miscellaneous notes

WAtched the first two episodes of the BBC's "The Rich and the Rest of Us"--courtesy of Occasional Links and Commentary.

Well, I supposed I didn't want to do anything serious anyway.

It was interesting in bits, mostly when non-experts were talking.  And an anthropologist was identified as an economist--an anthropologist who, I gather, knows less about Marx than economists who read the bearded one....

What can I say that is positive?  They talked about inequality. (That's a positive, I guess.) But they did not talk about justice.  (That is not a positive comment.)

The sound-bites from famous people were not especially informative.

It was depressing to think about the precarious nature of my own existence, though I hasten to add I've not yet reached the heights (depths) of precariousness.

On a different note....

I recall having an odd exchange at Robert Paul Wolff''s blog a while back....
about what possibly is in the minds of the super-rich.....

In the BBC show, a few of the rich were interviewed.  They have nothing interesting to say by  way of justifying their wealth.  ("You don't realize how hard I work", e.g., won't do it.)  It was, in fact,
irritating to hear the trite justifications they trotted out.  I am always amazed that reporters do not know how to attack a comment, to break it into parts and go at the thing bit by bit.  This seems to be a feature of casual conversation that is widespread.  Someone says ":A, B, C,D and that shows F. " And the audience/interviewer offers ignores A or C or D, or even B too, and then explains why F is not true.  Why?  Is it supposed to be boring to go slow and actually go through the details of what the person just said?  Is the interviewer unable to see that the conversation has parts?

But I wanted (a while back) to say that there's a real question of what the super-rich are thinking.
Do they know or care about the consequences of their wealth?  Something by way of an answer here is provided (or at least attempted) by Paul Paff and Dacher Keltner.  I've not read everything they've written on the subject,  However I recall that one tool they use is the fact that we all tend to over-estimate our own ability to control the world. And the wealthiest do this as well, thereby reaching the conclusion that they really deserve all of their wealth. (It was all produced by their work and luck was no part of it.) But, when they say that, they are simply indulging themselves.  

So, I conclude that the question I wanted to ask was a real one, capable of serious consideration.  At any rate, Paff and Keltner seem to think so.

Link to Paul K. Piff's homepage:  http://paulpiff.wix.com/paulpiff

Footnote:  I have the feeling that I wanted to say this before.  Maybe Í've already blogged it, or maybe I only intended to.  At any rate, in the context of the BBC show, it may have new meaning.