The billionaires’ lament
Speaking of people wanting to be “recognized” not as what they are but as some other, more interesting thing – poor billionaire Howard Schultz doesn’t like being called a billionaire.
Billionaire Howard Schultz isn’t a fan of being called a billionaire.
On Monday, the former Starbucks CEO and chairman sat down with the New York Times reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin to talk about his book “From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America.”
Sorkin asked Schultz to respond to a question from the “Winner Takes All” author Anand Giridharadas — who’s been critical of Schultz’s political ambitions — about whether or not billionaires wield too much political power in the US.
The horror! You mean like the Koch brothers? The fossil fuel plutocrats who want us to keep on making the planet hotter? The Facebook twerp who let Russia get Trump elected?
Schultz appeared to take issue with the question’s phrasing, saying, “The moniker ‘billionaire’ now has become the catchphrase.”
A single word can’t be a catchphrase, now can it. But never mind that; the point is – it’s relevant that billionaires like Schultz and Perot and pseudo-billionaires like Trump feel entitled to run for president despite having zero relevant experience or knowledge or qualities of character. It’s relevant that they can buy their way in. It’s relevant that no one would give a flying fuck about Howard Schultz if he weren’t a billionaire. Yes we get to talk about it, using the correct word.
Schultz’s concern about the word “billionaire” also echoes that of another famous billionaire: Elon Musk.
On July 10, 2018, Musk tweeted that the media uses the term “billionaire” to “devalue” and “denigrate” people. Musk’s net worth is $21.3 billion, according to Forbes.
Ironically, the “billionaire” label, when used by media, is almost always meant to devalue & denigrate the subject. I wasn’t called that until my companies got to a certain size, but reality is that I still do the same science & engineering as before. Just the scale has changed.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 10, 2018
Just the scale has changed – well yes, that’s the point.
Sigh. That Thai cave rescue is a perfectly encapsulated view of the problem. The deference paid to billionaires when they opine on an issue is ridiculous. They end up surrounded by yes men and their judgment goes out of whack. Elon Musk was on an ego trip with that stupid capsule, and he didn’t bother to spend any time finding out if it would work. If he had really wanted to help, he should have called someone in charge and asked what they needed and how he could help. But what he wanted was to be showered in plaudits and then threw a hissy fit when he was (rightly) criticized.
I have no idea if Musk was always an asshole or whether extreme wealth has distorted his personality. But this kind of self-aggrandizing assholery is a common feature of being a billionaire, it seems.
Elon Musk thinks that he can be Tony Stark. If he tries really, really, bigly, really hard.
If they gave away their billions, people would stop calling them “billionaires.” Problem solved.
Here’s a little something from Jerry Bock that touches on this…
The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
“If you please, Reb Tevye…”
“Pardon me, Reb Tevye…”
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi’s eyes!
And it won’t make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you’re rich, they think you really know!
(If I Were a Rich Man)
I wish the worst thing about my life was being called a billionaire. If someone used such a slur, I don’t know how I’d cope. I’d probably have to resort to using unicorn fluff to dry my tears…
Rob, +1.
I also oppose the use of the term billionaire. Not out of any sympathy for those entitled shits, but because I support the older, more mathematically correct system of naming large numbers. Elon Musk and co. don’t have billions, they have milliards.
Down with the short number system, in with the long!
Adam Smith was way ahead of us–from the Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759 (edited, as I’m going to be reading this segment to an assembled crowd this morning):
‘To what purpose is all the toil and bustle of this world? what is the end of avarice and ambition, of the pursuit of wealth, of power, and preheminence? Is it to supply the necessities of nature? The wages of the meanest labourer can supply them. What then is the cause of our aversion to his situation, and why should those who have been educated in the higher ranks of life regard it as worse than death, to be reduced to live, even without labour, upon the same simple fare with him, to dwell under the same lowly roof, and to be clothed in the same humble attire? Do they imagine that their stomach is better, or their sleep sounder in a palace than in a cottage? The contrary has been so often observed, and, indeed, is so very obvious, that there is nobody ignorant of it.
From whence, then, arises that emulation which runs through all the different ranks of men, and what are the advantages which we propose by that great purpose of human life which we call bettering our condition? To be observed, to be attended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency, and approbation, are all the advantages which we can propose to derive from it. It is the vanity, not the ease, or the pleasure, which interests us. But vanity is always founded upon the belief of our being the object of attention and approbation. The rich man glories in his riches, because he feels that they naturally draw upon him the attention of the world. At the thought of this, his heart seems to swell and dilate itself within him, and he is fonder of his wealth, upon this account, than for all the other advantages it procures him.
