorithm' is. But I don't want it to ever be in the hands of people who would use it to spy upon or control innocent people. No regulations by government on it or to use it for control.
Yeah. But government will use it in that way—we know they will. They won't be able to help themselves.
So the only solution is…no government!
(Either that or more cowbell.)
No government is the answer. I say it is easy through the 9th Amendment which forbids all taxes and regulations and therefore all government. If it had been written like Madison wrote the 1st, it would say, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of individuals to take any innocent actions they choose in the pursuit of their happiness. These include the 5 rights of property of INNOCENTLY acquiring, possessing, using, defending and disposing of any conceivable item of property except another human being." That means that if you have a right to earn and keep your own property including money, then no one on earth can take it from you without your voluntary consent. NO TAXES. Therefore, no government. And if you have the sole right to use your property, there can be no regulations. The Bill of Rights, with its awesome 9th Amendment , cancels out all government powers over the innocent.
Now let's try pinning that to the door of the Capitol!
I've been trying for about 50 years by myself. My friends, family and neighbors of course think I'm crazy but I know better. The 9th Amendment is about our unenumerated rights and it contains some other provisions such as writs of mandamus, corum nobis, habeas corpus and, the most important one, Quo Waranto, which I discussed in a note to other notes and by which any citizen can oust any or all government officials from office. I filed such an action with AG Merrick Garland a year ago, knowing he was corrupt ad wouldn't do his job. I was right so the task of prosecuting every corrupt or incompetent officials, and they all are, fell onto my shoulders. I notified the political parties, Biden, Trump, Harris, media, etc of the action and, as I expected, received not one response. To follow through would have meant the end of government and, to those incapable of thinking, that was unthinkable. But Quo Warranto remains a hydrogen bomb in our quiver against tyranny.
"in our quiver against tyranny."
—Nice homage to Richard Overton!
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/overton-an-arrow-against-all-tyrants
You can file a claim of monetary damages against their bond, with the bond holder, usually an insurance company. This increases the cost of doing business for the municipality employing the bad actor doing harm.
www.bondsforthewin.com
We have a new AG in Pam Bondi who is less corrupt than Merrick but she, like all lawyers, does not understand the 9th. I'll be filing a new Quo Warranto action with her when she gets approved. We'll see.
Exactly Chris, mind-control doesn't have our best interest at heart. The only valid and legitimate mind-control is personal mind-control.
I am trying to do better at controlling my own mind!
Another comment about jurisdiction. We the innocent people have jurisdiction over everyone in government, not the other way around. They proudly assert that they are our 'public servants' but there is not a single public servant who does not want to be our public master. Yet everyone of them is a predator and parasite on us and that gives us as innocents jurisdiction to threaten and use force against any criminal preying on us. They are subject to our will, not vice versa.
What you describe is the way it ought to be, but it is not the way it is. One might imagine that it is the way (some of) the Founders believed it ought to be.
The salient notion to me, however, is my strong suspicion that it can never be that way. If you create a system that allows people involuntary rule over you (or, more precisely, if such a system is imposed on you), it will never be anything other than a master-slave relationship.
The notion of “limited” government is a chimera.
In American adjudication, it is the people, not the government who are sovereign. Yick Wo v. Hopkins and other cases. But that just makes sense. People in government are just human beings and the rights of all human beings are precisely the same - the right to take any innocent actions they choose in the pursuit of their happiness. There are no beings with a 'superior' right to take harmful criminal actions against the innocent. But the innocent are superior beings eating to inferior criminals and do have a right to use force against them in defense of their rights.
“Setting aside complications of crony capitalism (which we can certainly discuss elsewhere), people get rich by adding value to an economy.”
That used to be true but everything you mentioned about dangerous vaccines is because of cronyism, everything.
Cronyism has become a huge problem and we need to fight it.
I agree. But I also know billionaires (personally) who aren't anything like that. They just make money by making stuff that people buy.
What if Mark Zuckerberg wasn't sitting front and center at the inauguration as the face of Facebook (supposedly newly cowed into submission concerning censorship), but was instead there as the face of CZ Biohub?
https://www.czbiohub.org/
OMG.
"Okay, people, our mission statement is simple: see who can accidentally destroy all life on Earth first."
