From The Madness of Crowds, by William J. Bernstein, describing John Blunt, the mastermind of the South Sea Bubble:
From their earliest histories, commercial societies equate riches with intelligence and rectitude; people of great wealth appreciate hearing of their superior brainpower and moral fiber. The wealth and adulation that accompany financial successes inevitably instill an overweening pride that corrodes self-awareness. worse, great wealth not infrequently arises more from dishonesty [or luck -- C.] than from intelligence and enterprise, in which case the adulation induces a malignancy of the soul, as indeed occurred to Blunt, who by this time had evolved into the archetype of the modern megalomaniacal CEO.
Hmm. Who specifically could this refer to?
2 comments:
Sums up the manner in which power corrupts -- and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I still think, though, that it's perverse to require job histories (including experience) to work at Subway or a gas station, but all you need to run for president is to be 35 years old and born in the U.S.
That's it. Doesn't matter if you're batshit crazy or in prison.
How fucked-up is that? The founders were hedging their bets -- 'cause a lot of them fit the description in today's blog's quote.
You could almost call this an argument for bringing back the aristocracy. Let me explain.
In our current system a great way to be considered superior is to be rich. It is much easier to become rich if you are a sociopath and don't care who gets hurt on your way to the top. So one could say we are selecting for sociopaths.
If privilege is just an accident of birth then the scales are neutral with respect to sociopathy. It amazes me how much of the history of the sciences before the 20th century is about aristocrats who chose to commit their efforts to those pursuits. Being freed of the necessity of also being a sociopath probably helped.
Post a Comment