What do the Rich really Want?

Imagine if oddly, wealthy capitalists didn't primarily want money; but something odder and more hopeful: respect.
Enjoying our KZbin videos? Get full access to all our audio content, videos, and thousands of thought-provoking articles, conversation cards and more with The School of Life Subscription: t.ly/eGG3a
Be more mindful, present and inspired. Get the best of The School of Life delivered straight to your inbox: t.ly/uv9Yo
SOCIAL MEDIA
Feel free to follow us at the links below:
Facebook: / theschooloflifelondon
X: / theschooloflife
Instagram: / theschooloflifelondon
CREDITS
Brought to you by www.theschooloflife.com
Produced in collaboration with Ana Stefaniak
www.anastefaniak.co.uk/ #TheSchoolOfLife

[@carlstereway4327]

Being rich and being successful are two different things.

[@stgatteka17]

I want to be successful.

[@youmerge4948]

It depends on your objectives.

[@sagarpatil4101]

Explain it

[@derealratos6332]

Successful is not rich, successful is super duper crazy rich

[@DhirC35]

Yessir Id rather have 10k and be successful than 1m

[@shervinmog995]

This video made me think of this Oscar Wilde quote: " As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular. " This thought also applies to the wealthy hoarding money I reckon.

[@denarjan]

***** I borrowed that for on my google+ if you don't mind, he wouldn't I'm sure. :)

[@cnrspiller3549]

The wealthy don't hoard money. What are you imagining, Scrooge McDuck making gold Angel's in piles of cash? The wealthy invest in companies and enterprise so that they can produce goods and services and employ people in exchange for pay so that the people can buy the goods and services with the money they earned in their jobs making goods and services that make their's and other employed people's lives better (breathe in). This whole system then gets taxed so that even those who cannot or will not work can get something. If you simply tax Scrooge McDuck, then none of this can happen. Result: any communist country you can think of. Good grief! When will you envious, peevish socialists understand this? It is exasperating.

[@alexxx4434]

Very idealistic. War are waged for economic reasons first and foremost.

[@yeetman4953]

​@@alexxx4434or revanchism

[@bigredracingdog466]

"Hoarding money" makes no sense. That's not what the rich tend to do with their money. Rather than let it sit idle, they tend to invest it, either indirectly into stocks or bonds, or directly, into starting businesses which, in turn, create jobs that benefit the rest of us. If, for instance, a rich person invests a million dollars in GE bonds, he or she is in effect loaning GE a million dollars they can use now to expand their business. GE buys new equipment that creates jobs, the millionaire makes some money via interest on the bond, and everyone is happy except those who don't understand economics and finance.

[@iAmTheSquidThing]

Hmm. I don't know if it's generally a desire for honour. I think it's often more like an addiction. An obsession with acquiring resources. I think we all have this issue to some extent. It was probably a neurological drive that was useful in the stone age, but runs out of control in modern society.

[@bdbs5618]

Yeah but this doesn't get to the heart of the issue. Why is this addiction manifested in the form of wanting to make money?

[@yurisonovab3892]

Because money is the only resource in modern society? All other material goods are quantifiable by an amount of money they cost.

[@eliesputnik]

+Andy Palaeolithic societies were, and those that still exist are, egalitarian. This is the outcome of our biology: As individual beings, we naturally desire autonomy but are also biologically-genetically connected to our environment which leads to feelings of empathy, respect for others’ autonomy and a sense of justice. The natural balance was maintained by preventing the primate alpha -type individuals from usurping others’ autonomy, sometimes by social pressure, sometimes by force. Their dominance over the majority only appears to have happened with the development of agriculture. But hierarchy is not the natural or optimum arrangement for human survival as all social indicators show today -health, opportunities, mental illness, pollution, etc etc - inequality prevents mankind from flourishing to our full potential. If you are interested in the research, read Christopher Boehm: Moral origins.

[@yurisonovab3892]

Yes. Paleolithic societies were pretty egalitarian alright. Insularly. God help you if you're not family and have something someone else wants. I like my world the way it is just fine. I can say I live in a life where my quality of life is higher than that of the most powerful people of the world of only a couple hundred years ago. I choose a world filled with corruption, greed, and war. And I choose it because antibiotics, computers, and cheap meat. God bless progress.

[@eliesputnik]

"Insularly. God help you if you're not family and have something someone else wants." This is an outdated notion that recent decades of scientific research have proved to be false. Greater equality would not impact on medicine or technology, it would just ensure that more people can afford them and more would have the opportunity to develop other new ideas.

[@mourtzas]

POWER. The (super) rich want power. I think honour is a concept that is not taken seriously anymore, especially in the west. Yes, deep down these people want the love and affection of others (like we all do) and when they can't get it with love, they get it with fear. Money can buy everything, including (shallow) people who stay with them for security (and the fear of losing that security) instead of love. I also assume many of the super rich are psychopaths or have some sort of similar disorder. I don't know the solution but I am sure it can't be a single one or a simple one. I guess one approach could be the one proposed but on its own I doubt it would achieve anything, in the unlikely scenario where a genuine, uncorrupted (governmental?) institution would exist to award these honourable prizes. In any case, I am a huge fan of The School of Life and their effort, even though sometimes I disagree with their views or find them oversimplified (like in this case). What I would like to see is some form of discussion between them and their viewers, ideally not in the youtube comment section but perhaps in some other form? Keep it up and remember, choose love, not fear! :)

[@aukafka8500]

What they aspire to do with POWER is that they want to change the world into a world that he/she loves and will be loved in.

[@dyfrigshandy]

Honestly youre generalizing, its not only in the west, its everywhere

[@curtiswong7280]

Power is the ability to do something, making it simply the *means*. What is the end they desire, then?

[@satyapandit3905]

power is the ultimate desire but before it comes resignation. honor is also recognition.

[@danielmedrano7137]

That was really deep, but how can you be so certain about the motives of really rich people?

[@irisryu6437]

Daniel Medrano It's basically "love thy neighbor" kind of logic - Beginning with every person is a decent human being (lol, bubble alert!).

[@irisryu6437]

***** I use the word psychopath loosely there. There are people who would stop to help someone on the road when they were 18, but the same person might not stop to help when they get 20 more years of experience. There are also people who grow up well protected in a bubble and thus lack the ability to understand others' people difficulty. In either case, those people are not genetically psychopath. They are rather a psychopathic product of society. In another video of this channel, it seems to refer to that people does not crave fame that much. What they truly want is real relationship. In other words, the society at large can not provide to the wealthy individual what they need through honor - which is largely a celebrity fame in most case. That is not to say honor isn't a valuable currency. Just that money has become a much more valuable/useful currency. Like Kings in the past - no matter how good, bad, smart, incompetence he is, he get the honor and convenience. In this age, a lot of money make you King and Queen. People are going to come and say how great of a person you are if you have a lot of money. It is not a function of personal will. It is a function of power so to say.

[@matthewhulli1593]

Because EVERYONE wants to have more positive emotions than negative ones, or to put it simply, be happy

[@toddharig8142]

School of life is mostly just great production value without real substance. It's like a 9th grade paper read by morgan freeman.

[@dr3armer]

Why do you really want to be "rich" instead of financially stable. The two are different in my opinion. Financially stable is in my opinion the ability to live comfortably and have financial freedom. This is something alot of people seek (i seek it). However, rich in my definition is having more than you could possibly need. Not millions but billions of dollars. At a certain point, people want that sort of wealth for status and to be "respected" by others. Its why alot of (unwise in my opinion) people seek it because they want to feel important. They want that status symbol. But little do they realize the higher up you are the more fake people surround you and thats the price of fortune. Its destructive because money is a resource for survival and billionaires dont even spend a fraction of it. It is indeed used as a symbol for feeling important. Greed. And we as a society are fooled into thinking they worked for it (in a way they have up until a certain point). When they get past 100s of millions or billions it becomes greed and taking advantage of a broken market. However, since it is implanted in society's core that wealth is the ultimate source of "honor" and importance everyone seeks to have as much of it as possible but dont realize the luck factor in it. I could go on and on but i dont want this comment to be too long lol.

[@trip2themoon]

I've worked for some real stingy people in the past. Working in places where there is no feel good factor and everyone feels like they are there for no reason other than to make the owners richer. I currently work for a fairly large, not for profit organisation and it's the best place I've ever worked. Everyone seems happy to be there, we get a really good wage, all overtime is paid at just over double time. On my ten hour night shift I get a 45 minute lunch break and 3 15 minute paid tea breaks. The paid tea break is pretty much a thing of the past here in the UK. Most companies give you the bare minimum that they can legally get away with. The super rich should have a little bit more respect and generosity towards the people that help them live their more than comfortable lives.