Christopher, there are a few people I have met (you only virtually) that I resonate deeply with and learn from. Whenever I hunt down your latest post I always learn something and my perspective changes. And that feels like Grace. A perspective shift changes reality. Thank you for this. And the subtle shifts you provide me with. I know writing takes time. It is not about what rich people spend. Ultimately, it is not about wealth but about fear and manipulation which is a form of distortion.
Thank you, Terra. I learn from you too.
And thank you also for continuing to support my writing. That is huge for me!
I feel like I have been on a great journey of discovery for my whole life. I started out much further from the truth and have been walking towards it every since. Like a mountain, it keeps getting closer, and now I feel like my approach is getting more asymptotic—like, I might not actually touch it (perhaps none of us can actually touch it) but it feels like it's really really close now.
Sounds kind of like trying to touch God. There is always more to discover ;-).
Muse song always earns my respect! I've always been a fan of their earlier stuff; everything until Resistance is gold (I do enjoy some of their latter work, but it's not *as* compelling to me, haha). In either case they're still one of my favorite bands! Although, I'm really enjoying The Warning as well.
Contemptible musings (pun intended) incoming:
[I actually haven't read Marx in-depth, so my personal policy has usually been to avoid treating someone's name like a curse word if I haven't engaged with their ideas in a substantial manner. Essentially, I think everyone says things that are worth taking away, as well as things worth leaving behind, so if I'm not instinctively negative towards him, that's the reason why :P]
I don't have especially strong opinions on economics, but I *will* say that I don't think inequality is the problem as much as absolute poverty is, in many places around the world. Someone being able to amass the wealth required to own a yacht, while someone else is toiling away right across the street is pretty harrowing (not hyperbole or first world problem), and it's a bit difficult to perceive that state of affairs as the yacht guy being a net benefit to society.
For important things like health and education, if that pattern continues across generations (ie the rich can afford better) and hierarchies grow more entrenched, then I do fear that wealth *mobility* is significantly undermined and the economy tends towards a less free or meritocratic state. I'm not married to this idea, though, but I suppose I do think it's fair for people to make value judgments about *some* billionaires being better than others ... e.g. Andrew Carnegies over the Bernard Arnaults. Wealth is merely the vessel through which one can act out their existing values (or lack thereof), so why not try to be good (and encourage it), as opposed to decapitating hydras?
At the same time, I do think something that's often ignored is that the wealth inequality that's observed today isn't the result of an organic free market, and rather due to corporate bail-outs, which probably impedes wealth mobility as well (hence more Rothschild-esque scenarios, and fewer Carnegies). That then incentivizes sociopathic collusion rather than more "altruistic" ways of doing a lot of things ... hence one ends up with those public-private partnerships.
Perhaps, my only tentative conclusion would be that conclusion could entail that wealth is rather reflective of power--e.g. if one can bribe their way out of justice, then there are many standards that won't effectively apply to them in the sense that they would for someone else. That's ultimately a reflection of inner constitution, or lack thereof ... and if power over others is the problem, then the same could be said for government, the entity to which one's been in a contract with since before they were born.
I often joke that we live in an unfree market with a reigning profit motive, but I do think that if many weren't so inclined towards consumerist/hedonistic avenues as opposed to more edifying pursuits, they'd be less likely to seek out artificial gods through "most important election of your life" politics... further compounding by the weird conflation of liberty with libertinism. Bread-and-circuses distractions are easy to sell to people in a saccharine manner ("if you do this, if you buy that, you'll get yours!") that doesn't let on the lack of personal meaning needed to buy into it.
But that's, er, just my two cents, unaccounted for by inflation.
"I actually haven't read Marx in-depth, so my personal policy has usually been to avoid treating someone's name like a curse word if I haven't engaged with their ideas in a substantial manner."
—Marx made a large number of predictions. They ALL failed. In just about every case, the opposite of what he predicted is what actually came to pass. He was trying to make socialism "scientific." But it turned out to be junk science. Some of his analysis of existing problems was okay, but most of that was garbage too.
We must also check the fruit that the tree produced. Every single political manifestation of Marxian ideas produced failure, oppression, mass murder, or all three. 150 human souls wiped out in pursuit of this man's ideas. At some point, you have to say that a rotten tree produces rotten fruit.
Marx, when he was younger, wrote poems about Satan and about his desire to destroy creation and stride about the wreckage. (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/murray-n-rothbard/marx-loved-satan/)
It seems he got his wish.
