The Rich Prefer To Steal Money, Rather Than Create New Wealth

Note- Some new links have been added.

Inspite of propaganda over the last 30 years- the free market, free trade and economic liberalization has not made the average person in developed countries any wealthier, or richer. The top 1% or more accurately 0.1% (by income) have however made out like bandits. While this differential effect is especially glaring in the USA, many other developed countries have also seen an increase in economic inequality- though none to the grotesque levels seen here.

Real world conditions have however not stopped CONservatives, LIEbertarians and corrupt secular priests (rent-an-experts) from decrying any attempt at dressing widespread fraud and inequality in the system. Many average morons infact worship the rich (and their attitudes) in the misguided hope that they too will someday become rich.

I have previously talked about why lowering taxes on the rich does not create more jobs. It goes back to dissecting the CONservative meme about how businesses (and thereby the rich owners) DON’T willingly create new jobs. In one of the above linked posts- I has briefly mentioned that the rich are zero-sum sociopaths who suffer greatly from seeing others have a humane existence. Let me now explain that point in some more detail.

The rich, you see, have no interest in creating jobs, wealth or anything approximating a functional or progressive society. Making lots of money is never about buying stuff, social status or even a mark of self-worth. It is about hurting, abusing, depriving and killing other people.

That is right! Do you really think that a person who is worth 100 million USD has a much better quality of life than one who makes 10 million, or even 1 million? Is that even possible- especially in our technology deflation driven age? Which parameter of their life is improved by money? Money beyond a certain point cannot increase longevity, health, quality of sex life, ability to enjoy recreational activities or any other of the various reasons most people work for? Nor can it guarantee your legacy.

Any person of average, to above average, intelligence would therefore quickly realize that making more than a certain amount of money does not improve any aspect of your lifestyle. So what drives people to make tens of millions and billions?

Some say that money is like a drug and people get desensitized to it and therefore want to make more. While this may be partially true, it begs another question. People who use drugs rarely do them in solitary settings and often share their drug stashes/ booze with others. The rich almost never do that with money. Any philanthropy or charity is usually done with the idea of minimizing actual donations in favor of vague or convoluted promises of giving money away.

It does however make sense if we however consider being rich as a proxy for wanting to hurt, abuse, deprive and kill other people. Such a model also explains other peculiarities such as lack of empathy, hoarding money beyond the point of usefulness, unwillingness to create jobs, new wealth and many other sociopathic behaviors of that group.

The rich have much more in common with serial killers, sociopaths, mass murderers and other assorted sadists than your average ambitious person. They just go about their activities in a ‘socially sanctioned manner’ and many of you are stupid enough to worship them.

Do you have a better, complete and more internally consistent explanation for what you can observe? I want to hear it.


  1. Columnist
    June 1, 2011 at 11:54 pm

    Maybe the fall of the Soviet Union has something to do with the prevalent CONservative and LIEbertarian attitudes.

    • June 2, 2011 at 5:56 am

      Exactly. The fall of the Soviet Empire, gave a second life to them.

  2. June 2, 2011 at 7:28 am

    Off topic. But I was meditating about your secret recipe (methylphenidate + alcohol).
    Maybe we can summ it as such:
    1) alcohol –> dopamine release + drowsiness
    2) methylphenidate –> dopamine release + norepinephrine release
    ==> alcohol + methylphenidate = dopamine release + drowsiness + dopamine release + norepinephrine release
    Since norepinephrine counters drowsiness ==> norepinephrine = – drowsiness.
    ==> dopamine release + drowsiness + dopamine release + norepinephrine release = dopamine release + drowsiness + dopamine release – drowsiness = 2(dopamine release)
    So at the end, it’s dopamine that makes women horny. What do you think?

  3. June 2, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Reminds me of American Psycho.

  4. sth_txs
    June 5, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    I guess that explains why they won’t abolish the income tax for us proles.

  5. June 5, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    The rich are a varied group like any other (by The Rich, I assume you mean those with more than $1m in the bank). The vast majority are normal professionals trying to escape our dying society.

    I’m not sure more jobs is the answer. We’re drowning in incompetents already. If anything, this recession is awesome because it has squeezed out the dummies.

    What I think we really need is to get rid of the parasites that absorb half of our wealth and time. Maybe have a society of mostly functional people for a change.

