>Sure, but if you want to have real influence, you need lots of money.

Real influence for what? Power over people?

You can change the lives of people around you without "real influence" that comes from money. Not even need to do volunteer in some organization or whatever. Can start by being around for relatives and friends in need. Or some neighbor that has some problem -- perhaps they're old and nobody ever visits them, or can't afford even a basic medical procedure. Even political influence, if that's what was talked about, can be attained with almost no money at all -- just sticking to your ideas, telling people about them, organizing others to help, etc.

>We are talking about things like owning media conglomerates and shaping the way the world thinks and behaves.

Are we? Who the duck cares about "owning media conglomerates" -- if it wasn't for the money it implicitly also means that is?

TFA's author talks about feeling behind in his work/life progress, and the parent comment in this thread as well. How did that escalate to "owning media conglomerates"?

The idea that "owning media conglomerates" is really an actual important goal to achieve in life lest you just "run through the motions", is incredibly dismissive not billions of loving, caring, happy, heroic, etc people living totally normal lives. And even if it was valid, that just leaves around 100-200 positions in the world. Heck, 10,000 if you like. The rest 7 billion - 10,000 just go "through the motions", really?

Besides, the kind of people that do own "media conglomerates" were either already the scum of the earth to begin with, making their way up by being in bed with power etc, or become that in the process.

I really like what you said, and feel the same. I wish more people felt the same way.

>The idea that "owning media conglomerates" is really an actual important goal to achieve in life lest you just "run through the motions", is incredibly dismissive not billions of loving, caring, happy, heroic, etc people living totally normal lives. And even if it was valid, that just leaves around 100-200 positions in the world. Heck, 10,000 if you like. The rest 7 billion - 10,000 just go "through the motions", really?

Ah, but you see, those people have Good and Neutral alignments. Lawful Evil requires a butt-ton of work.

I still think it's overrated. Let's take Trump for example - he has both money and power (arguably more than mainstream media since he won in spite of them). Do you think he's happy? He doesn't seem to be. Would even more money and power make him happier? I doubt it.

I think Musk is a better example. Money is just a medium for him to change the world for the better. I'm sure being rich makes Musk happy, only because it enables him to make a difference.

Strange how if someone were to post here saying "I've made tons of money and accumulated enormous power, but some days I'm just not happy" they would be hit with a wave of empathetic responses.

But then those same empathetic people will speculate, "I can tell <famous person> is totally unhappy -- idiot!"

I think they're both pretty happy. Musk is doing what he wants to do. Trump is doing what he thought he wanted to do.

Driven but I wouldn't call either of them happy.

Personally I think these types of people are abnormal and their "success" isn't something I aspire to.

If Musk was trying to change the world for the better, he wouldn't have done that thing with the worker's childbirth leave.

Yes, I think POTUS Donny is happy.

Upvoted. Sure, you're painting yourself as a mustache-twirling villain, but at least you're honest about it!