He says ‘1000 Einsteins’, but surely thinks ‘1000 Bezoses’ because of course he thinks he’s a genius, and because there’ll be more new faces in the billionaire paedophilic orgies.
Imagine how many more Mozarts and Einsteins we could have if we removed barriers like poverty and hunger and allowed everyone to have a fair shot at life.
I know a guy who draws absolutely beautiful sketches, and having seen some of the paintings he “dabble with”, I’m positive he could make some amazing things.
Unfortunately, all he gets to do is small sketches in his down time, because he works two jobs and has 2 kids.
Imagine how many people have an ideas for something that would make tons of people’s lives better, but they can’t work on it because they have to go to work and all their energy is spent just trying not to become a statistic…
And if we cooperated instead of antagonizing each other (which happens under this capitalist system) we could probably collectively achieve even more than 1000 “mozarts” could do
See, that’s the thing these guys don’t want to understand. There could be a thousand generational talents like that "right fucking now*, who have these enormous gifts and won’t ever be able to realize them because they gotta go to their third job so they don’t fall behind on rent AGAIN.
Your Uber driver might be a virtuosic violin player who’s never realized it because he’s never had the opportunity to try. The cashier at Taco Bell might be an amazing painter, who can’t afford to paint because every last cent has to go to one bill or another. That kid in Ghana you’re watching on the TV charity commercial might be the next talent in rocketry or physics or poetry or any of a dozen other fields if they had a shot.
It’s so nice to see other people with this sentiment. Even at a young age I always thought it was a little silly for only rich people to have “the best” education when there are people out there who can’t follow their passions or dreams because of various things.
So nice to see, thank you for pointing it out!
No no no, just make endless people living in poverty and maybe a gentleman can pick up a child prodigy here and there
Exactly this
We have so much untapped potential in the world because of the system he is a product of. The vast majority of people have to spend most of their time and effort on general survival. There’s diminishing amounts of time and effort that average Joe can actually spend on intellectual and artistic pursuits orthogonal to their source of income. Hell, just fucking having hobbies is becoming a bit of a privileged position in 2026, which is frankly a desolate place we’ve managed to take civilisation.
But. Then we’d have no Elon Musks or Jeff Bezos’s or Jeffrey Epsteins… Surely you don’t want that more than healthcare, right??
We probably already have thousands of them out there but they never recieved the education they would have needed to unlock their potential and or are too busy surviving in abject poverty to contribute to the advancement of humanity.
Because shitheads like him hoard all the money and do everything they can so others around them are stuck in the poverty trap so they can use them as cheap, desperate and exploitable labor.
Funny how he also happens to be one of the worlds largest employers and also has one of the biggest amounts of customers. Wonder if he secretly would like anything else from those 9,999,999,998,000 people.
And we’d have more Mozarts and Einsteins right now if people were free from the burden of worry about survival.
That’s interesting. I think we should have 0 'Jeff Bezos’es in the solar system.
How many Mozarts and Einsteins are pissing in bottles in your warehouses, Jeff?
To put it another way: we don’t need a trillion people to find more Master Artists and Master Scientists, we need more Equality of Opportunity and a system that rewards Art and Science, both the very opposite what has made this “gentleman” as rich as he is, of what he promotes with his own words and using the parts of Press he bought and what he tells the politicians he has in this pocked to do.
He is literally one of the biggest individual forces pushing away from the very outcome he claims to want.
The hypocrisy of this asshole and others like him is mind-boggling.
They would say none, because Einstein made it out of the patent office and if you’re still stuck in the patent office, you aren’t Einstein. Brilliance must always rise to the top. Bezos is at the top, so in his mind he’s brilliant. In his mind, there’s no world where he isn’t who he is today.
Remember there’s no empathy or understanding.
Humans would find a way to destroy space through greed and corruption.
We already have a 1000 mozarts but half of them are starving right now and then out of the other half 80% couldnt pursue their dreams
And Bezos is pushing for genAI, so they will be pushed out by genAI slop.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
- Steven Jay Gould
Ramanujan died at 33 because of an impoverished childhood.
