I love his analogy to people in Finance - how they are unabashedly "about that life" - and they're upfront about it.
After traveling across the US, I realized I prefer my wealth and power desires out in the open. Inordinate wealth is hidden so insidiously in the valley. We don't really dress in wealth signals, or even drive in wealth signals (as opposed to NYC or Miami.) - the subtler cues to social status are things like an Au Pair or private yoga lessons or an address in Menlo Park, Atherton, Woodside or Palo Alto. But they dress like us, and they drive in the same luxury cars we do.
And yet, they are so, so far above us.
It's the same principle in Silicon Valley.
The status symbol is being enough of a hot shot to not have to play by the rules of status.
I definitely feel bad when I hear stories about black and hispanic men having to dress up at work because people feel scared of them when they wear hoodies and torn shorts like I do.
This part is super interesting. You need to be able to wear the baseball cap and jeans while letting people know that you _could_ be wearing a fancy suit if you cared about their norms.
Also, this send to be a great quote: https://youtu.be/FlzZhGr8G9w
I wasn't actually praising Steve Jobs. I was just pointing that at least he was a rich elite jerk who was open about being a jerk, unlike so many of our contemporary rich elite jerks who cover it up because they're afraid of others realizing their mission statements and grand visions are just excuses to amass wealth and power.
Which part? Driving a Mercedes (probably $50-100k) seems much better than driving some exotic million dollar car.
It looks like as of this year (in California at least) there is now a requirement to have a temporary plate that is in the same location as the permanent one, partly to prevent people doing the above:
Do you? Why couldn't you be required to get the plates first and attach them to any car plateless you wish to drive?
People in NYC use cars to show off?
1. Own it (finance)
2. Change it (go into teaching or something)
3. Lie about it (tech)
It does not, however, allow me to read the full article.
This is incredibly ironic. Techcrunch's (partial) release of this article is a perfect example of what the author describes: excluding those who can't afford to pay while pretending to act in the interest of all.
>And, at the heart of what I’m trying to establish with the book, is how they have then turned around, and in response to this exclusion, and the anger it generates, sought to pass themselves off as change agents who can fix the problem that they are complicit in causing, and who can fight the fire that they helped set.
Your second sentence is spot on though. "Win-winism" is just a repackaging of age old leftist theory.
Lefist theory? It sounds solidly right-wing to me.
The article's author writes:
"What win-win-ism says is, the best way to help the least among us is to do what's good for the richest and most powerful."
That sounds to me very much like Trickle-down economics, of which Reagan was the champion.
Do you consider Reagan a leftist?
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics
It's true. But there's a slight difference. No one has faith in the government. There are only those who are see themselves as powerless in the face of this and those who see themselves as the agents of change. The Messiahs have been commoditized.
They're not two cleanly separable entities. Industry executives go in to government all the time (often to oversee the regulation of the industries they came from), and when politicians leave office they frequently get hired in to extremely high paying jobs at the very companies they regulated or awarded contracts to while in office.
Former politicians also frequently get hired by corporations to become lobbyists, because they know the system and have a lot of connections in government.
Corporations and government scratch each other's backs so much that it's a wonder there's any effective regulation, consumer protection, or health and safety protections left.
I'm currently very vexed with my elected representatives for spending my thousands of tax dollars on an invasion of Venezuela, while excusing Exxon's billions in taxes. I recognize that this is partly facilitated by Exxon's former CEO manipulating Venezuelan politics with black ops while holding the position of Secretary of State. So, far be it from me to proclaim the purity of our governance.
An individual factory may go offline, but "big food" will not.
Edit: And this is the case I expect regardless of which post-capitalist scenario we face: either a) neoreactionary feudalism or b) socialist collectivization. In either scenario, the corps don't go out of business.
Judging by how emotional many people get about elections, that doesn't seem true.
Also, while I think it's great that folks want to level the field and reduce the wealth gap, the likely outcome will be that the ultra rich will evade taxes like they always do, while the $1-10 millionaires will be pulled down to appease the masses. I don't lose sleep over some mildly rich tech bro. They're not the problem. It's the ultra rich that are holding all the cards and controlling our destinies.
Secondly, your approach is bad. The "I found one thing I think is false (but never bothered to look up) so I'm dismissing the whole article" is your right of course, but I don't know if it makes for an informed member of the discussion.
If I read an article and encounter flawed logic, I am less inclined to continue investing time into exploring the author's thesis.