    Look out there at the average doofuses, sitting on their couches and clutching their remotes, demanding to be considered equal. Most of these people can write software… if they’re given enough libraries, that is — and they can “drive,” and “write,” and “think,” but none of these are actual abilities.

    Instead of blaming The Rich(tm), we should blame the source of the problem: too many incompetents diluting the value of our labor.

  6. Hwo
    June 7, 2011 at 8:37 am

    I had always assumed that this phenomenon was due to a combination of a highly status-seeking personality and the well-established cognitive biases which cause humans to (vastly) overestimate the hedonic impact of the acquisition of resources and status beyond the minimum necessary to survive. Additionally, I was under the impression that it was reasonably well-supported in the literature already that since status (including wealth) relative to one’s PEERS rather than society at large has the greatest hedonic impact (studies have shown, for example, that Stanford Law Students would prefer to make 50K a year with their peers making 25k than 100k a year with their peers making 120k), that it is very difficult to improve one’s happiness through wealth acquisition since doing so typically involves moving into a more accomplished group of social peers as well.

    I’m not sure that sociopathy is the whole picture, although it may well be part of it.

  7. June 22, 2011 at 9:05 am

    Beautiful post, AD.

  8. Always Frosty
    September 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    I think you’re way off.

    There is a giant difference between 1 million and 100 million in terms of quality of life. It dictates if you can comfortably buy a house and land, or have it seriously cut into your overall spending power. If you’re just shopping at Wal-Mart there isn’t a difference, if you keep to 2nd tier cities there isn’t a difference.

    The people who keep going beyond 1 million don’t want the minimum of ANYTHING. They don’t want peace or rest, they tend enjoy act of making money. Seeing cash roll in is like watching your stats go up in an RPG, it’s addictive. And they do it in groups, that’s part of why networking works. They get to like you and they want to share the thrill with you, or in the cases of older guys they just want to serve as a guide.

    People that have a million net worth are comfortably well off, not rich by any stretch of the imagination. A bad turn in the market can wipe them out in no time, regardless of whatever they do.

  9. JWRebel
    September 18, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    I never heard the term “wealth creation” before the Reagan years, and this was exactly when the financialization of the economy really took off. By financialization I mean the pyramiding of all kinds of financial instruments which represent a claim on the real economy (debt), but do very little to increase actual production and services. Real physical capital and financial capital (extraction/leverage/rent-seeking) are rarely distinguished, because both are denominated in the same dollars.

    Being rich can never be an ideal for which everyone can strive, since you cannot have rich without poor. If everybody was rich, who would there be to carry your bags, clean up after you, do stuff for you, grovel when you beckon, blow you for next to nothing, etc etc. There would be no point to being rich if there were no poor people to lord it over. You’d have to do everything yourself, just like poor people.

  10. DoesNotMatter
    September 18, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    the Indian-American blogger you should be reading is at
    He is brilliant, rational, incisive, entertaining, factual….basically everything this guy is not. He writes about all topics with great and accurate predictions. Go there guys

  11. P Ray
    July 21, 2019 at 12:42 am

    That is right! Do you really think that a person who is worth 100 million USD has a much better quality of life than one who makes 10 million, or even 1 million? Is that even possible- especially in our technology deflation driven age? Which parameter of their life is improved by money? Money beyond a certain point cannot increase longevity, health, quality of sex life, ability to enjoy recreational activities or any other of the various reasons most people work for? Nor can it guarantee your legacy.

    Those people have a great deal of fun lecturing others about working hard and being independent. Bonus points if they’re women.

    From the same zerohedge article:
    MacKenzie would be in good company among the wealthiest women. Because as it turns out, most of the 66 women on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index list came into their wealth through death or divorce. Out of the 66 women, only six are self-made, compared with 313 self-made men.

    But it’s still unclear whether the Bezos will evenly divide Jeff’s 16% stake in the e-commerce giant he founded, we can’t help but wonder: Was his relationship with Sanchez really worth $70 billion?

  1. June 5, 2011 at 1:25 am
  2. June 30, 2012 at 11:05 pm
  3. June 30, 2012 at 11:06 pm
  4. October 26, 2013 at 4:53 pm
  5. March 24, 2014 at 5:11 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: