”Be Useful” | Hacker News Reader

”Be Useful”

npr.org

155 pointslxm126 comments

>I hate when someone says, "Oh, Schwarzenegger is the perfect example of a self-made man" because I'm not. I'm a creation of my parents. I'm a creation of my coaches, my teachers. I have been helped by my training partners, by my friends. Especially when I think about coming to America, it was Joe Wheeler that helped me to come over here, got me the airline ticket, helped me get the apartment and the car. The people of California voted for me to be governor of California. So I didn't become governor because I'm self-made; I became governor because people voted for me.

I love this humility and wish more people would have it. Even if you weren't supported by individuals, it is due to the society around you, its infrastructure, its structure, its technology, that you are able to be a "success". We are the product of things we had no control over initially. Yet people still say "self made" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm quite sure that was Joe Weider.

I think you're right.

This seems like a pretty plain blunder.

This is sort of a crippling mindset though. If we tell ourselves others succeed because of what they were given, that's not really putting yourself in a position where you're likely to take control over your own life. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whether you tell yourself you're destined for greatness or be a deadbeat and fighting against this destiny is pointless, and you're more than likely to be correct.

I don't think this is particularly informative. You gotta play the hand you're dealt and make the most of it. It's not fair in the sense everyone has the same opportunities, but there's still a spectrum of accomplishments that can be achieved by any given person.

I would argue that true maturity is when someone can take care of themselves, recognize their inputs with gratitude, and ask for help when needed with humility, not expecting that someone else would take care of them AND being grateful even if they don't get it.

The polarization of our arguments leads us to pretty shallow poles.

This response, to me, misses the point. Yes, you gotta play the hand you're dealt. It's not crippling at all to acknowledge the cards in your hand. If you don't have any pairs or face cards or whatever, it is not crippling to acknowledge that. Acknowledging the help of other is not telling ourselves we're succeeding because of "what we were given", and acknowledging the role of chance isn't denigratory either. To me, acknowledging what others helped us with, the chance encounters that helped, etc can help us seek out more chance, more help, and then provide that to others as well. Then we can indeed make our own luck and create luck for others.

Acknowledging the help of others is just not at all the same as lessening our own contributions.

I guess it is true that some folks see it that way, that if you ever thank or acknowledge anyone else then you're weak, there is this pressure to pretend that everything is original and done alone, but... that's just lying.

Both points are valid, and I agree with both. It's ok, they're different points.

First, it is a problem that people don't recognize and acknowledge the external factors behind success. It leads to poor decisions, helplessness and other negative feelings, and reactivity ("why didn't you just save more of your minimum wage like I did with the interest from my trust fund?").

Second, it is a problem to see success as only determined by external factors, then you lose agency and are less likely to do as well as your opportunities allow. You are permanently "bad at math", you can only get somewhere if the Man stops pushing you down. It's the opposite of a growth mindset.

I agree that self-efficacy is a predictor of success and taking initiative. While it's not mutually exclusive with the recognition of social support, I think that rationalization espoused by Arnold is used by some as an instrument for self-defeat/self-pity and a defense mechanism against taking action. Example beliefs: "I probably couldn't become a world champion bodybuilder, because I don't have the support network Arnold had, so I won't bother"; "people who create successful startups all come from rich parents and stable households, I shouldn't even try"; "I'll never lose weight without a super-pill".

So I agree with you and somewhat with those who are responding to you.

If you find it crippling, you haven't at all understand what he meant.

It's just gratitude.

Nothing "crippling" about that.

It depends on the perspective. If you look at yourself and see you got where you are because of the help you got, that's great.

If you look at someone else, and see they got where they are because of help available to them but not you, that's crippling.

I worked with high school kids and college kids for a while. I saw this exact mindset far too much.

Students were obsessed with picking apart people's success stories and attributing all of the success to some external factor. I can't tell you how many times I heard someone bring up Bezos just so they could tell me about the $300K loan he got, or Musk so they could talk about the emerald mine story. We tried to discourage using celebrities like Bezos or Musk as role models anyway, but people were drawn back to them because they enjoyed picking them apart.

There's something satisfying about this mindset that can explain away every success story as the result of factors out of their control. It's comforting to tell yourself that the only reason you didn't become a billionaire is because your parents didn't give you a $300K business loan or own an emerald mine or whatever other justification they could come up with.

It was a lot of work to try to defeat this mindset and get students focused on what they could incrementally accomplish within what they were working with. Honestly, getting them to let go of the celebrities like Musk and Bezos and others was half of the battle, but they also couldn't care less when we tried to introduce local successful business operators who ran companies they had never heard of.