"I do think that if many weren't so inclined towards consumerist/hedonistic avenues as opposed to more edifying pursuits, they'd be less likely to seek out artificial gods through "most important election of your life"
—How does one bring about such a change in people?
That's a pretty big question that I don't have a definitive answer to—no longer young enough to know everything! :(
I think the change has to stem from the self, as opposed to a more, er, nifty top-down mechanism. How *does* one convince anyone to "check out" of more asinine pursuits? Many of those influences capitalize on people's need for social belonging ("you wouldn't want to be *uncool*, would you?!") or distraction from otherwise grueling aspects of life ("feeling sad? medicate yourself through meds!"), and because the prescribed solutions appear so saccharine / Pinocchio Island-esque, it takes more force of will to be critical towards them.
I think a solution to this could be inculcating some sort of higher meaning, which doesn't necessarily have to be a god, but rather, some set of values that can serve as a tether amidst the barrage of influences to which one is exposed—I wrote this a while ago, when ranting about some of the culture shock I experienced when I started college:
"I don’t have any conclusive answers, and I’m somewhat skeptical of any narrative that proclaims to have any, whether it be any answers, or some silver bullet implementation of meaning. However, if one were to hold onto their inherent conscience, examining every heuristic that is often uncritically employed in their life, I think they’d be closer to becoming a meaning generating individual. We do need some sort of meaning; the choice is between taking a step above and beyond to create it, and letting our impulses—and limbic system—take the wheel."
It's the adoption of that en masse that's the greater challenge, in my view. However, I think that if more enduring notions (e.g. authenticity and the willingness to go against the grain) were expressed more often in the art/media that people are continually exposed to, it'd make for a more productive climate. But I fear that I'm delving into my pretentious "fewer Sabrina Carpenters, more Lzzy Hales, plz!" hypothesis now :O
"But I fear that I'm delving into my pretentious "fewer Sabrina Carpenters, more Lzzy Hales, plz!" hypothesis now :O"
—I love Lzzy Hale. I didn't know anything about Sabrina Carpenter, so I looked at two songs on YT.
Sabrina Carpenter, from my cursory glance, is over-produced "songs" written by AI and sung in pathetic indy-girl accent by a girl whose been told she's prettier than she actually is.
Lzzy Hale is crazy, authentic, a great singer and musician, and hot AF.
I am not sure exactly what your "pretentious" hypothesis is, exactly, but you had me at "more Lzzy Hales."
Hahaha, I have a tendency to boil down a lot of societal problems into "it's because the music on the radio is vapid!", which doesn't bode well with most people. I could probably write a whole wall of text about it, but will try to be brief (probably should've said suggestion rather than hypothesis).
Ultimately, I think meaningful art is meant to challenge someone, or to leave them with something to think about. It might be abrasive or not easily understood (or appreciated!) by the masses, but there's still something that's enduring. I wasn't alive back then, but even '90s MTV had a whole range of varied and unique artists (NIN, TOOL, and Soundgarden?!) that I really wouldn't be able to imagine today. I'm partial to alt-rock (especially the grunge scene), but even Tori Amos and Alanis Morissette had substance to their work.
In contrast, I think the radio is quite conducive to creating a somnambulist society, in that it prefers anodyne "shopping mall" music as opposed to anything that would require effort to appreciate—at the same time, the overall distinction between “edgy/subversive” and radio-friendly is no longer as defined, and instead, there’s an infantilizing component to what’s considered offensive behavior now (like Brave New World).
The mainstream is thus left to be extremely unchallenging, and certainly doesn't invite anything enduring. Individuality is certainly not encouraged, except in the deceiving "look at me, I have blue hair and 50 pronouns!!!" sense. That's not to say that authentic artists don't exist, but just that they're still compartmentalized in niches that don't reach 'normie' ears (partly due to the streaming age). For instance, I only discovered Lzzy Hale or Maria Brink because I'm inclined to seek out heavier / angstier music, but they're not household names (every time someone wears a Taylor Swift Eras Tour t-shirt, an angel loses its wings :P).
Now, as to how those authentic artists could break out of those compartments, I don't know... but it'd be an interesting state of affairs to see for sure (and definitely more #FreedomFridays!).
Lots to think about here! In no particular order…
—I love In This Moment. Maria Brink is some kind of metal Valkyrie.
—If good music is being artificially blocked from young ears, that is uncool. But are we sure that it is possible for the good stuff to become mainstream anyway? Is it not possible that a share of the human population are, and will always be, simply normies who will like pop crap?