[@Billllyubbda]

I have worked for some real pieces of crap. They never thanked you for hard work and yelled at you if you broke a broken tool and insisted you buy them a new one. Leason learned.

[@michaelrivera6989]

My dad is worth about 15 million dollars and he is universally hated by everyone, including all his children, and he knows that and doesn’t seem to care. His dive for money is not a drive for honor, because he know that no one honors him, but a drive for a sense of self-worth. He simply could not look himself in the mirror unless he was rich. His mother lost her wealth and always told him he would be a no-body unless he had money.

[@MeleanDialogue]

His programming of what is "self-Worth" can't be changed now

[@I-will-teach-you-1to1]

Honor and self worth are hardly polar opposites. I will check my map. Oh yeah, 1 is the Artic, the other in Africa. heh.

[@industrialborn]

scientists don't do it for the nobel prize...they do it out of their own curiosity and for the development of human knowledge... also, the whole thing with the generalization of rich people is totally wrong. certain aspects of human psychology may be as described but the reasons are varied and complex

[@industrialborn]

yeah, sure, there are those, but we oversimplified. we should not over simplify, so... whatever

[@aleksandrsmasharo5628]

ra an Open your fucktard eyes, science is fraud who in first place make nuke and till this day refuse any discovered cancer treath. So better to invent nuke cause it's money! And by the way, take a look on story how US made university in Russia and stole all researches, it's the source for nobel prices issued in america for many dumb assholes who call them self "Scientist" But now Russia is worlwide fraud bcs they figure out this shit and US dont have free idea source. DEATH TO ALL GOVERNMENTS RICH BASTARDS AND DUMB FUCKTAD SCIENTIST!

[@industrialborn]

***** i hope you are writing this on an old typewriter and got it somehow online, cos otherwise i am not reading that...internet = science

[@dickhamilton3517]

Michael R. there's not much money in it, but we don't really do it for the betterment of mankind either (except some medical researchers, where that also figures among the reasons given below). No, we do it for the huge kick of being first to know something, and showing that not only are we right, the other guy is wrong. And if we are right on a regular basis, honour comes, indeed. But it tends to take a long time. And when honour comes, if we get there, that is about the only point in a scientist's career at which he can become properly comfortable or even wealthy, if he plays it right. See, for example, Michio Kaku, making more now than he ever did as a practising theoretical physicist.

[@antares1443]

why does the internet treat Scientists as gods walking among men, who are perfect? Scientists are human just like you and I. They want to be known and loved for their hard work. Find 1 scientist who would willingly deny fame and glory in exchange for his/her years of tedious work. I think the chances are slim to none of finding someone like that. This is basic human nature.

[@danki2000daniel]

What do poor people really want video???

[@ShaunyW10]

Charity. The end

[@nebojsagalic4246]

Shaun White A chance to get a job along with the relative dignity and respect that comes with it.

[@kaptem3564]

daniel harvey iv to be rich

[@Adamantablade]

daniel harvey iv Food

[@mackmaster100]

Dignity, a chance to live as the rest of sociaty without being looked down upon.

[@benjamin7114]

I just want to be rich so my mom and dad can live better and me my future family can live comfortably without having to worry about money like I grew up , so yeah ...

[@zacharykrawczyk3942]

You're the true 1%

[@Ghonosyphlaids]

All well and good, unless you use this reasoning to justify actions that make other people's lives worse

[@mantisking4567]

+Ghonosyphlaids how does this make other lives worst

[@benjamin7114]

Ghonosyphlaids No i do not want to do that to anyone but whether we all like it or not , that's how it works in this world , when you make money , it's not printed in the banks freshly just for you , that money always comes from another persons pocket . So no matter how much of a saint you may be , you will always earn and get paid money from somebody else's pocket , this person could be the homeless man buying a burger with all he has or a mother paying to save the life of her child in hospital . Someone always has to lose for someone else to gain.

[@iangienger2492]

Actually, many thinkers don't believe that's true. For example, imagine someone had an apple seed and didn't know how to grow a tree from it. It's useless to them. You tell them you know how to grow apples, so he agrees to give you the seed in exchange for half the apples grown. In this story there is exchange (he lost the seed, you gained a seed, you gained many apples through labour, he gained apples from giving you his seed), but no one loses value overall. Together you've created more value and could even start growing entire apple orchards. For more in-depth information, google capitalism zero sum -- a lot of people like to discuss it. But I think most people agree, it's possible to create wealth not just trade it.

[@stevekennedy5380]

My opinion is that what most people call capitalism is really oligarchy. In a true capitalistic society you are only rewarded for production. No free handouts. That would mean no inheritances. A 100% inheritance tax. How many "capitalists" that you know would go for that?

[@totorosan428]

+Steve Kennedy you really know your stuff man, and in fact the USA is an oligarchy and not capitalist.

[@Broadbased]

+Steve Kennedy A 100% inheritance tax. How many people in general would go for that? Most people, including myself, enjoy the idea of property and also see it as a way to "build" something in life that will benefit the offspring.

[@kin2838]

+Devin You just justified your own opinion using a hypothetical. Working class families today cant do this. I know im an 18 year old coming from a working class family not even that poor my mother is management and she barley scrapes by i work full time and still cant afford to move out as the lowest rent is still 75% of my monthly income. the system is broken, the only way to fix it is a revolution #Bernie2016

[@dudebro765]

A lot of our motivation to become richer lies in securing a better future for our offspring. You can bet your ass that everyone, including you, would hate this system, once you get kids.

[@philliptoone]

I think you misunderstand scientists when you assume they are motivated by recognition. Most I know are motivated by the discovery of the unknown. This projection likely applies to your claims about the rich and powerful as well. And why do you assume that their accomplishments have not been beneficial to society?

[@willferrous8677]

i like the new minimalistic silhouette style, makes the video ,and thus message, very streamlined.

[@cmor835]

I think historically speaking you're entire premise is wrong.

[@xiAGC123]

+cmor835 yoour*

[@MarcillaSmith]

+xiAGC123 it's "yer"

[@xiAGC123]

Marcilla Smith ur*

[@wge621]

+cmor835 I think I agree. The obvious desire would be power, no? I like watching these videos, but often disagree with the content (when it's not factual in nature). To say that the rich desire love... says who? What shows that? But the rich do desire to get and keep power, and the most effective way to do that is by acquiring more money. But with that as the premise, there's nothing we can really do to condition the rich (and lets be honest, it's usually them doing the conditioning to us), because in a capitalist society, you can't teach the very wealthy to desire being loved by praising altruism. Those who are drawn to that, are already drawn to that. Those who desire power for power's sake, will always seek more money. We will never give the most power to those that help and give the most.

[@JFCotman]

+roodles my thougths exactly. The rich are motivated by power [assets, empires, etc] money is just the score. They'd acquire it REGARDLESS of how good or bad people see them. Look at the historical conquerors. People HATED them but they still did it for resources.

[@tobyholland7577]

This video assumes all the rich have the same ideals. Would this be acceptable if we assumed ideals of the other classes the same abroad? A rich person like Bill Gates is quiet more diverse compared to a CEO of a big oil corporation wouldn't you say? A lot has to come from how they got their riches to see the persons motives, not an assumption.

[@tobyholland7577]

Dweliq Apparently you didn't get what i was saying, rich people don't all have the same philosophy's much like commoners don't think the same as well.

[@jessvagnar4957]

+Dweliq Luck was invented by the weak to excuse their failures.

[@jessvagnar4957]

Dweliq Yes yes, your rambling on how evolution can invent things and "randomly" occurs is ingenious, it should play the lottery.

[@jessvagnar4957]

Dweliq You're right, generic sweep statements tend to be stupid, that must be why you used them.

[@jessvagnar4957]

Dweliq Sounds like luck in a prefab situation. Why did the faster rabbits not need more food? How big were the rabbits? Did they have larger muscles? Did they breed more or in larger batches? Most of their predators are faster than they are or use stealth. Genetics isn't luck. People are dumb too, and social factor in humans dominate things like IQ or intelligence, let alone to say genetics determines intelligence. I'm ending this conversation, it's pointless.