Look some the poors are going to die however that is just the price we all have to pay to make sure the rest of the Epstein Class continues to hoard wealth.
Above a certain point one’s wealth is basically a slice of the wealth everybody produces, so the more the people the more wealth they get, the more wealthy they become.
It’s the reason why countries’ GDPs are quote as a whole rather than per-capita basis - whilst per-capita is what matters to most people as individuals (ideally the median rather than the mean), for those in power and the local elites it’s the entire country’s GDP that matters because their power and wealth is linked to the whole quite independently of how many people are producing it (think of it this way: market dominance, political influence, Press control and other forms of controlling how much wealth one gets are mainly country-specific or at least have less “power transmission” between countries than they do inside countries, so given that those tools to extract a slice of country-wide wealth are mainly country-specific, more people in that country means more returns from having such tools).
For the very rich immigration is always desirable even when importing people with lower formal education and less well integrated than the locals - even if the average productivity goes down (and hence per-capita GPD) because the newer, less expert and less well integrated workers, produce less wealth per-person that those already in the local worker pool, for those getting a slice of the aggregated wealth produced in a country even a little more from lower productivity workers, is always more for them.
Probably a really stupid question, but why is the median used for wealth and GDP rather than the mean (with the top and bottom sliced out)?
The wealth distributions are so called “normal” statistical distributions (basically a peak in the middle with a low on each side), so most people are at and around the central peak whilst only a few people are at the extremes, and in these the median which is at the top of the peak tells you the most common situation. Meanwhile for wealtht the mean is just mathematically the total wealth divided by the number of people.
In other words, the median tells you the most common situation, whilst the mean tells you how much is the total wealth divided by the total number of people (for wealth a purelly mathematical value which doesn’t really represent any human situation).
An example - if there are 10 people, 9 of which have one chicken each and 1 which has 91 chicken:
- The mean says that each person has 10 chickens ( (9*1 + 91) / 10), so 10x the chickens than the reality for 9 out of 10 people.
- The median says that each person has 1 chicken, as that’s the point around which most people’s chicken-count is.
Going back to wealth, one stupidly rich person and a lot of very poor people produces a mean were they’re all supposedly middle-class - which is not at all representative of the wealth of most people - whilst it produces a median which says the most common situation is to be poor.
This extreme example, by the way, is very close to the situation in the US - most people in America are (according to some OECD data somebody posted here a couple of days ago) poorer than for example the Portuguese (pretty much the tail of Europe), but the mean of wealth for America says that per-capita Americans are almost 3x as wealthy than the Portuguese, and the reason for this is that America is WAY more unequal than Portugal, so whilst most Americans are poorer than most Portuguese, the upper-middle class in America is much better off and a handful of Americans are incredibly more wealthy than the wealthiest Portuguese.
Thank you very much for going out your way to do this explanation. It’s something that’s bugged me for a while and I’ve not found a good explanation behind it.
I’m assuming based on this then the median often offers a better “reasonable” person in a given demographic and includes everyone, over mean with top and bottom excluded.
And obviously from your explanation median makes wealth comparisons between nations more accurate.
Well, median, mean and mode are all imperfect, but mean is by far the most imperfect because it ignores the distribution of values per data point (so in this case the distribution of wealth per individual) whilst median and mode do not and so tend to fall towards an indicative value (i.e. wealth level) around were the majority of cases are.
By the way, I made a mistake in my previous post and wealth is not a “normal distribution”, though it is similar.
A normal distribution looks like this but the wealth distribution is not balanced on both sides since the upper tail of cases (i.e. the richer) is theoretically unbound, whilst the lower tail of cases is either bound (at $0 if debt is not included) or only goes up to a certain point if debt is included (basically only up to the point were people will lend money to other people).
Normal distributions (so, the Mathematical, perfectly balanced ones) have amongst other things the property that mean = median = mode so if wealth was a perfect normal statistical distribution then using the mean would not be a problem.