It's tough. Social media makes it harder, and honestly the people who read Reddit seem prone to the worst of it.

That kind of mindset is arguably the norm for the rest of the world. Tall Poppy Syndrome in the UK and Australia, or worse, the extreme bullying in Japan and Korea. It's perhaps what made the USA so unique in having a culture that was opposed to that and willing to take risks. So it's pretty sad to see the USA drop it's own individualism in favour of collectivism.

I disagree. Equal opportunity is a lie. Our options ebb and flow with the fickle sensibilities of our communities. Having the 'wrong' hair color can disqualify you from opportunity.

My argument does not assume equal opportunity. Regardless of which opportunities are available to you, you can squander them of make the best of them.

It's a mindset more based on reality than the opposite mindset. It keeps you grounded, which is a good thing, imo.

Both concepts can be true. A lot of people, especially in the developed world, have way more opportunities than they realize. Those that take on some (often very modest) risk to exercise those opportunities are self-made.

It would be ridiculous to say that Picasso didn't make a painting because someone else supplied the paint. He's the one that saw the paint and the canvas and put them together in a unique way.

The Picasso analogy really doesn't work, it makes no sense.

But Picasso was also lucky enough to be born in a place and time where he had access to enough economic surplus that he could spend time painting rather than having to spend all his time working the fields just to survive. He also had the extra good fortune of being in a situation where those around him had access to enough economic surplus that they could afford to buy his paintings at a pretty substantial markup over the actual cost of production. None of these things are givens.

I don’t even know why people bother argue such things?

To not feel bad others have accomplished more?

It makes me feel even better looking at accomplished peoples work. Seeing the whole thing come together, everyone's contributions that lead to works of art, science, engineering, etc. It would make me feel shitty that "accomplished people" were standalone in their works, where no one along their life was ever helpful or interested or supported or bought their works. It takes a village (or a planet/solar system/galaxy/universe worth of everything going right for a single accomplishment to have happened)

>To not feel bad others have accomplished more?

No; I think the self-made man is dangerous because it leads people to believe 2 things:

1.) You can and should go it alone

2.) Other people shouldn't need your help.

I don't think Arnold tells his story the way he does in order to diminish his own accomplishments. It's used to highlight all the people that helped him along the way to get him to where he is. It's important to ask for help, to ask for guidance and depend on others. There's no glory in going it alone and you can be propelled immensely by relying on others to support your efforts.

Furthermore, it's important to provide a lending hand to others. Great men are built with the help of others and you have a responsibility to help others excel when you can. I think telling these stories help break the hyper-individualistic ethos of the American self-made man. Once you break this myth that so-and-so is self-made, we can make steps into re-examining how we treat our families, friends and fellow Americans (and/or countrymen). Common adages such as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" will become more and more asinine once we understand no one is fully self-made; and I think that change in social psyche will have societal benefits.

Okay; maybe, in some cases going alone is fine, in some cases not. That's a discussion worth having.

But even if that's the argument, that's not the way OP phrased his point.

His point entirely about how the greats where just a product of their environment and not their individual greatness.

Not a discussion that seems to in anyway advance to a better progress of group or individual; but more about pettiness tbh.

There are many examples in life where I have seen people and recognized that if this person were born in a slightly different household, slightly different time, slightly different economy, etc. - this person would have made it big!

I have actually seen this in many places.

One example on top my head- my neighbor was a talented video editor. Not legendary level, but okay. He eventually set up shop for editing wedding videos and such. He got contracts, he got praises and contracts in affluent families- all of this was not enough for sustaining a middle class life for an adult. He eventually set up a convenient store with the help of his father in law. He was quite old and had to move on to earn a middle class income. He did not have access to internet until early 2010s.

Now, his nephew, who is also my neighbor is also a video editor. But he got internet since he was born. He has all the resources. He has discord servers where people guide him and share resources. He is also an online gamer, and edited his own videos and posted them online. That led him to international contracts. Last month he earned US$120 working a single night.

That's HUGE for a 19 YO in small town India. Had his uncle (now in his early 40s) had all these, he would have made it big.

Circumstances do influence heavily how much a person succeeds.

I don't hold the line that equal opportunities lead to equal outcome- that doesn't happen.

But do think about the child that was born today in slavery in Libya, and a child born to a FAANG worker parent in Bay Area.

Do you think that they have equal chances of success?

And, I will also mention that Picasso had neighbors and peers. They didn't become as famed. Talent and individuality matters, too.

Probably worth arguing about, because so many people that think they are 'self-made' also want to take away opportunities from others.

