Im autistic&a cognitive neuroscientist. Ive gone to world class institutions&have 9 yrs of education. W/ extensive training in programming, advanced statistics&data science. Experience in experimentation using fmri&eeg, etc. I also have background in philosophy&psychology.

Thank you for summing up why people hate successful people: you think you're a loser because someone else made you a loser. The reason you believe this is that it's a lot more comforting than the truth: you're a loser despite the fact that amazing business leaders like Elon created hundreds of thousands of jobs and paid billions upon billions in taxes. In other words, the reason you're a loser is you, your shitty, envious attitude and the fact that you don't understand that the way to achieve what you want is to provide something other people want so they're willing to pay you for it.

A curious definition of evil has emerged. A man who creates companies, products, and wealth is evil because somewhere a child is hungry. The politicians who spent trillions, the dictators who stole billions, the warlords, the corrupt officials, and the failed institutions are granted a curious exemption. The hungry child is real enough. The logic connecting him to a stranger's net worth is somewhat less substantial.

True. Too many poverty debates stop at “poor ppl need more money.” The harder question is how to build productive economies, skills, stable families, enterprise&functioning institutions. Reducing poverty&creating prosperity are related,but it comes through creation, not theft

I think possibly the best thing about Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire is how angry it makes a bunch of losers who've never built a thing in their lives.

When socialists call billionaires a parasite class, they're often describing the role they'd prefer for themselves: receiving the benefits of production without bearing the risks, costs, responsibilities, or sacrifices involved in creating it. The entrepreneur risks failure, invests capital, delays gratification, organizes resources, and may lose everything. The socialist critique usually ignores that process and focuses only on the reward. What many socialists object to is not consumption without production. Their politics often centers on expanding access to wealth created by others. What they object to is the producer retaining ownership of what he helped create. They condemn profit while demanding the products, services, technology, medicine, and prosperity that profit helped make possible. They attack the incentives that generate wealth while treating the resulting wealth as something that should simply exist. The irony is that those most hostile to "parasites" frequently direct their anger at producers while demanding greater political access to the producer's wallet. The dispute is rarely about parasitism itself. It's about who gets to control and consume the wealth once it's been created.

Poverty was the human default for thousands of years before modern wealth existed. Zero sum thinking treats production as theft and success as evidence of a victim.