Wealth disorder

[Pingers]

I'm continually taken aback by the amount of dogshit-encrusted horrible concepts that escape from sweaty, right wing web forums into the world at large. So much so, that I find myself wondering whether I/we can launch our own bejewelled ideas out into the World of Normals. Here's my attempt:

Imagine someone who always craves food. They eat a lot of food, but almost as soon as they have entirely filled their stomach, they start thinking about what they can eat next. Someone who, no matter much they eat, can never have enough. Our society would view that person as having an eating disorder. Maybe I should point out here that although many people find the term 'disorder' problematic, we can use the language of psychiatry in this instance without attaching the medicalised, judgemental aspects, and instead accept that an eating disorder is a manifestation of an individual's distress, or a way of coping with adverse experiences, often in childhood.

Then let's consider people like Jeff Bezos and Jim Ratcliffe. The same kind of dynamics, right? Only replace food with money. I'd make a distinction here between people who suddenly find themselves with money, and those like Bezos and Ratcliffe who long ago had more money than they could spend but have continued to spend every day trying to enrich themselves at the expense of their workforce. Those people have a wealth disorder, or alternatively a greed disorder.

The obvious difference is that while people with eating disorders are marginalised, pitied, and shunted around creaking medical care systems, people with wealth disorders are fêted and held up as role models by some. We could try to change that by changing how they are referred to.

Tl;dr - let's stop referring to greedy, rich people as "rich", let's call them "people with wealth/greed disorders" instead.

[Retinend]

Good one. I just made a thread about new words for 2021 if you would like to throw it into the hat there.

[NoSleep]

Why would they relinquish the power that wealth proffers just because somebody tried to redefine it as a disorder? They could simply counter that with the usual propaganda and with the considerable means (aka "wealth") to do so, i.e. "wealth = success".

[Buelligan]

I'm continually taken aback by the amount of dogshit-encrusted horrible concepts that escape from sweaty, right wing web forums into the world at large. So much so, that I find myself wondering whether I/we can launch our own bejewelled ideas out into the World of Normals. Here's my attempt:

Imagine someone who always craves food. They eat a lot of food, but almost as soon as they have entirely filled their stomach, they start thinking about what they can eat next. Someone who, no matter much they eat, can never have enough. Our society would view that person as having an eating disorder. Maybe I should point out here that although many people find the term 'disorder' problematic, we can use the language of psychiatry in this instance without attaching the medicalised, judgemental aspects, and instead accept that an eating disorder is a manifestation of an individual's distress, or a way of coping with adverse experiences, often in childhood.

Then let's consider people like Jeff Bezos and Jim Ratcliffe. The same kind of dynamics, right? Only replace food with money. I'd make a distinction here between people who suddenly find themselves with money, and those like Bezos and Ratcliffe who long ago had more money than they could spend but have continued to spend every day trying to enrich themselves at the expense of their workforce. Those people have a wealth disorder, or alternatively a greed disorder.

The obvious difference is that while people with eating disorders are marginalised, pitied, and shunted around creaking medical care systems, people with wealth disorders are fêted and held up as role models by some. We could try to change that by changing how they are referred to.

Tl;dr - let's stop referring to greedy, rich people as "rich", let's call them "people with wealth/greed disorders" instead.

You're so right.  Was talking to an old fellow I know, he does the lottery every week, has done for decades and decades.  He was telling me about someone who just won, I think, €200M.  Just seems insane to me.  I said so, I said, for myself, I'd like to work a bit less hard (in normal times), have more heat in winter, keep paying my bills, maybe have a bath[nb]My happiness does not hinge on this, it would just be a luxury[/nb] of my own.  My big dream is to build my brother (he's pretty ill and has mobility and vision probs) a lovely, one floor, one room, log cabin with wheel-in shower and proper heating, a nice kitchen he can use, a home wind turbine[nb]He lives in a forest up a mountain with shit weather[/nb], big windows with bird tables and salt licks, safe and warm, to replace the hut he lives in.  It would also have an en suite stable for his rescue mule[nb]a miniature mule, called Eddie Elizabeth Hitler[/nb].  Doing this would give me enough joy to live on forever. 

Other than that, my dreams are all of keeping all living creatures with enough.  That's it.  €200M wouldn't cover that though.  I cannot understand how anyone can sit on a great pile of money without being poisoned by it, feeling sick if they don't use it to fix the world.  I honestly cannot.

[Pingers]

You're so right.  Was talking to an old fellow I know, he does the lottery every week, has done for decades and decades.  He was telling me about someone who just won, I think, €200M.  Just seems insane to me.  I said so, I said, for myself, I'd like to work a bit less hard (in normal times), have more heat in winter, keep paying my bills, maybe have a bath of my own.  My big dream is to build my brother (he's pretty ill and has mobility and vision probs) a lovely, one floor, one room, log cabin with wheel-in shower and proper heating, a nice kitchen he can use, a home wind turbine, big windows with bird tables and salt licks, safe and warm, to replace the hut he lives in.  It would also have an en suite stable for his rescue mule.  Doing this would give me enough joy to live on forever. 

Other than that, my dreams are all of keeping all living creatures with enough.  That's it.  €200M wouldn't cover that though.  I cannot understand how anyone can sit on a great pile of money without being poisoned by it, feeling sick if they don't use it to fix the world.  I honestly cannot.

What I would like to see is some change in the way these people are viewed. At the moment you often hear people with very little say "It's their money, they earned it", it would be better for our wider politics if instead they said "He should get some help with that wealth disorder, it's out of control and really destructive"

[NoSleep]

Acquisition of wealth is a game. There isn't a single way to play the game but in capitalist countries the successful players make sure that the wealth isn't acquired by the many collectively. So their action could be described as criminal. We need to change the game, or, better still, expose it as a game.

[JaDanketies]

I wonder what exactly is the pathology of your Bezos and Bransons and even Alan Sugars, anyway? Is it really about adding to their pile of gold? Or is it more about power, and winning, and being better than people, and getting one over on them? Surely you've got to have strong psychopathic traits to reach their position?

A huge proportion of the CEOs and directors I've encountered in the business world - especially those who have been concerned with Jaguars and Rolexes - have been blatant psychos. I've dealt with plenty who aren't, but they're typically involved in sectors like care and support or helping young offenders or whatever, and they seem to want to do right by their employees rather than squeeze the most work out of them for the least money. A little closer to the public sector.

[Pingers]

Why would they relinquish the power that wealth proffers just because somebody tried to redefine it as a disorder? They could simply counter that with the usual propaganda and with the considerable means (aka "wealth") to do so, i.e. "wealth = success".

See reply to Buelligan above, it's about changing how they are perceived by others, not how they perceive themselves. If we want people to support policies that limit and redistribute wealth, we need them to think differently about those who have all the money.

[NoSleep]

See also my second post.

[Zetetic]

I think that "disorder" is much more open to anyone's judgement (rightly or wrong) while "criminal" really bottoms out with "what law have they broken then?". (But then people take the DSM and ICD more seriously than I can ever imagine, so perhaps I'm wrong.)

Interesting whether pathologising someone's behaviour dismisses them, their logic and their rhetoric more than deeming it 'criminal'.

[JaDanketies]

See reply to Buelligan above, it's about changing how they are perceived by others, not how they perceive themselves. If we want people to support policies that limit and redistribute wealth, we need them to think differently about those who have all the money.

I don't really understand how anyone doesn't recognise them as psychos and sharks, but perhaps the average joe doesn't deal with them much and doesn't see the glint in their eyes and the blood on their teeth. Or perhaps it's a psychological defence - you don't want to admit to yourself that your boss is absolutely taking the piss out of you because they don't care about you at all.