So its good to keep these concepts in the general awareness.

Picasso shares those surpluses with hundreds of millions of other people. That didn’t make him special.

Picasso was the son of an accomplished painter and art professor, who tutored him from a young age. That's not the sort of opportunity that's all around average people.

Because what you are describing is literally what happens in all situations for everything, it shouldn't even factor into success. It's a given that to be successful, there are external entities involved (infrastructure, people).

I suppose if you get a PHD, you should be thanking the factory worker that was responsible for the paper in your diploma. Should you also thank Bill Gates for providing the operating system and software that allowed you to write your thesis?

Instead, it's being used as a tactic to cut down anyone that is successful (you didn't earn that success, it was the people around you).

If success were that easy, everyone would be successful..but this just isn't reality.

Thank the factory worker for the paper and Bill Gates for the OS sounds like a lovely idea! Marie Kondo vibes.

I agree "success is not your own" can be weaponized, but also let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. The paper - and this humanity team we are on - did help!

My father thanked the typist who prepared the final copy of his PhD thesis.

People hear what they want to, to be honest. Most of the time, in my experience, people aren't trying to "cut down" successful people, they are just trying to show that it wasn't all skill and good decisions. Its a response to the idea that people who are successful, and especially those with financial success, are somehow morally superior to those who are less successful. This idea is pervasive, at least in the USA, and that's the context people are usually coming from when they talk about the externalities that lead to success. And honestly, if successful people don't recognize the luck that also went into their success, they become delusional.

There's definitely a subset of people who have achieved nothing in their life, and instead of changing simply resent others who've done something.

Invariably, these people spend more time in online communities like Reddit and come to dominate the conversation there. They also (surprise, surprise) congregate in low skilled jobs where you can phone it in a bit.

Depending on your circles, you might not come across them much, but they are absolutely everywhere.

Most of what you've said is nonsense that capitalists feed the middle and lower classes to keep them fighting eachother. The "low skill" jobs are generally the ones you can't phone it in as much, because there's actual work to be done at all times. I say that having worked in many different environments, from gas stations to a large cap tech company. The cashiers at the gas station were at least as busy and hardworking as any devs I ever worked with, and both are much, much harder working than basically anybody with an MBA, who are generally the people most likely to talk about how they are "self-made."

I agree and would add that in my esperience people in richer countries work less than those in poorer. In the Netherlands people work less than in Italy, in Italy people work less than in Morocco. This happens because in richer countries they are relatively more efficient.

Financial success --> morally superior. Reminds me calvinism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

I was once at a conference with multiple game developers. My background is that I learned myself programming at a young age. I was also good at school so I completed a Masters degree in CS.

Another guy in the group was also a game developer, but never studied further. Someone labeled this person as a "self-made man". Which I found weird at the time, because I also put in the "self-made" work to get my Masters degree.

It's basically a concept of whatever you want to make of it. If people enjoy labeling themselves or others as "self-made", I have no problem with that. For me it holds no value at all. And for Arnold, it feels offensive because he realizes he wouldn't have the success without the support he got from the people around him.

Every success is made up of a part that you did, and a part that others did. And the part that others did will always be way bigger than your part. Shoulders of giants and all that.

In reference to what Arnold is talk aobut, he's more so referring to the people that shaped him into the person he is today, from his parents to everyone that he has met along the way. So in regards to Picasso, it wouldn't be the paint supplies, but everyone that supported/encouraged/discouraged/nay saysers, that guided him along the way to his success.

Picasso was a communist. He would have insisted that he couldn’t have used his talent without the collective production of all of society.

We aren't strictly the product of environmental determinism. That has an influence, but we don't all make the same choices. There's a social expectation among public facing individuals to downplay their efforts and investments and chalk everything up to privilege, luck or divine blessing, and they're punished for deviating from that.

It reminds me of Mr. Rogers' wonderful lifetime achievement award acceptance speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upm9LnuCBUM#t=1m24s

He's a (successful) politician. I wouldn't expect him to say that of course he's self-made and his listeners (whose votes he may or may not need) are a bunch of not-self-made losers. That sentence doesn't give me a lot of information about what he actually thinks.

In practice, there’s no conflict between feeling gratitude for the positive things in one’s life and having an internal locus of control. In theory, those feelings are hard to express in a single narrative

Contrast to Vinod Khosla who couldn’t have been anywhere near as successful anywhere other than California. As a thank you he tries to restrict public access to California beaches.

Will you stay consistent and blame failures on society as well? Many are quick to take away one's successes as earned but then make some BS up about all bad things being deserved.

The just world fallacy is one of the most harmful.

Maybe it’s the language and phrasing that implies 1 of the 2 extremes.

1. Self made, implying it was solely the efforts of a said persons OR

2. Product of timing, luck, circumstance, implying there was nothing special about what the said person did.

Reality is it’s probably often a mix of both. The person had help, the right environment etc but also talent and put in hard work. Maybe there is a better phrase than “self made”. “Through effort and circumstance”, but catchier.

There are ample examples of people who are supported similar, if even better (privilege) by society and do not reach that level of success. So I guess if there were a regression model, you would find his own hard work elevated him above the others.

I grew up in the 80s and it’s hard to overstate how dominant Arnold was back then. Every little boy wanted to be Commando or Conan.

I also remember when he was governor (I live in cali). Those years I remember less fondly. He was not very good imo but it’s impressive nonetheless that he achieved that milestone.

Once in a lifetime phenomenon. I’m really enjoying this new more thoughtful and reflective era he’s having.

EDIT: moved some words around for clarity.

My recollection was that he was a good governor but tied up with political red tape. Also, compare him to other California governors since then and he doesn’t seem so bad.

I don't live there, but my perception was that he was a Republican so hated by the left, but he was a fairly moderate Republican, so not liked all that well by the right either. This left him without many powerful allies on either side.

When he was governor, California was not so solidly blue. He was more popular than you might guess today.

you think he has been better than Newsome?

Schwarzenegger was a perfectly fine governor of California. He actually created a mobile pandemic response capability for the state (instant hospital beds), but it was dismantled before the pandemic happened. Would have been handy when hospital beds became scarce.

As I recall, the capability which was created included a lot of spare ventilators, which again would have been super handy.

One of the things I love about his autobiography is that he talks with the same sense of wonder about the people he wanted to be growing up, and reflects on meeting his heroes. In one of my favorite passages in the book, he talks about growing up on on Joe Weider's bodybuilding magazines:

> “Other pictures in the magazine showed scientists and technicians in white lab coats developing nutritional supplements in the Weider Research Clinic. “Weider Research Clinic,” I would say to myself, “this is unbelievable!” And there were pictures of airplanes with “Weider” painted on the side in big letters. I’d imagined an outfit the size of General Motors, with a fleet of planes flying around the globe delivering Weider equipment and food supplements. The writing in the magazine sounded fabulous too when my friends translated it for me. The stories talked about “blasting the muscles” and building “deltoids like cannonballs” and “a chest like a fortress.”

> And now here I was, six years later, on Venice Beach! Just like Dave Draper, only now it was me with the dune buggy and the surfboard and the adoring girls. Of course, by this time I was aware enough to see that Weider was creating a whole fantasy world, with a foundation in reality but skyscrapers of hype. Yes, there were surfboards, but the bodybuilders didn’t really surf. Yes, there were pretty girls, but they were models who got paid for the photo session. (Actually, one of the girls was Joe’s wife, Betty, a beautiful model whom he didn’t have to pay.) Yes, there were Weider supplements and, yes, some research took place, but there was no big building in Los Angeles called the Weider Research Clinic. Yes, Weider products were distributed around the world, but there were no Weider planes. Discovering the hype didn’t bother me, though. Enough of it was true.”

I'm a fan of Arnold, but I think it's pretty clear that he suffers from issues stemming from his rough relationship with his father. How else could you become the embodiment of success and hard work if not for a pathological need to succeed and impress? It seems to have worked out for him, but in any other person I'd consider his insane work ethics to be toxic and unhealthy.

I don't think that necessarily holds. It's a common trope to look at someone who's had a rough childhood and then become a success and say that it's because of their rough childhood. But this overlooks all the people who had a rough childhood and didn't become a success, why doesn't it hold there? Similarly, many people are successful without having a rough childhood. In essence, if you can easily make the same argument either way, that the childhood did/did not matter, then it's hard to say that it holds any bearing.

Of course, I don't disagree that coming from that background comes to define many parts of one's character, but to say that that's the reason for where they ended up is in my opinion a bit too reductionist.

Validation isn't something you only get from your parents. Notwithstanding, it's not the only motivating factor for achieving and taking risks. Arnold's charisma and charm helped him go far rather early (he made his first million in construction with a fellow bodybuilder). He seems to delight in competing and new challenges. Some people are built that way.

I saw him having lunch at a rooftop restaurant in Beverly Hills a few years ago. He seemed pretty chill and not working at the time.

> I'm a fan of Arnold, but I think it's pretty clear that he suffers from issues stemming from his rough relationship with his father.

