"The sovereignty you have over your work will inspire far more people than the actual content ever will." - Gaping Void
I always go off on strange tangents with your posts. What may be worse is latching on to observations you make and applying to situations they don't belong.Something I've latched onto is your observations that conspiracy theories are theories about social networks. The article points out that many of the super-rich have working class backgrounds. I'm interested in how they became connected to networks. It seems the article presumes that the plutocrats are something other than the the old-rich: the new rich are the "working rich." I'm not so sure this is something new, nor that the old-rich are so feeble.Great wealth has institutions spanning the generations, at least I think so. Therefore I'm curious about how the working rich come to identify with these institutions and how these institutions assimilate them.It's behind a paywall now and besides probably really off topic, but the Atlantic article made me think of a TNR article by Mark Lilla from December Reading Strauss in Beijing:China’s strange taste in Western philosophers.Meanwhile a link to Blake Hounshell and editor at FP reporting on what to him seems to be Seymour Hersh off the deep end into conspiracy theories.I think we'd do well to pay more attention to the social networks of the plutocracy. How the plutonomy spends the wealth is important, but the social ties are as well.Rich Chinese have traditions separate from Western ones. The transactions across the gap, I think, is one example why there's more to it than just great wealth.
Post a Comment