> His novel is not so much an attempt to break away from that world — he loves investing and working with entrepreneurs, he says — as it is an opportunity to skewer it.
He started a crypto company and then took a father-sponsored investing job. He's done nothing to show he has the appropriate perspective to do more than lightly self-flagellate himself and his friends.
When asked about his responsibilities as an investor:
> “I just do the best I can to be like, I really like this opportunity. I think this could be really cool, and a positive thing, and really fun to work on,’’ he says. “But yes, if I backed a company that turned out to, like, cause horrible harm for people and tons of negative effects, I’d feel fucking terrible.”
Oh he'd _feel_ terrible. Well good, I thought for a second there wouldn't be appropriate consequences.
What an airhead.
I don't know anything about the elder Breyer, but this book promotion looks like a great promotion of massive inheritance taxes.
> Asked about his life as an investor, and whether he thinks about the potential harms of companies he invests in — such as AI startups that require vast quantities of energy to run their chatbots, or automation companies that could replace human jobs — his answers are slightly less considered.
Fitzgerald married into wealth. Parker was born into the fringes.
An awful lot of the energy in left wing intellectual circles has always come from what Lenin called "useful idiots" and this guy is no different.
Objectifying things as class war is a mechanism to cast the warrior into the bad set basically. I suspect he said it, because he doesn't want it dismissed by some readers on the basis thats his place. I don't personally think it invalidates the writing.
We should stop using the mannerisms of social sciences majors in our speech, words like objectifying, empowering just make things more hermetic.