I stumbled into this video through reddit, initially for the part on how the person interviewed, who worked for facebook, regrets helping building it up.
I got hooked because of how the interview continues. He gets asked about what message he has for the audience (which probably are some business students) and he tells them to "get the money". He believes that people should get into the markets/businesses and get as much capital as possible. And then, when they are rich, to do good things with their capital.
How realistic is this world view? I have my troubles believing that they will not get corrupted. I see this happening already with some people I studied with. They finished their PhDs and started to work for consulting companies (McKinsey and BCG, mainly). When I asked them why and what happened with science, their answer was that they would have more impact in those companies. However, I am already seeing how their personalities are changing. They are becoming more selfish, care more and more about superficial things like the number of watches they have (sorry kleinbl00) or their new car, play the political game of inter-company intrigues as if they live in an episode of House of Cards.... But the worst is that they are not empathetic anymore. I was shocked by their lack of solidarity and care for people that worse off.
It has only been two years and you turned from a person that had values and wanted to better the world by going the "road with more influence" to the person you despised before.
So, again, how realistic is it and is it really the only way to induce meaningful change in the world?
I would love to hear your opinions on this!
"I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself". - Ivan Boesky, to the UC Berkeley School of Business, commencement speech, 1986 “Milken’s biggest problem was that some of his most ingenious but entirely lawful maneuvers were viewed, by those who initially did not understand them, as felonious, precisely because they were novel – and often extremely profitable.” - Harvey Silvergate on Mike Milken, who served two of six years in prison Worthy of note - Mike Milken is a major philanthropist now, with several charitable organizations. Also worthy of note, he took a plea bargain so he wouldn't be found guilty of racketeering. Fundamentally, however, they came out of a profession whose guiding principle is That's never going to change. MBAs are all about the benjamins. Nobody gets an MBA to better run a nonprofit, to cure cancer, to reduce carbon emissions, to save the pandas. Here's a better way to look at the subject: For most people, "get enough to make you happy" seems to be around $70k a year after expenses. For MBAs it's probably more because of pre-existing FBGM conditions. The point of the video (I assume- I'm not sitting through a Stanford MBA lecture with a gun to my head) is that you can get more motivation and fulfillment out of doing Big Money Things than you can out of doing Little Money Things because FBGM. Fundamentally, it's the argument of patronage, whereby you aren't a horrible 1%er drain on society if you throw $100k at the March of Dimes every year. After all, "Mother Teresa helped many people, but Michael Milken helped more." But fundamentally, it's an argument that first you get rich, then you help other people. I can understand why you find that disquieting. They no longer see themselves as members of that group. They have selected a new society, and what matters is where they are in their new society, not their old one. How realistic is it? I think it's irresponsible to tell people that the rest of the world only matters when you can afford it. But I also think that a former Facebook exec having his cock sucked by a bunch of business school tards at Stanford is the worst possible place to find altruism and humanity and shame on you for thinking there'd be any. I own four watches, by the way. One because my dad took too long to fix my first one, one of which was a groomsman's gift straight from the engraving shop at the mall, and one of which has cost me $80 in parts so far and is gonna be dope when it's done. I have no interest in acquiring lots of watches. My goal is to sell them to your friends. So greed or not, I wish them well.
But the worst is that they are not empathetic anymore. I was shocked by their lack of solidarity and care for people that worse off.
Thanks for posting that video again. I forgot about it :) This is a good point and it puts things in perspective. I remember the last time I met all of them in one place and I felt somehow separated because I did not share their language or interest but they seemed to have fun/understand each other. I have been wondering lately how I can help to improve things that are running wrong in our society and have discussed it with colleagues. In particular, we often discuss the situation of science is nowadays. Problems with Journals, open science, financing etc. and we always seem to end up with the conclusion that to have a dramatic/disruptive change in how things are run we need to build something that works different and by that prove that our ideas are valid (like Skype in that video you posted, for example). And for that, we either need money ourselves or someone that can give us enough money to do it. An example of that in our field is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation only financing work that will be published as open-access. So I was asking myself whether the way I am going might be wrong. My intention was to go through the DFG or maybe the ERC to move things forward. Parallel to that is the option of having enough capital to accelerate these changes without going through the 30 levels of positions in my original option...They no longer see themselves as members of that group. They have selected a new society, and what matters is where they are in their new society, not their old one.
But I also think that a former Facebook exec having his cock sucked by a bunch of business school tards at Stanford is the worst possible place to find altruism and humanity and shame on you for thinking there'd be any.