To some degree, this has always been the case, and perhaps more so now. There are layers. Some people out there listen to stuff that is way more obscure, and think that Halestorm is sellout crap. And you can keep going deeper, until you find people who think that unless you are listening to German existentialist torture-metal made by dwarves, you might as well be a Swiftie.
In the 70s, people made fun of disco, because it was popular and because it wasn't rock. (I was just a kid, so I did not have much of a dog in that fight.) But disco at least was real music being made by real people, so that other real people could dance and get buzzed and hook up in clubs. I am not convinced that Taylor Swift is even real.
Okay, she's probably real. But pop today seems even more hyper-produced than anything before. It's pretty gross. And I take back some of what I said above—yes, there will always be normies, and yes, some people will always have bubblegum taste. But I think more people would like the good stuff if they had more exposure to it.
But then (and excuse me for being all over the map), to some degree, what becomes popular, and the degree to which it does, is driven by the distribution of taste. More people are going to like pop than like metal, and more people are going to like metal with clean vocals than will like screamo, and more people will like screamo than will like industrial dubstep house metal with lyrics exclusively sung in Latin by the ghosts of dead pirates.
And would we even want the more obscure stuff to become mainstream? If it did, wouldn't it lose something? The shitters who work in the big corporate music giants would take it and package it and autotune it and ruin it.
Look what happened to whatsherface…oh man, now I am blanking…middle-aged-brain…have to look it up…LIZ PHAIR. "This song will be great for you, Liz, trust us." Indie artist goes pop; her real fans see it as inauthentic; her career ends. Maybe we don't want everything to be mainstream?
—"in that it prefers anodyne "shopping mall" music." I think that things may have gotten better when it comes to that. When I was a kid, shopping malls and stores actually played MUZAK. It was a running joke. But that is over now. I hear plenty of classic rock when shopping. So that is an improvement.
—"The mainstream is thus left to be extremely unchallenging, and certainly doesn't invite anything enduring. Individuality is certainly not encouraged, except in the deceiving "look at me, I have blue hair and 50 pronouns!!!" YES. The tide has turned now. The center of edgy counterculture is moving away from the left. Theirs is now packaged and boring and predictable and mainstream. They think they're edgy rebels but they're not. They won. And now they will become sclerotic and conservative and reactionary, like the winners do. The process is underway. The blue hair is just transitional, on their way to becoming tongue-clucking dowagers in powdered wigs. Libertarian/conservative/anarchist is the new counterculture.
Okay, so that was all over the map. Whatevs; I just woke up. Interesting conversation, though!
"However, if one were to hold onto their inherent conscience, examining every heuristic that is often uncritically employed in their life, I think they’d be closer to becoming a meaning generating individual."
—Boom. Nice.
"We do need some sort of meaning; the choice is between taking a step above and beyond to create it, and letting our impulses—and limbic system—take the wheel."
—So, IIUC, it's the difference between higher consciousness and base desires? Between actively choosing based on free will, rather than just being swept away by the tide of one's base impulses?
"I think a solution to this could be inculcating some sort of higher meaning, which doesn't necessarily have to be a god, but rather, some set of values that can serve as a tether"
—I cannot presume that you have read every installment of the DN, so please tell me if I am repeating myself here, but I have been talking about this. What will it take to hold our (distributed) nation together?
It can't be some totalizing system, nor can it be an exclusive religion. Those would make the tent smaller, not bigger.
It MUST be the principles/protocols of natural law—that is sine qua non, and the core of all of it. But is that enough?
I feel like more is needed…
"capitalize on people's need for social belonging ("you wouldn't want to be *uncool*, would you?!") or distraction from otherwise grueling aspects of life ("feeling sad? medicate yourself through meds!"), "
—I think about this a lot vis-a-vis the distributed nation concept. I hate the thought of anyone feeling lonely!!
"Many of those influences capitalize on people's need for social belonging"
—Maybe we need a new kind of social belonging…
"no longer young enough to know everything! :("
—Ha!
I remember when (at about age 20 maybe?) I realized my parents hadn't been wrong about everything they'd said.
"it's a bit difficult to perceive that state of affairs as the yacht guy being a net benefit to society."
(Passionately felt words incoming here, but please know that it's not personal!)
—This is a common perception, but it just just perception. It is rooted in compassion, but it fails to calculate the actual nature of human economics.