Can you please change this to 11 people with 100 chickens so I can just take the 6th persons chicken count instead of averaging it with the 5ths person chicken count to determine the median?
Sure.
I appreciate you.
We should all “treat others the same as we want to be treated ourselves” and I got the impression that the way I had done it got on your nerves, same as some things a bit “out of place” get on mine.
There’s a great comedian complaining she didn’t initially get her autism diagnosis because when the psychologist asked her, “Do the tags on the back of her shit bother you?” she answered simply, “No.” When she found out that not having sensory issues was what her denied her the diagnosis, she snapped, “Of course the tags don’t bother me! I have a system!”
I’m coming to grips with the fact that I have a lot–but not all–of the traits of autism. I realize that as an adult, I probably have at least a few more than I’m immediately aware because I’ve been subconsciously avoiding situations that trigger my autism, so this week, this week I’m letting my freak flag fly to see what’s beneath the mask.
He wants a trillion prime memberships.
Stories like these from people like these are always delivered through the lens of what’s best for business. This is propaganda.
Also lack of genuine self-awareness on their own true intentions. To them, being greedy is so ingrained they can’t see it as a hazard to themselves until its too late.
With proper resource management (up to and beyond availing and provisioning all emancipatory technologies), such that we could build vast multi-layered forest arcologyscapes, we could increase the carrying capacity of earth, for humans, to over 300 trillion, living in vast spacious lush garden abundance. Not saying that we should. Just that we could. Such is our headroom.
But we don’t get to have nice things, because of the likes of Bezos.
Industrialists, monopolists, “globalists” [oh they love that one, a flowery euphemism for more like “megalomaniacs”?], who eliminate any competition, by whatever means necessary to attain and maintain an imbalance of power.
A few years back I recall some journalists unearthing a study that showed how Wall St (and other stock exchange centers), were not only not “making” money/wealth, but extracting it from the economy, and further, for every dollar of wealth they extracted from the economy, they destroy another 7 dollars of wealth. … Takes a moment for the magnitude of that to sink in.
So then we get these fauxlanthropists, swanning around, like Rockerfeller, giving a dime to someone on camera, in a community from whom he’d stolen millions, to whitewash their image.
… by whatever means necessary… a lot of that’s just by the patents system and the legal system. How many patents get secreted a year? How many merely get sat on? How much lawfare’s done to scare off inventors of technologies that would out-compete and obsolete enshitified rent-extraction maximisation technologies? How much else? A spat of inventors disappeared or died in suspicious circumstances recently. How far would you go to protect a multi trillion industry? As far as to actively prevent a better world without resource wars or poverty from ever happening? How far would a psychopath who’s drawn to power go, with exacerbating tragedies of the commons for their own selfish short-sighted power-grab and resource gain? There’s nothing stopping them…
We can all be polymaths in the making,
not slaves in training, lapping up the platitudes that placate us, from those who enslave us.
(PS, I’ve been boycotting Amazon since 2004, waiting for everybody else to see it. Maybe now with their participation in vast rampant destruction of rare books to feed their AI for cheap, to become the info monopoly, able to shape our agnosis, more people will see it and stop falling for it, in this small window we have, before their total information management becomes complete and we become a cosmic dystopian tragedy, with our minds entirely curated by the everpresent cold-reading psychopathic ai hypnotist, not just coercively hoodwinking us to carrying it in our pocket, but skynet, will be everywhere, especially in our mind. Except it wont be our mind any more. It will be the corporation’s. Maximum capitalisation, reducing people to the numbers. … Bezos, a trillion humans? Sure. But we are not the same.)
I hope he clones a trillion of himself and they all end up killing each other fighting for the top spot of best sociopath in the solar system.
Did you guys know it’s possible to be rich and also just shut the fuck up?
Yeah, we don’t see e.g. the heads of the BIS etc swanning around doing the fauxlanthropist whitewashing bit on the podcast circuit.
I haven’t heard that term before. Gonna mentally bookmark that.