Hence all the people I've worked with who never asked for a pay rise or spoken up about shitty conditions, and seemed to be under the assumption that the bosses would increase their salary out of benevolence, but also seem to fear their bosses enough to silently put up with the most egregious piss-taking.

[Buelligan]

I think you're right when you speak of it being like a disorder, Pingers.  I had a relationship with a man who was a scion of one of these sorts of families once.  During the time we were together, I noticed his eyes getting softer and wider (I'm not even lying), his heart opening and gentling, he even got a smile.  Of course, he could never return to his own people but I think that was a good thing for him and the world.  It is like an illness that eats the joy out of everyone it touches.

[Zetetic]

See also - Waterloo[nb]London, not Belgium[/nb] at 1700 on a pre-'ViD weekday.

[Zetetic]

Bearing in mind Buelligan's claim about damage to the afflicted individual - the application of most mental "disorders" ultimately turn on a judgement that the person themselves is being damaged by their condition, whether they recognise this or not, and that seems worth recognising.

[NoSleep]

I think that "disorder" is much more open to anyone's judgement (rightly or wrong) while "criminal" really bottoms out with "what law have they broken then?". (But then people take the DSM and ICD more seriously than I can ever imagine, so perhaps I'm wrong.)

Interesting whether pathologising someone's behaviour dismisses them, their logic and their rhetoric more than deeming it 'criminal'.

What is deemed as "criminal" is also part of the game. Hence the head of the last crime family to have conquered the UK is also, unsurprisingly, "above the law".

Expose the game.

[Zetetic]

What does "exposing the game" entail?

What is deemed as "criminal" is also part of the game.

Okay, but changing this involves changing the law, pretty much. Yes, there's a colloquial sense of "outwith ethical boundaries", but any push on the application of the term "criminal" brings you back to the law and - probably - not in a "the law ought to be different" kind of way but in a "stop speaking pish" kind of way.

I'm not really convinced "disorder" doesn't lead you to a similar situation - not least because of the recent history of things like "Brexit Anxiety Disorder" in public discourse - but it's maybe slightly less immediate.

[Pingers]

What is deemed as "criminal" is also part of the game. Hence the head of the last crime family to have conquered the UK is also, unsurprisingly, "above the law".

Expose the game.

We can and should do both. The problem we have is the while attacking these people as greedy, corrupt cunts works for me and you and the people we know who think like we do, there are too many people who it doesn't work for, as evidenced by working class people giving the Tories an 80 seat majority while led by someone whose middle name is de Pfeffel. Gotta do something differently.

[Buelligan]

Strictly speaking, his middle name is Boris.  de Pfeffel is part of his surname.  I just think of him as a horrible cunt, people usually know who I mean.

[Twit 2]

What does "exposing the game" entail?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

Debord traces the development of a modern society in which authentic social life has been replaced with its representation: "All that once was directly lived has become mere representation." Debord argues that the history of social life can be understood as "the decline of being into having, and having into merely appearing."

[NoSleep]

What does "exposing the game" entail?
Okay, but changing this involves changing the law, pretty much. Yes, there's a colloquial sense of "outwith ethical boundaries", but any push on the application of the term "criminal" brings you back to the law and - probably - not in a "the law ought to be different" kind of way but in a "stop speaking pish" kind of way.

Isn't the law "game" founded upon common law? Shouldn't be too hard to call bullshit from that basis. If one person can be "above the law" why couldn't anybody else demand the same?

[Zetetic]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

Can't fit that on a lamppost (not at a decent font size).

[Buelligan]

Bigger lampposts, wider pavements.

Who's going to pay though?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I don't know how Bezos hasn't shrivelled up through shame.

We are supposed to worship the likes of him as heroes and visionaries, the totem of 'aspiration' but his only vision and aspiration was to own a global distribution company for consumer items. His forays into digital communications perhaps warrant credit for bringing people together and expanding home conveniences and luxuries, but these have all been derivative not innovative, existing only because there is a competitor or two he wants to rape and rape and rape out of existence.