We begin with a planet that does owe any of us an existence, and does not care if we live or die. So we have to hunt and gather just to stay alive. That is the basic nature of our existence.
Then things grow more complex, as we begin to specialize, trade, and advance. Eventually, we get to where we are now.
But the basic nature remains. It's easier to feel like things are unfair when we see a wealth gap, but nothing has changed. We must hunt and gather in order to stay alive, and we are owed nothing. Even though there are people who are right next door who have more.
It is really really important to stop believing that the yacht is somehow taking something away. It isn't. It is adding. More people are able to "hunt and gather" because the guy wants a yacht.
Again, the problem here is the belief in zero-sum-game economics. I know it's hard to shake, but we must! The guy who wants the yacht can only afford it if he ADDS something. (Again, we are setting aside the problem that *some* get rich through cronyism, etc.) In normal economic terms, he can only afford the yacht if he grows the economy in some way.
You must see that economies grow, right? If not, we would still all be passing around the same 100 seashells that we were trading 40,000 years ago. People take previously unconverted things—natural resources, land, ideas, and labor—and turn them into something valuable. Something that others want, and will trade their own ideas, property, and labor for. That grows the economy.
The person who can afford the yacht can only do so by growing the economy in some way. He provided a product or wrote a screenplay or whatever. People took their money (which was their reward for growing the economy in other ways) and give it to the rich guy for the thing that he has done. Lots of people buy the product, go see the movie, go watch the baseball game, whatever. Each one just provides a small amount of his own money. One guy gets rich as a result.
Thus, the guy across the street has not lost anything because of the yacht. There is not a single thing in the yacht that that poor person was about to use until—yoink!—the rich person took it away. "Hey, I was about to use that tree!" "Hey, any minute now, I was going to dig underneath my shack and extract that petroleum!" Nope.
The rich person got rich by growing the economy and then uses some of that surplus to buy another item (in this case, a yacht), which grows the economy even further. All of a sudden, there is a demand for someone to cut wood, make varnish, learn how to be good at boat building, learn how to be good at sailing, learn how to paint hulls, make sandpaper, farm hemp, make rope, etc. etc. etc. outwards to 10,000 other jobs, all interconnected.
Nothing about the yacht takes away anything. but it does create new opportunities for other people to "hunt and gather." Opportunities that did not exist until the rich person created enough of a surplus that the yacht was desired.
The yacht is absolutely a net benefit to society. I have never heard any analysis to the contrary that was even remotely cogent. And every analysis I have heard is tied to the same ideology that slaughtered a nine-digit number of human souls in a single century, all in pursuit of the belief that no one should be allowed to have a yacht.
It seems that the scarlet plague will forever be here, infecting young minds. It infected mine, when I was young! It is rooted in compassion, but it is so wrong and dangerous.
Thank you for the responses! I'll probably respond in parts as well.
I should clarify that I'm not endorsing any state control; it's more that although I don't think positive rights should be maintained through force, I do think that someone—to steal an analogy—who doesn't save a drowning child because it might ruin his $100 suit is in the wrong, *even if* he didn't cause that kid's predicament.
Similarly, the yacht-guy isn't taking away resources from the guy toiling away (and may have created jobs), but with the jobs scenario, if said jobs took place in sweatshop conditions and basic standards aren't being met, it wouldn't be completely untoward to find it poignant or unjust—*even if* the individual accepting that contract finds it marginally better than the alternative (no job / opportunity to "hunt and gather"). This is even more the case if said individual is in a terrible bargaining position (hence how "races to the bottom" are common business practices—even cruise industries adopt flags of convenience to that end). Yacht-guy may not have *caused* any of this to occur, but he can still choose to act in more or less altruistic ways.
I'm not saying that it's justified for society to implement more altruistic incentives through force (ie "pay your taxes or else straight to jail!"), and I do agree that the market should be free, but that's where I think the "Carnegies vs. Arnaults" value judgments (ie voting with one's dollars) matter. It often seems as though billionaires are either spurned as intrinsically parasitic Bond villains, *or* automatically assumed to be the product of trail-blazing industrialism.
"It seems that the scarlet plague will forever be here, infecting young minds."