[@bolivar1789]

The most depressing documentary I have ever seen in my life is called " Born rich". There you'll see one wasted human life after another. It is made by the heir of Johnson and Johnson. He interviews the heirs of the richest families in the US. And I think the reason why they all look so unhappy, disturbed and lost is quite simple: not being able to see any "meaning" nowhere, because of a total " lack of challenges" in their lives. If only they could find their ways to TSOL, or to any other institution ( if there is one) where they could learn what to value, where to find fulfilment, and how to think clearly, I am sure there could be some hope for those people. They could spend their money to reduce the sufferings of others, which would make them feel " useful" and "fulfilled." So I do agree with the message of this lesson.But on the other hand I also think that if those extremely rich people weren't so greedy in the first place, taking what they did not need and what was not theirs anyhow, people who are impoverished by them would not be in need of aid. It is like making someone sick and than paying for his medicines and then asking for love and respect in return. Philanthropy is a complicated issue indeed... Imagine that at a time, Pablo Escobar's grave was the most visited grave in Colombia, for all the houses he had built for poor people etc. Many businessmen are not less criminal than Escobar, but they have better ways to hide it. ( Thanks a lot for this lesson. Very noble idea on a very complicated issue.)

[@bolivar1789]

Barry Stentson Could you explain? ( By the way do you know what that panda is eating? )

[@laurencesherrington]

Barry Stentson not as a concept, remember socialism encompasses -communism -anarcho syndacilsm -mutualism -social democracy. The only form of socialism that stifles creativity I say is communism, and I would say only state communism does so.

[@bolivar1789]

Barry Stentson Himmm. But one could think of an endless list of socialist thinkers, writers, poets, filmmakers, artists, musicians etc. So I am afraid I don't agree with your point. But it doesn't matter: because I think we learn the most, from people who don't think like us. I would like to recommend you a speech that you may like. It is called " The school kills creativity", by Ken Robinson. You can find it on TED. Since it is beyond the frame of left or right, I thought you may like it. He dedicated his entire life to help people to discover their creativity and to benefit from an education in the field where their real passion lies. A really brilliant man. (And very funny too!) I think every person who watches that speech will find something about himself in it.

[@wrarmatei]

Barry Stentson Too bad that the societies with the highest standards of living and life expectancies are socialist democracies, huh? Lessez faires capitalism is not working and the fact that you are somehow defending it indicates that you are too stubborn to actually investigate the claims of those who disagree with you. Constant pangs of cognitive dissonance must be awful.

[@bolivar1789]

wrarmatei Hi there. Thank you for commenting. I agree with the political side of your comment. But I still don't understand why you should humiliate someone because he sees it differently. In fact we are all quite stubborn and lazy because we always surround ourselves with people who think "just like us". We divide the world into "us" and " the others" and we somehow think that we are more clever than"them" , which is an ilusion indeed: because indeed there are no "others".If we had lived "their lives" we would probably also think like them. In my humble opinion we can learn something from every single person in this world and we should. And if we are interested in offering a thought which we think that is more accurate or more helpful than theirs, the last think we should do is to start the debate with a humiliation. It is just not nice you know. In fact it doesn't create a " debate" but a "battle" which leads nowhere. Anyway, I wish you a nice sunday wherever you are!

[@dantkz]

Interesting video, however, I don't like that the scientists were shown as people hoping to win a prize. While there are multiple examples of similar motivation, most scientists do research simply because of curiosity.

[@schr4nz]

dantkz Agreed

[@omniver]

agreed

[@HelicopterHatHacker]

Yeah, I don't think a medal is going to make much difference in a soldiers of actions either. Its just nice to have that formal acknowledgment.

[@henrikswanstrom9218]

Answer to this question is usually more power.

[@JIYkp]

Would it not be possible to introduce a Nobel Prize of Philanthropy?

[@xk1800]

+Juil Isn't that the Nobel Peace Prize?

[@JIYkp]

Sexual Sloth I think there's a pretty big difference between peace and philanthropy.

[@xk1800]

***** Many winners of it can be considered philanthropists.

[@raziel2122]

+Sexual Sloth Bush has one. hahaha!

[@Nour_Ayasrah]

+raziel2122 LMAO!!! ... made my day

[@paleimperfection]

you can be rich in other ways aside from wealth. Health, love, happiness, knowledge, etc.. these are also important.

[@emmmanueeel]

We know what they want : more for themselve and less for everybody else (George Carlin).

[@quinnodonnell3906]

or why don't we make it a socially desirable to pay taxes to benefit society, like it is in Scandinavia and then tax the rich.charity is unreliable, it's completely reliant on the whims of the rich. even if we make it a source of honour (which still would not work on everybody). taxes are indiscriminate and benefit society the most when they are at a higher level. especially for the rich. THEY should understand that they are socially responsible to pay back some of what they earned because with out everyone else it would have been impossible

[@jazzysaravana]

+neonyx22 Exactly, well said! I believe that if they really wanted honour, they would have given back to society long time ago without coercion. Only Higher Tax for rich and sharing of wealth(mutually accepted%) among the working class who keep the rich, rich can help us immediately.

[@marcosbeni5875]

"taxes are indiscriminate and benefit society the most when they are at a higher level" - Where do you get your economics lessons? From Michael Moore?

[@punchface3000]

desirable to pay taxes in Scandinavia wtfff XDD

[@quinnodonnell3906]

some of the highest taxes in the western world are in Scandinavia, and they have the highest HDI index consistently. I think there's a connection to be made there

[@punchface3000]

Well I live here. And it honestly is pretty shit. The state hands out money to people who dont want to work, because they just dont wanna. And here i am, showering 90 year olds and drying their asses, for the exact same amount of money. Socialism.

[@orppranator5230]

Let’s cut out the middle man. Respect ordinary people

[@MrFlagman30]

The difference between hailing someone who won a Nobel prize as brilliant and someone with large quantities of wealth is that a Nobel prize HAS to be earned whereas wealth can easily be inherited with little consequences. We can see this as people don't care about Einsteins descendants but do care about the descendants of those who are famous, wealthy or both.

[@drantsplants]

As always, Alain has hit the nail on the head and introduced a viable and achievable mechanism which on one hand, satisfies the desires of the wealthy, whilst equally providing meaningful and tangible results for others.

[@exvalente1]

not so sure about the "achievable" part, kinda utopic to think human interest can be redirected so easily, but maybe with time who knows...

[@TheModernInvestor]

For me I accumulate as much as I can because I have the desire to help people, and I know that this can only be done once a certain amount of money has been made - there are two sides to every coin, and I do honestly think that most millionaires just want to help, but people get lost after they've made a few million and only focus on that

[@gamezswinger]

I wonder if this statement is just a self-deception mechanism? Rationalization?

[@gamezswinger]

And what deceptive methods of accumulating money 💰 would you use? Which deceptive marketing strategies?

[@ZPM7]

3:02 This sounds like the logic of someone stuck in an abusive relationship or who has Stockholm Syndrome. Shower the rich with love, revere, and veneration for what is expected of everyone else as baseline decency. These are not worthy of love, they are worthy of not-hate. Surely this is just enabling the same destructive economic behavior.

[@davidgoldman3236]

Spot on

[@arthur78]

I'm not convinced.

[@laurencesherrington]

Me neither, it seems rather inefficient.

[@schaughtful]

Honour in this case is to attract mates via value confirmation from the community.

[@Curtisthecrumble]

That honor you keep talking about is what drives people to do incredible things. Thats not a bad thing.

[@brendadrew834]

Interesting. I grew up middle class towards upper middle class in the 1950s and 60s when the middle class lived more like the rich than they do today! I've also been surrounded by wealth in my family of origin i.e. extended and part of my husband's family was very wealthy. Most of them have been unhappy despite their wealth and status! My husband's late great aunt was like Cruella De Ville in 1001 Dalmations , looked like her and was a drunk half the time staggering around in her flowing caftans and long cigarette holders bossing everyone around! She'd hold big parties under a big white tent every summer inviting certain celebrities that's if she could even remember their names! My older sister who became wealthier since the 1980s is anything but happy despite all the trappings of wealth. And look at so many of the celebrities today who have it all only to end their lives at the end of a belt or scarf! Would I trade places with them for all the tea in China, for a million bucks? Not on your life! Thanks for sharing~

[@TipoQueTocaelPiano]

You start the video with a contradiction... Great philosophy. Except, man, I doubt all rich people want the same.