The man of rank and distinction is observed by all the world. His actions are the objects of the public care. Scarce a word, scarce a gesture, can fall from him that is altogether neglected. It is this, which, notwithstanding the restraint it imposes, notwithstanding the loss of liberty with which it is attended, renders greatness the object of envy, and compensates all that toil, all that anxiety, in the pursuit of it; and what is of yet more consequence, all that leisure, all that ease, all that careless security, which are forfeited for ever by the acquisition.’
Having people admire and defer to them is what it’s all about, and they get ugly remarkably fast when that admiration and deference is alloyed in any way.
How is that usage “ironic” ? One would have to assume that being or becoming a billionaire is the result of some inherent value as a person above and beyond the value of any other individual’s humanity for that to be true. And truth be told, Mr. Musk, if there is denigration it is well earned. Nobody needs to be that wealthy. The fact that you, like many others are that wealthy is a testament to your collective greed–not a very attractive human quality. I feel fairly confident, though, that you feel yourself to possess value as a person above and beyond anyone else (or at least the mass of humanity, and certainly above the mass of non-human creatures who don’t bother to earn even a single dollar for themselves), and no doubt you think that greed is a positive motivator.
“Billionaire” is sort of a qualification, like “PhD.” When the media is talking to people with thoughts or opinions on a subject, the mention of background education and expertise on the subject is failry common. The “billionaire” tag might similarly indicate that the opinion being published is from someone with lots of money, who would not be listened to otherwise, but because they’re rich and loud, get a microphone pointed in their direction. If the billionaire in question actually had some knowledge or skill to bring to the question at hand, that could easily be mentioned. It gives reporters a few more lines of copy they can file. These rich dudes already have a bit of a following and media interest (and access) from earlier activities (Coffee! Cars!! Rockets!!!) and because they’re rich. Not necessarily just guys, either. Madonna or Oprah (though only the latter could be tagged as a billionaire) would get similar attention if they were to announce candidacy for elected office, despite apparent lack of experience or ability in this area. A loud opinion and $5.00 gets you a cup of coffee. A loud opinion and $1,000,000,000 gets you national media attention at the drop of a tweet. Would any non-billionaire Joe Schmoe musing aloud about maybe running for president get all the free publicity that came Howard Schultz’s way?
It’s like these guys use their stacks of money as platforms to climb up and speak from. Unfortunately, the media will find them newsworthy and offer their platforms because of their wealth and despite their lack of qualifications. They represent an easy story that’s too good to ignore. This gives the billionaire publicity and exposure with little effort. That can be enough to get the ball rolling. Some (too large) percentage of the public will see that attention/fame/notoriety as qualification enough and take them more seriously than they should be taken. We have seen quite clearly, thank you very much, that attention, fame, and notoriety are no substitute for knowledge, skill, talent, etc. The billions take the place of relevant knowledge and experience in garnering attention, but are not a useful proxy for it once you actually have to do the job.
This is how Trump became president, and managed to get praise for doing it while spending less money than his opponent. The other candidate (you all know who I mean, right?) had to spend large sums to get media coverage; even then, it was largely drowned out by the drum beat of the press following the loud, rich buffoon like a pack of eager dogs following a bitch in heat. Trump became an everyday phrase like no other candidate I remember in my life. You couldn’t (and still can’t) turn on the TV, log into the internet, open a magazine or newspaper, or even drop off to sleep without the ubiquitous orange clown being shoved in your face, even by your own damned brain sometimes.
This made him seem like a serious candidate, because the media were hanging on his every word. It made him seem qualified, because the media reported everything he said. It made him seem…larger than life. (Except his hands – nothing could make them large, even all the Twitter exercise he gives them).
The media didn’t create this clown, he was created by the inheritance of wealth he did nothing to earn. They merely amplified him to a roaring sideshow that no one could rip their eyes away from.
For someone as ignorant and poorly spoken as Trump, this should have ended his candidacy.
He did ot not know what the “nuclear triad” was:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trumps-terrifying-nuke-answer-at-the-debate-should-end-his-campaign-but-it-wont-34436/
He should have been pounded on that. This was during the Republican leadership race. The other candidates should have hammered him on that, mercilessly, repeatedly.
He can barely speak in sentences: (Nearly ANY video or audio clip of Trump speaking on ANY subject extemporaneously).
Future historians (assuming there are historians, and a future) will shake their heads in wonder he even got on the ballot.
YNNB, yes, I agree. The media should have been pointing out every falsehood, every ignorant blunder, every single time he made a nasty comment, if they insisted on following him non-stop. Still, even that is a problem, because many people forget what they actually say, and only remember that they reported something.