Hey, now that's bordering on patronizing! -_-
I kid, but if it's any hope, I once had my 7th grade social studies teacher get pretty mad at me because I suggested that the Industrial Revolution was not, in fact, slavery—her rationale was that the factory conditions were not good, while mine was that if someone is still voluntarily agreeing to said arrangement, then it can't be slavery. She then responded with a pithy Cathy Newman-esque "so you're saying that this is good?!?!", and completely missed my point. I still resent her for this!
"Hey, now that's bordering on patronizing! -_-"
Sorry to come off that way. I tend to get intense when dealing with even the remotest hint of Marxian anything!
"She then responded with a pithy Cathy Newman-esque "so you're saying that this is good?!?!", and completely missed my point."
—Cathy Newman LOLOL. I am sure you made an amazing 7th grader!
"I do think that someone—to steal an analogy—who doesn't save a drowning child because it might ruin his $100 suit is in the wrong, *even if* he didn't cause that kid's predicament." […] " basic standards that aren't being met, *even if* the individual accepting that contract finds it marginally better than the alternative (no job / opportunity"
—Yes. it's the difference between MUST morality and SHOULD morality. MUST morality can be enforced through protective force. (You MUST pay me back for burning down my house; you MUST NOT steal; etc.) SHOULD morality cannot be enforced, but you should still do it. (Pay your workers a living wage; be nice to Susan; help a drowning person.)
It is the crucial distinction between enforceability and non-enforceability. Any system that enforces SHOULD morality is itself violating MUST morality, because it is inappropriately using force.
So yeah—be a nice billionaire, absolutely. And the not-nice ones suck!
"isn't the result of an organic free market, and rather due to corporate bail-outs, which probably impedes wealth mobility as well (hence more Rothschild-esque scenarios, and fewer Carnegies"
—BOOM. Now you're talking. The problem isn't that our market is too free—it's that it's not nearly free enough. Get rid of government. That gets rid of corporate personhood. That gets rid of extracting money from us to give them bailouts, grants, loans, and special treatment. That gets rid of one business's ability to game the system at the expense of their competitors. That gets rid of the vector by which billionaires impose their business needs upon us, forcing us to buy their products. That also gets rid of most of the force-vectors by which billionaires try to play God, once they re bored with their wealth.
"I suppose I do think it's fair for people to make value judgments about *some* billionaires being better than others"
—It absolutely is. I know some billionaires who got rich doing/making things people wanted to buy, and who aren't hurting anyone with their money. I know some personally, and a ton of others indirectly. In fact, only a few billionaires are super villains, as far as I can tell.
" if that pattern continues across generations (ie the rich can afford better) and hierarchies grow more entrenched, then I do fear that wealth *mobility* is significantly undermined and the economy tends towards a less free or meritocratic state."
—It is certainly true that the Pareto distribution is a phenomenon that we cannot seem to escape. The rich do get richer, etc. But…
The Pareto distribution is a fact of human life, not a fact of "capitalism." It exists everywhere.
In 1950, there was MORE economic inequality in the USSR than there was in the U.S. Inequality cannot be done away with, no matter how much force we use to try.
The difference is that in a relatively free market, while inequality exists, everyone is better off. The rich get massively richer, but the poor do better too. Indeed, a freer market, and a freer political environment, are the only forces in human history ever to lift the lot of the poor.
It is easy for humans to lose perspective. We do it in our individual lives, and in our perception of the world. So, instead of seeing the big picture, we just see the relative picture. So, we might see a gap between rich and poor today. But we will fail to notice that the LOWEST income quintile today is richer than the MEDIAN income quintile in 1950. We lose the perspective and see the gap as a disaster, completely ignoring the big picture. It is always valuable to ask oneself "compared to what?" before attempting assessments of a "problem" we perceive.
That is not to say that we should not act. But the only "action" that anyone has come up with thus far makes things worse, not better.
Similarly, there is no place where economic mobility is higher than in free market economies. Is it perfect? No. But it is better in comparison to all the other options. So perhaps the solution is to make the economy even freer, not less free. It won't eliminate inequality, poverty, or dysmobility. But it will improve those more than anything else.
"Muse song always earns my respect!"
—I know maybe 10 songs, most of which I like to varying degrees. It's harder in one's 50s to keep up with all the music than it was in one's teens, but I think I do a pretty good job of not just listening to the same old stuff, year in and year out. :-)
I perceive a leftish tinge to their politics: "When God decides to look the other way/And a clown takes the throne" released in 2017—well, that sends a message. But I am perfecting happy to adopt their lyrics when they are clearly correct on the merits.