The other day, I was involved in a discussion that touched on the motivations of public figures, specifically Mr Musk. The idea was put forward that Mr Musk is principally motivated by his financial interests in supporting a particular technology. However, this notion is not confined to a particular individual or cause; rather, it is generalized by many to the actions of wealthy individuals such as Messrs Trump, Gates, Soros, and the Koch brothers. This motivation is most often put forward by those on the Left (only about their opponents, of course) but is also used by those across the political spectrum. This train of reasoning ultimately springs from Marxism, about which more below.
While it is not possible to know the inner thoughts of any of these individuals, one can look for evidence elsewhere: behavior both specific to the particular person (Musk) and the wealthy in general. When someone’s net worth substantially exceeds what he could usefully spend on himself or those close, it’s hard to see how the acquisition of more wealth would be of much use. This is especially clear when the value in question exceeds the astronomical number of 10^11 dollars or, as Feynman quipped, an economical number. The observed behavior* of the wealthy, from Carnegie to Soros, has been to give their money away; they are animated by ideas or values rather than narrow personal interests, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
In Mr Musk’s case, he has clearly made sacrifices of his narrow financial interests in favor of a value: the purchase of Twitter and his leadership of DOGE, both of which were foreseeably adverse to his net worth. A similar case could be made for Mr Trump. Both of these individuals could easily have quietly enjoyed their wealth instead of choosing to enter the arena once again.
This literally cartoonish version of human motivation is traceable to materialism† and to the financialization of everything, as if money were the only thing worth living for or worth dying for. Millennia of human history say otherwise. Few, if any, laid down their lives for a few dollars more, Clint Eastwood films excepted. The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for something other than increasing their wealth.
Materialism has reached its apotheosis in Homo economicus: the characterization of man as economic unit, an automaton strictly animated by the material. This is why GDP per capita has been elevated as the ultimate measure of human flourishing. It is used to justify a multitude of sins, from unlimited immigration to the hollowing-out of communities. As long as the GDP continues to rise, it’s a win, right? Many (most) libertarians, plain-vanilla Republicans, and leftists are equally enthusiastic about this program, albeit for somewhat different reasons.
No one I know is as shallow as the materialists suppose. That has been my experience; YMMV.
*revealed preferences to appease the economists
†both in the common usage and in the philosophical sense
