Adam Ruins His Argument

Money is a strange thing to me. It is a tool, something to which to buy time, energy, or skill. The problem is that many people will often try to get tools and never use them. At all. Getting money for the sake of having it makes no sense.

Let us replace one tool for another, one variable for another, and run it through a similar. Would you go and collect as many hammers as possible and fill a room with them? There is a lot of hatred for millionaires and billionaires, but as they can amass so well, they can also lose, which is what people like Adam forget.

I disagree with Adam, but just as his title suggests, his views

 “Why There’s No Such Thing as a Good Billionaire.”

While trendy, it is, however, very much incorrect. Not even opinion related. It is just wrong. As he goes on blustering about the causes that could have been done better or even the best possible way, there are problems in his arguments from the get-go.

One. Nothing is ever perfect. You may not like them and think they are rampaging idiots buoyed by money and a family. Still, we live in a world where we apply emotion to logic and expect logic to bow, only when it does not for us to be shocked. Even I do it, so nothing against him here. His example with Patagonia is how the value went to a charity run by the family minutes after making a claim. He could have done so and let the family do so if the most good was going to be achieved. Once I thought it was sarcasm when he started on, but as it continued, no, he actually seemed to mean it.

Two. This is another thing Adam has little standing on. What is good? If you said, “it depends,” or “It depends on what each person sees as good, ” or some variation, you are correct. Adam has a set of things that are the most important to him, and I have a set of my own. When something is done, and one can claim it is genuinely inherently evil, one needs evidence. I think Adam is a buffoon buoyed by an echo chamber of braying donkeys but is he evil? No. Passionate, yes. Motivated, yes, correct. No.

Marketing, networking, and PR are tools that those who have wielded them well will tell you the value, and with those funds, when you have an instrument you know and use well, what do you often do. Artists go from Crayola to Prismacolor, mechanics get better tools, and surgeons and data nuts get better energy drinks. When you know something, and you use it well, you upgrade the physical items and, often after that, learn the more advanced technique. If you do not like how someone uses their tools, there really is not much you can do save to ensure they cannot get it. It’s my blog. Sometimes I go on tangents.

Adam’s kvetching notwithstanding, it goes to show something, we are a lot angrier as a people now when someone else has a hammer and goes to do their thing. We get so mad that someone has the tool we do not, so I ask you, if you don’t like the tool, why not change the value of the tasks they try to assist. If what they do is not so important, then the value will decrease. If you do not like how they handle their hammers, make sure they can do less with them. Make things so they cannot use them. Every tool, whether money or mallets, can be made less effective, and in doing so, the best worth will push those to at least use it or watch it become nothing.

Going through economic classes in micro and macro and accounting so far makes me wonder what people need, personally, for what will be required. I have to start getting a big of hammers together.

Lift well and Stand Strong.