If he was an actual visionary, if he had real aspiration he would

- Invest in new technologies to make logistics less environmentally damaging, but go further and actually commit to revolutionary ideas that threaten even the base of his own existing business for a future that's better
- Change the corporate culture he has risen to influence by transforming career pathways and enhancing the working lives of his employees, instead of eroding them for his own gain
- Empower his customers to be thinkers, skeptics, conscious actors in the world around them rather than chain them to debt and materialism
- Even have a basic imagination to have some idea what to do with his own dragon hoard.

Far from being a model of aspiration, he is a grimly dedicated hardworking bloodsucker, a dimwit shorn of imagination, ambition and any capacity to truly understand his power. A putrid bald basilisk wandering listlessly in the labyrinth of his own mental prison.

[JaDanketies]

The average worker bee probably spends more time with their family and has a more varied and interesting existence than a lot of these folks too. Bezos probably puts on a suit and goes to the office every day.

That's one of the things I thought most amazing about the obscenely-wealthy psychopaths I've worked with. Imagine having more than enough money to be comfortable for the rest of your life, and to take care of your family ad-infinitum, and still putting on a suit and sitting in traffic so you can spend 50 hours a week under strip lighting in an industrial estate in Durham looking at Excel documents. Myspace Tom had the right idea.

[Paul Calf]

I don't know how Bezos hasn't shrivelled up through shame.

We are supposed to worship the likes of him as heroes and visionaries, the totem of 'aspiration' but his only vision and aspiration was to own a global distribution company for consumer items. His forays into digital communications perhaps warrant credit for bringing people together and expanding home conveniences and luxuries, but these have all been derivative not innovative, existing only because there is a competitor or two he wants to rape and rape and rape out of existence.

If he was an actual visionary, if he had real aspiration he would

- Invest in new technologies to make logistics less environmentally damaging, but go further and actually commit to revolutionary ideas that threaten even the base of his own existing business for a future that's better
- Change the corporate culture he has risen to influence by transforming career pathways and enhancing the working lives of his employees, instead of eroding them for his own gain
- Empower his customers to be thinkers, skeptics, conscious actors in the world around them rather than chain them to debt and materialism
- Even have a basic imagination to have some idea what to do with his own dragon hoard.

Far from being a model of aspiration, he is a grimly dedicated hardworking bloodsucker, a dimwit shorn of imagination, ambition and any capacity to truly understand his power. A putrid bald basilisk wandering listlessly in the labyrinth of his own mental prison.

More visionary are the people who developed the free software and networking models that made any of this possible.

Bezos might well be an entrepreneurial genius rockstar CEO big swinging dick, but Tim Berners-Lee gives his occupation as 'web developer'. Who really changed the world?

[pigamus]

Wealth disorder is a brilliant name for it. Reminds me of that Affluenza book by that psychologist bloke. Giving it a name is such a powerful thing.

[NoSleep]

"Survivor bias". i.e. Successful people lose perspective on just how lucky they have been and accredit it to their "hard work"; they have a distorted view of other less successful people who have nonetheless worked equally hard. Interesting video:

Is Success Luck or Hard Work? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LopI4YeC4I

[NoSleep]

Just found another of his videos from earlier on the same subject:

Survivor Bias: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qd3erAPI9w

(He kind of wusses out in the postscript, but not too badly. It's good to see you can mathematically prove that these people are cunts.)

[canadagoose]

More visionary are the people who developed the free software and networking models that made any of this possible.

Bezos might well be an entrepreneurial genius rockstar CEO big swinging dick, but Tim Berners-Lee gives his occupation as 'web developer'. Who really changed the world?

Ha, that's quite clever, that.

[bgmnts]

People will always want money though, and greed has been shamed pretty much always hasn't it? I dont see how viewing them as people with disorders would make people not want to be rich as fuck. The desire for power and wealth is innate in humans, except a small minority.