[@adamanderson8999]

Citriano Torres Most of them want this. Obviously not all of them want that, that is ridiculous and just pointless to state., not everyone of any demographic in the world want all the same things, not every Canadian likes maple syrup, not every Nazi hated the Jews.

[@TipoQueTocaelPiano]

Adam Anderson Most of nazis didn't hate Jews. They promoted anti-semitism to carry out their reform and achieve their economic goals. The fact is that many rich guys are extremely materialistic. True, making money is rewarded with social recognition, and that's an aditional bonus, but I don't think that's all the problem. In fact, I believe nothing would change if people hated rich guys deeply. They would still want to make money and control others.

[@adamanderson8999]

Citriano Torres Yea that doesn't change my comment.

[@vidopoulos]

Citriano Torres In fact.. what they want is not "Honor" but POWER.

[@TipoQueTocaelPiano]

Randal Skefingtonidis I absolutely agree.

[@Wstreak91]

I’m obsessed with money because of the freedom that it holds as well as giving to charity and looking after family and loved ones.

[@ExPwner]

Also many of the rich have ALREADY given to society. It is only through the zero sum fallacy (or cronyism) that one could come to this conclusion. Working conditions have improved over time. Products are becoming more useful, safe and environmentally friendly. Capitalists are driving these improvements. The reason for why these things don't come with more respect is because on average these things aren't respected. It's not a problem with capitalism but a problem with values.

[@TheUnknownAlly]

Products are only becoming more environmentally safer because there is demand for it. But where it really counts, in the energy sector, we can easily switch over to an energy system that is completely environmentally friendly and renewable. However lobbyists and special interests are making sure that we maintain a demand for oil and etc. You can argue capitalists are driving these improvements, but I'd argue capitalism with PROPERLY run government oversight into things such as the energy sector or the medicine sector can have the potential for more good.

[@ExPwner]

***** really? Where is said easy switch? Because the last time I checked, most "green" energy sources are anything but economical to scale, making it impossible rather than easy to switch. Although the leftist propaganda would try to make people believe that solar and wind, for example, are the way forward, it's not been feasible to implement them on a large scale. That's not a matter of lobbying but realism. There is no such thing as properly run government. If a population wants to do something, they don't need a government. If they don't want to do something, it's just tyranny for the state to force its will upon others.

[@TheUnknownAlly]

There's a group of civil engineers who have actually mapped out the many possible methodologies to implement a fully 100% renewable energy country in the U.S. According to them, they crunched the number, it is viable to go completely renewable energy and the technology exists currently to implement them. In many countries they are adopting solar power, and in fact have lowered their reliance on fossil fuels significantly already. Logically it is possible to implement them, especially in states like where I live. In Florida, we have one of the countries most solar potential areas and we have yet to attempt to transfer over to solar. It's simple to imagine having solar panels on top of nearly all of our homes would significantly hinder our need for fossil fuels. I have seen that utility companies have attempted to lobby in their favor. Not too long ago, they tried pushing a law that would actually lower the funds given to people who have contributed to the grid through their own solar output as to lower incentives for solar energy.

[@ExPwner]

***** I'm not talking just sheer engineering, I'm talking about economic feasibility. I've yet to see that. I'm all for alternative methods of generating energy, but I've just yet to see something that makes financial sense.

[@TheUnknownAlly]

If you get rid of dependence on fossil fuels, you don't need to import fossil fuels, you won't have to waste time going to war overseas as well. Economically it benefits everyone, it just makes society better and free from the hazards of pollution.

[@manictiger]

We don't care about money at all, actually. We care about percentage. Making 10k from 5k is great. Making 10k from 5bil is not. Also, 'honor' is an ivory tower thing. Most people that came from a hard background to a wealthy one care about two things: Cushion (for me, it's the off-the grid acreage with the 20 years worth of nuke-resistant security) And self-respect. Fooling others isn't that hard. Fooling yourself is much harder. If you can prove you can make the world around you as you saw it, then you have proven your mind is as powerful as you said it was.

[@aarongallant4280]

Or... you know... we could have a revolution.

[@maurilioBeeblebrox]

Don't you consider to add subtitles in other languages in the videos? I'm from Brazil and watch them subtitled in portuguese would make my life easier. Thanks for the great work you have been doing here!

[@maurilioBeeblebrox]

=/

[@peroz1000]

Being also Brazilian, I second that.

[@minim6981]

Maurilio Montanher you can easily just turn on the subtitles in English (it listens to the man speak and then type out what it thinks he's saying) and then click the translate subtitles button to Portuguese.

[@maurilioBeeblebrox]

Martian Luvr R U serious?

[@minim6981]

yes, it might not give you the right translation because it has to listen to the man and correctly transcribe what he's saying, but it is mostly correct because he is speaking clearly

[@All6usto]

This (one day) will be a classic! - Right next to the 'Care Bears' and the 'Tubbies'

[@Chemson1989]

Immortality(Live forever and keep their wealth and power forever) it is useless for the poor, they have nothing to keep but keep watching their friends and love one die.

[@vladimirerfan7721]

Money = power. Rich people want more money, because they're addicted to power. And it's just like any addiction - they need more and more with time.

[@bolivar1789]

Vladimir Erfan Hi there! Have you watched Citizen Kane? If not I highly recommend you that movie. Best wishes.

[@anananwar]

MrKingpenguin123 Money -> yacht -> swanky boat parties -> Affection. As for the hate and hermit thing, it should be noted that humans mostly need adulation from people they consider to be apart of their "tribe", this is usually, family, friends, community, and can extended outward to include, city, nation, sports team, etc. The "out group" is not important. I think that's the key in the psychology and philosophy of the greatest humanitarians. Their personal "tribe" has grown to include groups of people we wouldnt normally feel obliged to care about. If Jesus ran a fortune 500 company how much better would everyone under him be? >.

[@Yashendwirh]

MrKingpenguin123 Affection absolutely buys yachts, which is exactly how and why there have been arranged marriages, and marrying up and so on. Affection is always a transaction, whether or not you want the returns.

[@mannyverse6158]

This, is totally wrong. The video implies that rich people's behavior today is normal. It's just a simple result of capitalism! It's not, its grotesque. These people are ego maniacs, that's why they are there in the first place. We have a culture of ego that's growing in the world. Let's not kid around, these got there by cheating, lying, yes working hard, but mostly lots of negative attributes. The last thing we should do is to exacerbate this culture of ego. It's a sickening culture that needs to be dealt with swiftly, not by putting these guys in front of therapists.

[@bdbs5618]

What do you mean rich people's behavior is not normal? The video is talking about their behavior in the realm of psychology, which I'm pretty sure applies to everybody. Rich people are governed by the same basic motivations and these get distorted in some avenues over another but that doesn't mean their behavior is not normal.

[@mannyverse6158]

Newsflash: People are different. We all have different levels of morality, integrity, honesty, and judgement. Unfortunately, the process to get into powerful positions in this society almost require lack morality. If every politician had the morals of a teacher, don't you think they'd make better moral decisions?

[@mantisking4567]

+Manny S not really.

[@Billllyubbda]

I'd like to add, the wealthy try to honor themselves by declaring that they are job creators, even they only create crap jobs.

[@doicare1169]

I really like The School of Life's instance of stuff. In one video they say a culture very oriented towards career and being rich is bad, while in another video they disagree we should tax the rich more and instead cooperate with their desire for status. They don't simply get attached to a single ideology and hope following everything it says will save mankind's future (which I have to admit I kinda do).

[@fallen0851]

I viewed this video when it was originally featured over a year ago, and the only thing I could remember before watching it now for a second time was how I felt after the first viewing, and that was how incredibly naïve its conclusions were and I wondered how serious you all were when making this. There's nothing wrong with a bit of speculation, but we have to draw the line somewhere. There is no one window into the human heart from where we might glean the motives of individuals, so to surmise this much seems risky.

[@jb4127]

Agreed!

[@hombreg1]

Wouldn't said window be called psychology, anthropology or sociology? We can peer into the motives of men, because all men have reasons...even reasons to be unreasonable.

[@fallen0851]

+hombreg1 Well a window suggests such a degree of openness and accessibility that the contents which lie outside it are sort of plain to see. Why I say that is because though all the sciences you mentioned are invaluable tools, they are not perfect. We can try and present theories, we do and some are better demonstrated and well grounded than others, but rarely are the motives behind certain behaviors ever self-evident. This channel is wonderful, and they speak often on subjects of psychology, and clearly they have found an audience in the form of us. So I don't want to sound as if I'm debating the merit of those studies or their ability to shed light on the human subject. It's for the very reason that the conclusions reached above are not verifiable that take issue. To say that because of their affluence, an entire population of people suffer from a kind of poverty of spirit to the point where they need constant validation and admiration so they won't continue on in their...

