I really can't stand these long-form articles that just take ages to get anywhere.
For example, at some point the article notes he didn't get to the truth until two epiphanies that obliterated his self-image.
Then there's literally 9 paragraphs of other text. Then it follows with the 10th paragraph: "Then came the Epiphanies."
Long-form is great, but it feels as if each page is just loaded with stuff other than the point of the article. If it's written in poetic form, contains beautiful photography, or actually interesting anecdotes, sure. But none of it was there and the larger point never did arrive, either.
As for the Victoria man... completely misguided. Every street he walks on, every piece of cloth he wears, the coffee he drinks, the food he eats, the phone he uses, the internet he uses, was produced or maintained by someone else. Money is merely a medium of exchange to allow people to exchange their contribution to society, for other contributions, in a feasible (i.e. not barter-based) manner. There's tons of legitimate criticisms on capitalism, on our economic structures, on unequal opportunity/ability, monopolies, corruption, concentration of wealth etc etc, which makes our socioeconomic system imperfect. But the idea that money (as an invention/tool) is the root of the problem is entirely misguided and frankly, entirely unfounded. Nothing in this article really substantiates this wild claim he makes, and nowhere does the interviewer even remotely challenge him on it. Unfortunate that I had to read the whole thing to find that out.
For example, at some point the article notes he didn't get to the truth until two epiphanies that obliterated his self-image.
Then there's literally 9 paragraphs of other text. Then it follows with the 10th paragraph: "Then came the Epiphanies."
Long-form is great, but it feels as if each page is just loaded with stuff other than the point of the article. If it's written in poetic form, contains beautiful photography, or actually interesting anecdotes, sure. But none of it was there and the larger point never did arrive, either.
As for the Victoria man... completely misguided. Every street he walks on, every piece of cloth he wears, the coffee he drinks, the food he eats, the phone he uses, the internet he uses, was produced or maintained by someone else. Money is merely a medium of exchange to allow people to exchange their contribution to society, for other contributions, in a feasible (i.e. not barter-based) manner. There's tons of legitimate criticisms on capitalism, on our economic structures, on unequal opportunity/ability, monopolies, corruption, concentration of wealth etc etc, which makes our socioeconomic system imperfect. But the idea that money (as an invention/tool) is the root of the problem is entirely misguided and frankly, entirely unfounded. Nothing in this article really substantiates this wild claim he makes, and nowhere does the interviewer even remotely challenge him on it. Unfortunate that I had to read the whole thing to find that out.