There are two types of concerns I get when talking to founders (and other ambitious people) about money: 1) They care about getting rich, but feel like they shouldn’t. 2) They don’t care about getting rich, but feel like they should. Let me address each one in turn.
This is great! It is unfortunate that many people of great talent and skill that the world needs to be out there building the world are saddled with the unearned guilt of their own productivity. I hope they find this and start to see themselves for the heroes they are.
What do you think of businesses who say they need to "give back"?
One of the keys here seems to be: become intentional or aware of how you will USE money to build the life you want.
Seeing the world of post-exit founders, or rich-PE types… so many seem to have gotten so used to making money or they simply have a talent for it, that they just indiscriminately “want more!”
That drive subordinates all else. And making money has become trained into them as now the ends.
It seems that having some self awareness about those drives, call it guilt or whatever, would be healthy.
Yes, definitely agree that more self-awareness and intentionality would be good. My view is that treating money as the “ends” almost always comes down to treating it as a status/worth signal, which is a variant of the same failure mode as we see in those who, e.g., treat “social impact” as an (equally arbitrary) status/worth signal. Unfortunately the latter often gets touted as the cure for the former, when in fact it’s just another form of the same mistake.
Because that's how founders (and others) tend to hold it: it's not that they've carefully and independently thought through the nature of the impact they personally want to have on the world (a la Steve Jobs' vision of a world where everyone has a "bicycle for the mind," for example), but rather that they've uncritically adopted and are paying lip service to certain "social goods" to give the impression (to themselves and others) that they are noble and virtuous.
And no, I don't actually think we're better off with social impact signalers vs money signalers; neither of them is actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, and the range of actual motivations has a much lower floor with social impact signalers than money signalers. Consider: social impact signaling has been the MO of some of history's worst dictators (from Stalin to Mao to Hitler to Pol Pot to Kim Il-sung), whereas the worst we get with money signaling is a Bernie Madoff type (still bad, don't get me wrong, but not on nearly the same scale).
Interesting… I appreciate your thoughtful response.
I see your point on the downside of social impact signalers. Certainly plenty of atrocities have been done via “religious” reasons as well.
I’m not sure I’ve thought through it fully enough to completely be onboard with your argument (on money vs social impact signal in) but will think on it!
This is great! It is unfortunate that many people of great talent and skill that the world needs to be out there building the world are saddled with the unearned guilt of their own productivity. I hope they find this and start to see themselves for the heroes they are.
What do you think of businesses who say they need to "give back"?
One of the keys here seems to be: become intentional or aware of how you will USE money to build the life you want.
Seeing the world of post-exit founders, or rich-PE types… so many seem to have gotten so used to making money or they simply have a talent for it, that they just indiscriminately “want more!”
That drive subordinates all else. And making money has become trained into them as now the ends.
It seems that having some self awareness about those drives, call it guilt or whatever, would be healthy.
Yes, definitely agree that more self-awareness and intentionality would be good. My view is that treating money as the “ends” almost always comes down to treating it as a status/worth signal, which is a variant of the same failure mode as we see in those who, e.g., treat “social impact” as an (equally arbitrary) status/worth signal. Unfortunately the latter often gets touted as the cure for the former, when in fact it’s just another form of the same mistake.
Btw, I understand your point about it not being a cure… just want to clarify the “equally arbitrary” point.
👍
Can you clarify why you say money is an EQUALLY arbitrary status/worth signal as social impact?
E.g. it strikes me that as a society, we are better off with more social impact > money signalers.
Because that's how founders (and others) tend to hold it: it's not that they've carefully and independently thought through the nature of the impact they personally want to have on the world (a la Steve Jobs' vision of a world where everyone has a "bicycle for the mind," for example), but rather that they've uncritically adopted and are paying lip service to certain "social goods" to give the impression (to themselves and others) that they are noble and virtuous.
And no, I don't actually think we're better off with social impact signalers vs money signalers; neither of them is actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, and the range of actual motivations has a much lower floor with social impact signalers than money signalers. Consider: social impact signaling has been the MO of some of history's worst dictators (from Stalin to Mao to Hitler to Pol Pot to Kim Il-sung), whereas the worst we get with money signaling is a Bernie Madoff type (still bad, don't get me wrong, but not on nearly the same scale).
As a nice contrast to the "social impact signaling" mentality: https://x.com/EricJorgenson/status/1808290709000028345
Interesting… I appreciate your thoughtful response.
I see your point on the downside of social impact signalers. Certainly plenty of atrocities have been done via “religious” reasons as well.
I’m not sure I’ve thought through it fully enough to completely be onboard with your argument (on money vs social impact signal in) but will think on it!
Excellent as usual.