[@fallen0851]

+hombreg1 (continued) collection of gross amounts of resources is just not rational. It surmises too much without any data to support it. Now these folks don't pretend to know everything, nor are they saying that this is definitively how the minds of the rich work, but I suppose I'm just a little disappointed because I thought this video would have been more illuminating then it turned out to be. It's perfectly forgivable though, because on the whole they do great work and have many fascinating pieces.

[@hombreg1]

Steven Kolb maybe it's the destiny of those who try to look at men, to be disappointed. After all, how do you look at yourself without a mirror.

[@harmankhinda5743]

As a top 1%er, I believe he is right. I personally just want my family to live happy, and without any wants. My family is what drives me. But what also drives me is the feeling of envy from other. I also like to compete against my other family members. I’ve thought about money my entire life, and I’ve been investing since I was 18. Family is what drives the bottom top 1%. Honor is what drives the top.

[@exbladex99]

Access. Govs can grant them access to things they can only dream of. Also imagine a tier-list. The most patriotic & selfless get to the top of the tier list that is published by the govt itself, with a specific order medal given for achieving it and that it's socially acceptable to wear, so no one even needs to ask them.

[@JaeSM97]

Interesting idea with some merit, but I can't help but disagree on a lot of points. Most scientists surely work because they like science or want to help humanity, mechanics work because they like cars or are good with cars , young people work at McDonalds not because they want to gain prestige but because they need money to survive. I find the idea of people pursuing wealth for honour stupid, because high society respects wealth sure, but to the majority, they just want that money to be put to use towards them (whether that is right or not is another question). Think about Bill Gates, he's a rich guy who does a lot of good stuff, but I don't see how he does it for honour or something, he does it to help people. If you have that much money your only option is to either hoard it or help people really.

[@Casarzino]

they just want to keep themselves and their families and rich friends rich, and make sure everyone else stays poor. The title of this video should have been 'what motivates people to become rich'.

[@TheMarkusFIN]

"See that's what you never got kid. It is not about the money. It is about the game. The game between people. And that's all there is." -Gordon Gekko

[@adnanaouad5771]

Hello NSA. Don't worry, there are not any conspiracies or terrorists down here either!

[@swordhooker]

I have a hard time believing that the primary motivation for the rich is a desire for acceptance and admiration. The assertion the author is making seems rooted in a disdainful misunderstanding of rich people. They are human after all, and categorizing them all as egomaniacs in my opinion over generalizes them and doesn't account for basic human motivations. Ask yourself, why do you work? What decisions did you make when choosing where you work. I personally work as an engineer because I wanted to be able to afford not only the things I needed to survive like food and shelter, but to be able to afford the things I wanted like delicious food and decorations for my house which reflected my taste and personality. Not having enough money to afford either and or both of those things is a source of anxiety for everyone, and in my opinion that anxiety is the primary motivation for the super rich. They collect massive fortunes in Scrooge McDuck-ian vaults not only afford every want and whim and need, but also to stave off the anxiety that they at some point may not be able to maintain the life style that they've become accustomed to. The rich, like the rest of us, are only willing to part with money for other's benefit when they are able to view doing so as non-threatening to their way of life. Just as you or I could give our entire pay check to a homeless person but won't because we wouldn't be able to pay our bills.

[@swordhooker]

***** Thank you for your fascinating videos! They really help alleviate the boredom of the average work day and elevate my lunch time conversations. Sorry about that second sentence. I didn't mean to imply the author lacked sympathy for the rich. Only that the tone seemed oddly reminiscent of disdainful misunderstandings many rich people have about the poor. Please keep making videos. I quite enjoy them.

[@ParadoxPerspective]

I'm a mania-driven capitalist and entrepreneur in the industrial chemical manufacturing sector. The satisfaction for me came firstly from the freedom of entrepreneurial success and the effect that had on how I could live my life, and now it's steering towards my people, their well-being, and their respect for me and what I do. I don't maintain a social circle that doesn't stem from my family, employees or clients/business associates. I like my life now but I find myself more nostalgic about how things were when I was just starting out. But I wasn't born rich. Usually people born rich and comfortable tend to be very critical of capitalism and its endless varieties. I'm not sure why.

[@alicewonderland7218]

Absurd, you can't cure pathology by showing it more love and respect.

[@aldairmassardi4961]

in my view the main point of this video is wrong. The rich doesn't want love or honour. They want more money because it means more power. Power is the answer.

[@joshuablack4042]

no matter how powerful you are, if no one will follow you it is pointless. therefore if more people follow the powerful because of what they do is good. then they will seek to do more of that good.

[@aldairmassardi4961]

shack 4 Power, by its own nature, draws a neverending row of followers.

[@joe_0180]

Aldair Massardi Not all rich people wants power, but yes most of rich people wants power.

[@Mortebianca]

The premise is doubtable, and we can't just "Hope" they will give a fair amount of their wealth (which they could freely keep) just because we promise them something as abstract as honour. Some capitalist did very disturbing things to achieve money, they don't look for honour or morality.

[@belalnoor9686]

Donald Trump and WWE

[@peroz1000]

This video makes an interesting proposal, but I wonder if it would really work. Perhaps we'd end up just stimulating rich people's narcissism.Anyway, how exactly should the rest of society give them honor? What does it mean? And why should people be treated so differently from the rest (and with such deference) just because they happen to have lots of money?

[@lovepreetkaler9353]

My boss is taking 16 hours of work from me, not paying enough to me and when I ask to hike this he simply says do your work or get lost. I gave him respect and this is what he gave me in return 😂

[@eduardochavacano]

They need to keep the poor in their places to protect a system, where they can thrive in comfort, while you settle with the idea that your colleagues have less than what you have and that one day you shall be as powerful as the powers that oppress you.

[@lovepreetkaler9353]

@@eduardochavacano exactly, this needs to be changed. If you will talk about socialism with someone, thet simply think you are a stupid and talking about a shit System that doesn't work

[@MADLyricStudio]

I love this channel :)

[@franciscocastrorichter7316]

***** me too :3

[@Maltcider]

I hope that SoL will make a video on Universal Basic Income someday.

[@jasondads9509]

Don't the rich earn the money because they created something that people will buy?

[@asd38566]

Sometimes

[@rlrnilecroc]

No

[@jasondads9509]

rlrnilecroc how do they get money then?

[@bucururomaki3663]

+jason dads What is the money though? Representation of a resource? And what price do you put on something that's priceless(such as another man's time)? When a man create's a device that tends to our every need, does he get to own everything? Does he earn the power to do whatever he likes to anyone now? Because that's a reality here in the next couple decades with robotic automation and shit. When google robots are harvesting the crops, cleaning the water, and transporting the goods, will google just own us? Why, because they bought the patent?

[@aronpuma5962]

+jason dads Depends In cases like Mark Zuckerburg, we had a guy who invented something that people use in droves and made his fortune. In the case of someone like Donald Trump, he inherited a vast multimillion dollar fortune, specifically his father was the most successful real estate mogul of his day. Trump has not lacked to earn money on his own initiative, but the majority of his wealth is built on his father. And some families extend back much farther than one generation. And occasionally money is made by exploiting loopholes in goverment, or financial systems. Very rarely one lucks into money, though in many cases (like someone winning a lottery) they tend to lose it all because they don't know how to manage it. I would say for most rich people today, it's a combination of 1. Family Money 2. Effective playing of the financial systems; and less often but still enough to mention 3. Making a product that people want to buy. 3 in terms of human history is very new, you won't see people like this at all until the Industrial Revolution.

[@wicksinn]

This video does contain an element of truth, and I liked the emphasis and where it was going. One element that puzzles me is that, as capitalist society gets more unequal, so too does the dehumanising factors that the poor and the rich experience themselves. The super rich who live in poorest countries like Honduras for example, live in gated communities cut off the broad mass of humanity living in squalor, they lose their humanity just as the poor lose theirs. Whether the pursuit of honour and glory sought by some is their goal, their love of money is created by the emphasis of policy and economic the management of economic institutions. In short, what these ideas are saying without saying them, is that a profound change in the current economic system is required. Power has never conceded without a demand, and this demand is the power of mass movements of working people to change their conditions of oppression governed by the superstructure of society. One wise Irishman once that that "all hail the mob, the incarnation of progress", and this progress can only be accomplished through the process of an organised revolution of working people, for working people. Until we face real material mechanics behind greed, the ideas in this video are only just that. Ideas.

