Nietzsche and The Last Psychiatrist[1] would have a field day with this.
The article tells a story we love to believe: we may be poorer than the people the article talks about, but we are nicer, more empathic, better people. We love to believe it, because it makes us feel good about ourselves and provides a sense of justice: nobody has it all and if someone has more of one thing, he will have less of something else.
We also love to believe it because that way we don't have to consider a far more disturbing possibility: that these people aren't accidentally rich and their moral shortcomings aren't a result of their riches. That they are rich exactly because they are capable of the repugnant behavior described in the article. That our capitalist system is fallacious, can be gamed and is being gamed by these people. The system we are so infatuated with allows people that are undeserving, cheaters, to get the prize.
Yes, people who you believe are undeserving can obtain wealth. No, that doesn't mean that all wealthy people are like that or that it is necessary to behave badly to become wealthy.
The last psychiatrist is an ok writer, and a lot of his stuff is fun to read, but he draws some really erroneous conclusions. I'd be careful about being drawn in by that.
I assume it's either a man or a misogynistic lesbian; there are several references to watching porn from a male perspective, that the writer finds women attractive, and the writing style is masculine.
I've never bothered to check before but a cursory google shows no real evidence either way, though most others think it's a man as well.
Or if you're referring to me and saying I drew an erroneous conclusion, I didn't draw any conclusions at all, save about the last psychiatrist.
I definitely agree with you that the current socioeconomic system is suboptimal, and rife with perverse incentives and loopholes. It can be fixed though.
i don't believe the assertion that the "system" can be fixed - in a very complex system, there necessarity exists optimal strategies for "advancing" (in this context, it means getting more money faster). I compare it to making sure a complex computer system is secure from attack - the surface area is just so large, that you can't plug every single possible hole, you can't plan for every single eventuality.
To fix socioeconomic problems means to redivide the pie more evenly, and there are just way too many vested interests in keeping things the way it is.
The article tells a story we love to believe: we may be poorer than the people the article talks about, but we are nicer, more empathic, better people. We love to believe it, because it makes us feel good about ourselves and provides a sense of justice: nobody has it all and if someone has more of one thing, he will have less of something else.
We also love to believe it because that way we don't have to consider a far more disturbing possibility: that these people aren't accidentally rich and their moral shortcomings aren't a result of their riches. That they are rich exactly because they are capable of the repugnant behavior described in the article. That our capitalist system is fallacious, can be gamed and is being gamed by these people. The system we are so infatuated with allows people that are undeserving, cheaters, to get the prize.
[1] http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/