Let's be fair: money can't solve all your problems, but it can solve some of them.
The only problem is that serious mental illness is one of those things that money can't magically fix.
> The only problem is that serious mental illness is one of those things that money can't magically fix.
covers it pretty well, no?
Capital is abstracted value that everybody needs. The differences this makes in such a situation is drastically more disorienting.
>and you don't know whether they will still be there if (or when) you no longer have those qualities deemed so desirable
This phenomenon is heartbreaking and surely happens with things like talents and innate characteristics, personality, etc., but it would be very rare with those compared to with capital. When it concerns capital, the issue becomes exponentially more common with exponentially less potential to be understood. When it's happening with more people in a society, it's instances collide and fracture relationships at a far greater rate.
That really depends on how you look at what a 'self' and what 'everybody' is, and how 'abstraction' interrelates the two.
Consider an artist in relation to their culture.
The havoc capitalism plays on social relationships has been documented, researched for centuries. This is the very core of Marxist thought, and to my knowledge has never been contested.
Since you're probably an American and I just referenced Karl Marx, let's please remember Karl Marx was in fact insistent on the importance of democracy (far more than most Americans) and that anyone familiar with his work would have no question of the vast differences between and his well-known disapproval of the Soviet Union defending their project with his work.
-t. Someone who has actually read Marx’s drivel.
E.G. Does someone like me or do they just like my money? What should I do with my life now that I'm unfulfilled by indulging my whims?
You see, that's what I don't get. There are _so_ many things to do that interest me. I will never have enough time to do them.
I believe I know what you mean. I disagree. I have no experience being a billionaire, or a millionaire for that matter, however here are my casual observations and thoughts:
A billionaire cannot just quit a job. There must be a transition period. A billionaire can't just no call no show. It's possible, but it never happens.
A billionaire cannot travel to Europe like I can, going from Airbnb to airbnb, hopping in an Uber, surfing with the locals, enjoying fish tacos. A billionaire ends up being an ambassador with little privacy.
Immediately get appointments with great healthcare providers. Maybe. But so can I.
Thats what the founder of MySpace does now.
https://theoutline.com/post/4137/myspace-tom-mark-zuckerberg...
Exactly. Or even the Waltons, two of the Forbes top-15. If their image isn't part of their public brand, you probably wouldn't recognize them.
Not only that, I imagine that quitting before retirement age could add a lot of anxiety for a billionaire due to loss of status, loss of purpose, feelings of failure, etc.
They absolutely can. A board may not want to publicize the sudden leave, which might contribute to not hearing about it. The whatsapp founders left Facebook pretty quickly, although not for mental health reasons.
It also takes a certain kind of workaholic to reach billionaire levels of wealth. If you've already made it to that kind of egg, you may just have a good handle on anxiety.
> A billionaire cannot travel to Europe like I can, going from Airbnb to airbnb, hopping in an Uber, surfing with the locals, enjoying fish tacos.
They absolutely can. Maybe not someone who has intentionally made their image part of their personal brand, but could you pick Jim Walton or Micheal Bloomberg out of a lineup? And they're two of the very richest billionaires — not the mere single-digit billionaires.
> A billionaire ends up being an ambassador with little privacy.
I don't think that's true at all. Money buys privacy.
> Immediately get appointments with great healthcare providers. Maybe. But so can I.
The silent follow-up clause to that sentence is "... and not have to think about the cost." (Assuming our billionaire is from the US.)
It's not called "quitting". It's usually "taking a sabbatical" or "a leave of absence". It's only "quitting" if you don't make very much.
> A billionaire ends up being an ambassador with little privacy.
Would you recognize any billionaire (besides maybe Bill Gates) on sight? Ask the hotel to be discreet and don't pay for things by saying "hi I'm pricees, the world-renowned billionaire."
> Immediately get appointments with great healthcare providers. Maybe. But so can I.
Good for you? In America, that's not the norm. Excellent healthcare is available for high cost here, but getting a expert doctor to make a house-call requires some degree of cachet.
But of course as others have said, it brings another set of worries.
Still, money is an enabler that creates options.
Throwing around alprazolam/clonazepam as a solution for anxiety is trite and can be damaging. Take caution with them.
Only one, as far as I know. Not sure where this other phantom comment is supposed to be.
> Clonazepam is in the class of drugs known as benzodiapines
I'm not sure why you picked that one in particular; Alprazolam is as well (and is perhaps the more well-known one). I'm sure you know this, but to clarify for other readers, most benzodiazepines (including these two) are in a category of drugs known as anxiolytics, as in, drugs which reduce anxiety.
> which are considered some of the most dangerous and addicting drugs given to patients
Wikipedia mostly disagrees with that claim.[0] Nevertheless, even taking the claim at face value, they are given to patients because they do have great therapeutic use, or at least little harm, for the vast majority.
And in general, Alprazolam's shorter duration of action probably lends itself more to abuse than Clonazepam — hence first-line preference for Clonazepam in treatment.
> Throwing around alprazolam/clonazepam as a solution for anxiety is trite and can be damaging.
I did not intend to suggest they're some kind of magic bullet. Re-reading my comment, maybe it suggests that. Sorry!
Sure, they don't necessarily solve the underlying problem. But they are a useful tool, and certainly may help.
> I'm not sure why you picked that one in particular
No particular reason. They use the same general mechanisms so I lazily chose to only include one.
> Wikipedia mostly disagrees with that claim.
I don't know what to believe on Wikipedia articles about drugs because of the high prevalence of biased medical research. All I know is 1) anecdotally I've experienced benzo withdrawal - it's not pretty and 2) statistically speaking, benzo withdrawal is a common enough phenomenon that much care goes into warning patients of the dangers of benzos and the appropriate usage approaches.
Anyway not tryna persecute you, I just saw this text twice in the thread and felt like it appeared dilletante in addressing benzo usage. Didn't want self-medicating types (like many people on hnews) to screw themselves up.
[0]: https://www.jpshealthnet.org/sites/default/files/prescribing...
Taking the claim at face value: if the effect at one month is entirely placebo, isn't that still useful for treatment?
(You're not trying to claim that the entire effect on day 1 is placebo, right? I think that's pretty clearly false.)