[@200_MXP]

I really doubt this holds any value, I propose making the poor less poor so that the status of rich people is worth less in comparison

[@pratikjain9018]

This is great until the all CEO'S children take their thrown without contributing anything and rule the world by their own will(moral or immoral).

[@andrewlee6142]

The problem with this prestige model is that the more attainable the honor, the honor automatically becomes less prestigious. What makes the Nobel Prize so prestigious is not the name "Nobel" in itself, or the members who already have it: the value of a Nobel Prize is ingrained in the difficultly in getting one. Just as someone getting into Harvard is seen as much more "prestigious" then the person getting into community college, despite the fact that both people are laudable for pursuing higher education these are not the same thing. So if there exists an award in society that can be won just by 1) being rich 2) being environmentally friendly 3) treats workers and consumers nicely, then it will be won by such a large number of people that it would lose its value, and it would not seem too impressive for the really rich. Or in other terms, the reward has to be greater than their desire to make more money. And this reward will undeniably become less impressive as more and more capitalists attain it. Even if you argue to make the reward super difficult to attain, you run into the problem that the rich would see the reward as a nice one, but not having enough significance to overcome their want of capital gains because of the difficulty of attaining such a reward.

[@chailatte2160]

OMG I cant believe what I just saw

[@Arad737]

I'm not convinced because I do not think this argument applies to self made entrepreneurs who currently make up a significant portion of world's billionaires. Those people (Gates, Jobs, Musk, etc.) are motivated not by money or love of people but because they love what they do and they are good at it. They are good at making new computers, software, cars, running a company. They in return are praised for their success not their money. And it gives them a kick. And the money follows as a result. In short, they do it because they love it, and since they're good at it they are loved. Money is only an after thought in this equation. This video's argument applies only to those born into a rich family or royals. Those who have a ton of money and nothing in which they excel at and hence crave the love and attention of others based on something other than their (lacking) skills. And yes, their vanity is exploitable. Because the only way they can feel good about themselves is by using the money they inherited in ways that would make them seem competent and successful.

[@Arad737]

The Legislator Furthermore, my argument also applies to scientists who work endlessly with no pay. They don't do it so one day they can win the Noble Prize. Good scientists are too smart to hedge their bets on winning that elusive prize. They do it because they love it and they are good at it. Noble Prize is rarely the motivating factor for a scientist... the real reason is their love of their job, their success at making new discoveries and their intellectual curiosity. In short, as much as I love this channel, I think this was SOL's weakest video to date. After that "comedy" regarding why we don't remember people we loved.

[@Arad737]

The Legislator If we truly want self-made billionaires to help society, it's not by rewarding them with more honor. Bill Gates had all the honor he wanted and Microsoft employees are some of the best paid people in the world. It's by making them care about a cause. It's by educating them. Just like Bill Gates was educated about the plight of Africans and slowly became one of world's biggest philanthropists. In regards to improving the working conditions, that is fixed by consumers buying from companies who treat their employees well. If people decide to boycott Apple for how they treat their Chinese employees, Apple will then make the necessary changes.

[@Arad737]

The Legislator Lastly, the video ignores that most companies are not controlled by a single rich person. They are owned by shareholders who are often in hundreds if not thousands and a bulk of whom are banks and funds. Those banks and funds who control these shares are not humans who have feelings or a sense of vanity. They are financial institutions who must increase the value of the shares through all means necessary in order to please their clients, who are for the most part middle to upper middle class (and lower rich class) citizens. Also many of the rich people whose photos were shown are rich because of the value of their shares in companies they founded or partially own. Those shares are not liquid like cash so those rich people are not motivated by the amount of wealth they are accumulating but rather by how well their companies are doing (and consequently the value of those shares). In other words, they don't care about their wealth, but the success of the company. The actual $$money$$ is not the goal here and is something they will most likely never touch. Most of Gates wealth is in shares not cash. He doesn't really care about his own net worth, but rather about how well Microsoft is doing.

[@Demention94]

I didn't realize how much people admired the rich until I read these comments. I suppose some of you have had a bit to much education? eh?

[@user-sf5iq2fl1l]

i wuanted a milions dolars. i like being rich is easy. u gais dont work enouff , ai have monies cus i woerk when ask dadi foe a smawl milion dolars loam for dadIES. ASIK UR PAPA FOR SMWAL MILION DOLARS LOAN. DADY GIBS MONEY. DOWT BEing LAZI!! WOERK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@IliyanBobev]

People are complex, regardless whether they are rich or poor. To claim that all rich people want vanity is simplification of the problem, and generalization of group. If these people wanted honor, why haven't they become competitors for the Nobel or Pulitzer prizes?

[@MrSuperOurs]

Iliyan Bobev Because very few of us have the required aptitudes to win one. I'm pretty sure Richard Branson was smart enough to understand as a teenager that he won't be able to win a Nobel Prize in Physics. And the funny thing is, we are giving such prizes to people who don't really seek glory and honours. Scientists and researchers are driven by curiosity and intellectual challenges, like Grigori Perelman, who refused both the Fields Medal and the Millennium Prize Problems and the million dollars that goes with it.

[@Synochra]

While this obviously oversimplifies the motifs of the wealthy, it does a great job at presenting a more sensible approach to address inequality: Putting more emphasis on cooperation, rather than categorically antagonizing everyone that is rich and/or privileged. We need to incentivize the habit of routinely 'giving back' to society.

[@JCorvinusVR]

Calling them warped, manic and crazed might not be the best start to your effort, just putting that out there.

[@MelindaGreen]

+CorvidDude I felt that he made no judgement at all. Just putting that out there.

[@1234kalmar]

+CorvidDude It's the best way to start. Carefully but steadily bully them in to being useful to society.

[@jessvagnar4957]

+Melinda Green I also felt that 2.71828 was unnecessarily superfluous in high school.

[@jacobhaggis]

"The most ambitious and narcissistically craven and damaged people in any society" I think that's a touch un-fair.

[@Senditrising]

We're introducing business owners to non-profits and creating media based on the business's volunteer work and outreach. Philanthropic advertising goes a lot further than traditional because people in general are exhausted with the old model of relentless association of ads with being sexier or more successful. Take two Facebook posts as an example: One shows how a local personal injury attorney is giving out food to the homeless in downtown Las Vegas. The other is a blog post "6 facts you didn't know about car accidents". It doesn't take a brilliant mind to deduce that the philanthropic post will do considerably better, providing the business with the exposure and branding that it wants and making the community a better place to live simultaneously.

[@FredHMusic-gr7nu]

Could someone give me a list of the people pictured at 3:53? I recognise Lord Sugar and Zuckerberg. What about the others?

[@clray123]

I think the rich aren't particularly keen to share their wealth because they do not think much of people such as the makers of this video... i.e. those who have "great" ideas how to "improve" the world by extracting money and resources from other people's pockets...

[@redplanet667]

clray123 I agree but the irony is that capitalism itself is just thinking of ways to extract wealth from people's pockets, it's a complicated one to solve isn't it, I agree with the video that people owning enormous piles of wealth isn't benefiting society as a whole but of course the paradox is that in a capitalist society we aren't brought up to look after society we are brought up to look after ourselves so in that sense the capitalists have done nothing wrong have they.

[@clray123]

J.L. M Capitalism (except when you consider corrupted versions that involve compulsory laws) works by trying to convince you to BUY products or services, not forcing you to do anything or extracting wealth from you. There's a big difference between wannabe world savers who say "oh, let's skin the evil rich" or "they should just give up their wealth to the poor" and a rich capitalist whose company actually OFFERS you something of value. As a side note, if people really disliked those "evil" capitalists, they would not be buying their shit en masse.

[@RobinEvans1234]

clray123 The heart of capitalism is less about a relationship between buyers and sellers (that would be the market, which can come in many forms), as it is a specific relation of production based on 'dispossession of labor', a politically constituted social relationship. The first truly capitalistic system was formed in England in the 1600's. Previously, under the feudal and later absolutist systems, exploitation was premised on 'tributary' forms of rule. Pre-capitalist social systems were largely defined by the 'access of peasant producers to their means of subsistence', like productive land for agricultural or pastoral use. Essentially, producers lived off the land, and ruling classes used force to compel them to pay tribute. In England, peasants were forced by local lords (under feudalism), and latter by the Crown (under absolutism), to pay a percentage of their produce in the form of a tax or rent. Lords did not exercise a direct claim to the land as such, which formally belonged to the peasant producers who inhabited and worked it. But they exploited their control over the means of violence to extract their tribute from peasants in their localities. This situation changed with the mid-sixteenth-century rural enclosure movement. Faced with a variety of eco-demographic social crisis due to the plague, lords faced increasing difficulties in extracting tribute from peasant producers, particularly due to lower rents and escalating peasant rebellions. They responded to these crises by adjusting their claims, with Crown approval. Rather than demanding tribute, they began to claim legal ownership of the land itself, and exercised violence to force the peasants off the land. As this process intensified, greater numbers of peasants were expelled from the countryside. They no longer had access to their own means of subsistence and were homeless, leading them to seek out shelter in the towns and cities. As rural populations thus declined, the urban population swelled. Peasants were now dispossessed from the land, and had no means of subsistence, except to sell their labor power to those who now exerted control over that land. Those who owned the means of production (capitalist landowners), could now maximize their profits by lowering wages .. and the private accumulation of capital began, allowing huge resources to be allocated from food producing sectors into bureaucratic institutions. Most technological advancements (like GPS, Internet, Smartphones, Cellular networks etc.), exist exactly because of what "free marketeers" call "crony capitalism". Most significant advancements happen in the state sector (a socialist policy), before being handed to the private sector for private profits (a capitalist policy). This system was particularly brutal until civil rights movements won us many of the rights many now take for granted. Capitalism does not function without a state, and is far from competitive without state intervention into the economy, and does not survive. This consolidation of power is inherent in how capitalism works ... perfectly natural. Without Antitrust laws like rate of return regulations and the Sherman Act it would be even worse ... or worker protections and minimum wage laws. We can easily observe from history and places in the world without enforced minimum wage laws, people are worked to an early grave for subsistence wages. The effects economists describe from too high a minimum wage like the driving up of inflation, just highlight the volatility of "free markets". The more people are exploited, the more others need to exploit just to compete. If your state did not protect your counties industries you would currently be living in a Third World nation. This includes military and intelligence assistance in maintaining relationships that serve the 'national interests' ... and neocolonialism makes these exploitative relationships much easier to maintain from a distance ... traditional colonialism required permanent occupation ... now they just punish those who step out of line and this reminds the rest how to behave. The Washington consensus is King maker, protecting American industry ... protecting the whole shell game. All advanced countries are heavily protectionist and would not be where they are otherwise. This is the nature of capitalism ... it is competition over limited resources, which naturally leads to consolidation of wealth by those who control these resources (natural and human). When a poor country becomes more competitive, this will adversely effect those who they are competing against. This is why developmentalism is sabotaged. When a poor country pursues collective agrarian policies, this effects those invested into exploiting this country. This is why socialism is sabotaged. Fascism arose directly from from a globalized capitalist economic crisis ... www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/distorting-fascism-to-sanitize-capitalism/ People scapegoat onto the government the problems that are inherent in capitalism. The same problems the civil rights activists fought to combat, and the social democrats seek to alleviate with progressive strategy. Regulations are necessary to protect us from corporations and loose banking practices, as history proves. The process that introduces regulations is the problem. That process needs to be free from corporate influence and transparent to the population at large. History has proven beyond a doubt that deregulated markets are a complete disaster ... the failures of capitalist markets are many, serious, widespread, and ongoing.

[@kwazooplayingguardsman5615]

Robin Evans sweden doesn't have a minimum wage.

[@kwazooplayingguardsman5615]

Robin Evans and don't change the definition of capitalism and the reroute to a period of fuedalism. there's no contract protection for everyone in the fuedal times, no essence of private property, and no essence of comparative advantages so no fuedalism is not capitalism. capitalism was inveted in 1800th as a response to the chaos that springed up of the past economic system of mercantalism.

[@Haannibal777]

You get some points for trying and some more points for getting it closer to the truth. The rich has been vilified for too long for simply being rich. I am not saying they should be pitied but not many people try to understand them other than using them as proxy for oppression. But this video at least try to understand their psychology which should be congratulated. But let me share a few points of the rich that is not mentioned in this video. 1) The richest of the rich in society get rich by doing something they love and being rather good at it. Think Steve Jobs, Bill Gate, Oprah, Warren Buffet, etc. Many would love to continue doing what they love and what they are good at. The money is a bonus and also serves as a proxy to measure their success. 2) The biggest omission in the video is the lack of discussion on how the rich got their wealth. In less democratic society many rich people do indeed aquire their weath by knowing the right people and conducting shady deals. But in a modern democratic society, more often than not the rich get rich by offering something society wants. Think founder of facebook, google, uber, etc. So even if they continue doing what they keep doing, society still benefits. Companies make more money by improving their offerings. Nothing wrong with that. 3) If you start mandating better treatment for the workers, over and above what is enlightened self interest for the companies to do so, you are in fact picking sides. There are at least three types of stakeholders in an organisation, workers, customers and investors. Higher paid workers mean either less money for investors or higher price for consumers. 4) Enlightened self interest should ensure workers are treated well enough or they can vote with their feet by seeking better employment. This is the case if there is vigorous competition in a society. 5) More often than not, the so called ills of capitalism or the greedy rich is in fact a problem of lack of competition. May be due to crony capitalism or companies forming natural monopolies. If you ensure vigorous competition, breaking up monopolies where necessary, a lot of problems in society to do with inequality simply vanishes.

[@coopsnz1]

A lot of them got there working 350 days a year , for 40 years . Like my parents did no social life

[@sumanoskae]

And how, precisely, do you propose we actually go about doing this?

[@killman369547]

holy fuck its brilliant, the ultimate "ooh shiny". its so crazy it just might fuckin' work

[@kurupter187]

humane capitalism is unfortunately an oxymoron!

[@nonamed56]

I am an offensive and I find this capitalist!

[@CountBifford]

In feudal Japan, violence was the path to honor. The samurai were the most respected class, and the merchants, however successful, were actually the lowest of the low.

[@kaicreedon7062]

"The rich are motivated by vanity"...citation needed. If I run a company I have a purpose. I want that company to do well, to improve. When that company does well I earn money. I don't even have to use money as a metric of success for this to occur. I can just want my company to grow and get better simply because it's the purpose I have assigned myself, my responsibility even. I also don't subscribe the Peter Singer school whereby you give everything away you don't 'need'. There are many reasons for this, partly because wanting to provide for loved ones is a huge motivation for many, many people. I imagine it's a huge driver of the market in general. It's also worth remembering that inequality isn't a problem if the system is fair, so that those who work hard are more likely to move up, and the bottom isn't too low, i.e. in poverty. On both of those counts, the western world is doing extremely well, relative to both the past and other systems around the world presently.

[@Zamundani]

This video is brought you by: " rich people " 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@eduardochavacano]

For people who want to use their smart phones more often than they use their brain.

[@cuihaoify]

"If everyone was a little more selfish, the world would be such a better place". - me Note: The word "selfish" here refers to actually giving a crap about who you really are, what really makes you happy; deriving happiness from how other people look at you, regardless how they actually look at you (they could think you are rich, or poor; handsome, or ugly...), is simply too "unselfish", is simply giving other people way too much power over you. Thus, we need to be "selfish", to really really really put ourselves first, to really think about what makes US happy? What really make US get up in the morning? Are we doing the things we are doing because we loved doing them since our teenage years, or is it because the money we make will attract a bus load of beautiful women waiting to jump on our dicks? Are we doing this because we feel really passionate about the people we can help, or is it because we want to see the respect in the eyes of the "elites" of the society? More importantly, who are these women, these elites? Since when did we give them this much power over ourselves? Since when did we stop giving a shit about how WE think about ourselves and let how THEY think of ourselves drive us into doing what we are doing? So, my friends, be selfish.

[@aussie_anarchist]

ethical egoism for the win.

[@BananaBug]

... except that that's not the definition of selfish :P

[@coopsnz1]

Living like the jones to impressive a girl . That's stupid

[@WithTheLight1111]

I think the measurement of success should not be profit but of how mutually beneficial the institution is to the employees, environment, and the owners. That's how you measure success.

[@jyothi1723]

What if we had a thing like grammys but for businessman of huge companies or CEOs. Like they give out awards to whoever gave the most to the poor, whoever made the most innovative design, whoever made the most money, etc. And in order to receive these awards, criteria had to be met which ensured you were treating your employees well. It would motivate them to work, because if they get an award it's honorable, and it would also inspire them to be more caring to the poor because there would be an award if they gave a lot to charity.

[@TSBoncompte]

Or, you know, taking up arms and put them in gulags :V

[@TSBoncompte]

***** xD fair enough. The whole niceness and honor thing is a good answer to the problem of supermega rich people not doing some good, but it doesn't solve the problem of supermegarich people existing in the first place [the problem is not that they exist qua people, of course, but that they exist qua megasuperrich]

[@ABCarnage]

El Torco That's true. It isn't about niceness. It's about money. If you are rich and you are being nice (with money), money will (most of the time?) come back to the rich.

[@TSBoncompte]

^ quite

[@basbarnes8263]

Maybe some ambient music in the background would help me through this video.

[@brendonh8298]

we wouldn't have half the amazing things we enjoy in this world today if it weren't for these so called "narcissistic damaged people". I don't know if this particularly video stacks up in creditability. Look at people like Henry Ford, his motivation was to change the world, give people the freedom that transportation could offer, and lift people out of the mud and he very much did just that. Even after accumulating masses of wealth, he still lived a very humble life and refused to join the elite groups of society.

[@rowdymfmatt]

What a pleasure to read various discourses without anger and vitriol , with civil intellection , maybe there is hope for the world.

[@BennyBoyZinz]

Tf is this bourgeois propaganda

[@ka_pe_de1455]

Yeah this video is soaked with libertarian and corporatist ideology.

[@OutSideTheBoxFormat]

+Sexy Socialist exploiting you ? did he twist your arm to come to his business and held a gun to your head making you fill out an application....i guess the idea of doing something different didnt occur, and if you live somewhere where their are few jobs do like people have been doing forever, relocate, move.....or go to school, take online courses, do something to better yourself. No on fucking owes you jack shit....

[@FirstLast-ki9xx]

Air Em Out I don't have any other option than working for a bourgeois though. I either work for someone, or I live on the street and beg.

[@TheMarkusFIN]

+Sexy Socialist You can start your own business (even a startup) and become a bourgeois yourself. Also a boss is not bourgeois unless he owns the company he works in. Everyone who trades their workforce in exchange for a pay is part of the proletariat. And this is the definition by Karl Marx himself.

[@BennyBoyZinz]

Markus FIN we have terms like petty bourgois to describe the managerial class etc. Doesn't really matter all thats important is that the workers own the means of production.

[@Mrissecool]

One thing though, capitalists isn't rich people, capitalists are people who accept capitalism, poor people can be for the political system capitalism too. And on the other end of the stick, rich people don't neccesarily need to be capitalists.

[@jamessullivan5181]

Honour isn't the only thing the rich work for. I believe most of it actually comes down to a personal motivation to advance in your working field, because you personally and genuinely care about it. The people who achieve the most success are, more often then not, people who are working for the wellbeing of others, or to revolutionise the world, or because they just love the thing they're doing to the point when they personally identify themselves with it, or even just because they are obsessed with success. Few people value the mere admiration from other people enough to use only that to push through the difficulties involved in achieving great wealth. And as for soldiers performing extraordinary feats on the battlefield, I believe that's more for self-honour, rather than to gain some flimsy, worthless reputation or honour from other people.

[@-ED-]

Very interesting... I never thought of this world-wide problem that could possibly have solution like this

[@Nif3]

This is definitely a very interesting concept and I'm sure it strikes right into the principles that drive our most successful. However I would like to add that using terms like "the rich" is too divisive and fails to drive the point home to the people, who all have the power to bring about positive change to the world on our own terms; you don't need to be a wealthy CEO to consider donating to cancer research or feature in the cover of a entrepreneurship magazine to share your wealth with others: the point here is to consider that we are all cogs in the mechanisms of capitalism - regardless of how large - and it's fundamental not to separate others by our self-defined standards for success, for out there it is guaranteed someone considers you to be part of the privileged strata.

[@BobbyRouse]

What the holy hell is this video? The broad brush that you paint with here is so overwhelmingly negative and at times spiteful. Not to mention that the social engineering and manipulation that you are espousing is repressive and controlling. "Let's make them act the way that I see fit, because I don't like their business practices." Or perhaps you could spend our money with their competitors whose values are more in line with your own. Does capitalism fix the world and sprout double rainbows? No, but the negative language and underlying criticism belie any semblance of objectivity this channel may wish to exhibit.

[@BobbyRouse]

I stated the comment like that because this was just such an awful video. Not because of its content per se, although I would disagree with that as well. The real issue was with the lack of objectivity that I spoke of. I am alright with perspective. Perspective is great. What you did here was frame the conversation. That is not cool. You started with the presupposition that capitalists are immoral actors and worked from there.

[@lloydjones3371]

1. Rich people are not generally sick and depraved; suggesting that they are is sick and depraved. 2. Philanthropy is the best means of giving back if you have done well in life. I haven't accurately checked but it appears most private universities were started through philanthropy. The arts are supported largely through philanthropy along with beautiful buildings in which the arts are expressed. Many of the finest libraries were built through philanthropy. Many of the finest hospitals were financed by philanthropists. I can go on....

[@daimebaru]

This somehow reminds me of Mr. Robot. You definitely have one of the best channels on this site, therefore one of the best short video channels on the internet.

[@EminorReal]

Hmm, so a rich person seeks honour through recognition from society by defrauding everyone, especially the poor (who make up the majority of society), out of their money, pride, rights, health and lives to increase their already huge capital? Something is amiss here. Let's be clear, being rich isn't all that hard, all you need is to look only and solely at your own interest and have absolutely no morals. The better you are at scamming people and governments the richer you get. The richest people are those who can sleep at night by having underage children work literally to death for them, just ask Steve Jobs and alike. The problem of ever increasing capital is then tied to assets preservation, or in easier terms: once the ball is rolling you need to keep on pushing for it to keep rolling else it could backtrack and crush you.

[@EminorReal]

www.fastcompany.com/3014988/a-day-in-the-life-of-an-iphone-factory-worker Do me a favour, you know nothing about me nor reality.

[@EminorReal]

Yeah, you're so smart, we're absolutely too stupid compared to you to understand what's going on. You inslut people's intelligence.

[@ubuntuposix]

well put. what country are you from? i thought you were into music writing by your name.

[@EminorReal]

ubuntuposix Originally from Italy but I studied, worked and lived in UK for a long time and had all major experiences and career there so, even if I haven't asked for citizenship (because I'm an idiot I guess) and I am in Italy at the moment (though not for long), I recon myself to be mostly British. I also appreciate a lot British scientific and skeptical minds such as Dawkins, Hawking, Hitchens, etc. Great minds are birthed by great countries in my opinion. Yeah you got it, ex-guitarist, I used to write my own stuff so it influenced the name. Long long time ago though.

[@ubuntuposix]

aha. my brother is in england as a programmer. now with the internet i don't think countries matter that much anymore. one can take his spirit from a person from the other side of the earth as long as it has unrestricted internet. (we need real democracy on this planet, almost no country really has it). yeah i was just curious, i checked your channel, i studied 3dsmax a long time ago (i studied industrial design), but i'm more into music.. guitar.. but theory is my passion in music. i'm from romania (don't hate me lol)

[@marcosbeni5875]

The rich are not the problem, the culture of envy and believe that corrupt government bureaucrats have more right to Joe's wealth than Joe himself is the problem.

[@paultaylor4781]

Maybe the culture of individualism and believing it's "Joe's money", is the problem? If Joe made it by not paying his workers properly, and ruining the environment, and not helping those less fortunate, then maybe a government who represent the people do have more right to "Joe's wealth" than Joe himself?

[@coopsnz1]

Workers are made by the profit they make you idiot . Obviously not a business owner

[@coopsnz1]

Worth pay what the produce in productivity

[@neilwilliams2883]

yes the rich are not the problem... the problem is whether or not they gained their wealth in an ethical or fair way... for example, how many people should be made homeless for someone to become rich? Or how much of the natural world needs to be destroyed in order for someone to become rich? if one has become rich through ethical means, then there should be no problem.

[@bobbob8254]

Hello, fellow purple!

[@akrammasoud547]

what software do you use to create these films ?

[@DestructiveWizard]

If people focused on becoming more powerful themselves instead of trying to knock down the ones with power then they wouldn't be saying this

[@coopsnz1]

Agree