Read the book and watch the Netflix documentary. I’m pretty sure Arnold is self-aware of his father issues. For a concrete example, Arnold’s brother dies drinking-and-driving at the age of 24. Arnold contrasts the way he was able to handle his relationship with his father compared to his deceased brother.

I did both. Hearing and reading about his relationship with his father led me to my position.

Merely being aware of your issues does not magically solve them.

When I was young I struggled to fit in with others. I didn't know what to do so that other people would like me. As an older adult, I understood that everyone respects and appreciates someone who can deal with problems and get things done, in other words, a useful person. This is all there's to it. A big part of it is getting physically in shape. A big strong man is perceived as a useful man. I wish I figured this out earlier.

This is why he decided to be a body builder > actor > politician of course, makes perfect sense (people usually profess the beliefs their actions contradict the most)

true the most useful people I know you'll never hear in NPR they're typically highly skilled workers who just do their job everyday.

Entertaining people can be useful to society, without fun we'd simply be worker drones living miserable lives.

That said, I also struggle to see how how this guiding principle of "being useful" led him to take these actions. More likely, his real principle is, "be successful" in the dominant media view of "be famous, by doing anything you can to get there". He's selling a book with the same title as his "philosophy" so there's the real answer. I don't mean to be negative towards him, but this article reads like bullshit to me.

Being useful is another way to express moving through life in a way that doesn’t cause more effort from those surrounding you.

I see that as a path to success.

people usually profess the beliefs their actions contradict the most

Why is that?

And is it true?

Arnold kept inspiring people from all walks of life that through hard work you can, in the case of body building quite literally, shape your own reality.

I’d call that being useful.

Bodybuilding is something where you cannot shape your reality - no matter how hard you work - if you don't have the right build for it (genetics). Any elite BB will tell you as much (I've heard multiple give advice to guys that don't have the right built to not even bother with the sport).

It also built a fitness industry that sells steroid gains as "hard work". I was shocked recently talking to my coworkers about Arnold, they didn't know he was on roids... The perception of what an average person thinks is achievable with "hard work" is highly distorted in this regard.

Realizing just how much of Hollywood is the result of pharmacology genuinely depressed me as a male for a bit, knowing those results are actually unattainable naturally

As GP said, you need the genetics, and to get the sort of body that Arnold or other top bodybuilders have you can't do it naturally.

However none of those things stops you from lifting weights for strength training, which is good for your body, your skeleton, your appearance, and your mental health. If your goal is to get strong, that is attainable naturally by anyone. You just need to do it.

If the physique is all you are after then it shouldn't be depressing since the solution is easily attainable (unlike many other physical attributes)

> Bodybuilding is something where you cannot shape your reality - no matter how hard you work - if you don't have the right build for it (genetics).

I am a tall, very thin male who struggles to gain weight. I can eat 5,000 calories a day while working out hard and barely gain a pound every month. I was made fun of in highschool and university for my body, and that made me very self conscious and shy. Typical "computer nerd" stuff.

From about age 20 onwards I've enjoyed and benefited from Bodybuilding immensely. It has changed how I view myself, how I view the world and changed my personality. I gained a lot of confidence, and I gained a perspective on the world I never had - doing difficult tasks and slow and steady improvements were important lessons for early 20s me.

I'll never compete, I'm not "huge" and was rarely even "big". (A few times people asked if I compete...) but I got stronger, fitter and for sure my body became a lot nicer to look at.

I'm 41 now and I'll never stop. I don't have incredible genentics, but I didn't let that stop or even slow me down.

Yes, you absolutely can shape your reality through bodybuilding.

Don't know what we're talking about here tho :

- Lifting for fitness/looks - 100% agree - best bang for buck for self-improvement, and as you say it's about sustained incremental progress that translates well to other things.

- Rec PED use - health risks, illegal substances (not that big of a deal in terms of use, but since you can't get it legally you're basically injecting yourself with shit that's been mixed in some dudes bathroom), further downsides once you get off. This one highly depends on what you want.

- Bodybuilding as a competitive thing - here you'll get nowhere without genetics

In context of Arnolds success I'm talking about the last definition, where his success in competitive BB lead to other opportunities.

I think there is a lot to learn from studying Arnold's life. You will learn more than reading this book.

If you're a founder or just someone who wants to be inspired, read his book 'Total Recall'. It's a fantastic story of his life and I came away really motivated reading it.

Same. I also enjoyed the wonderfully-narrated audiobook. Just listening to it makes me want to get out into the world and do something.

He’ll always be Arnold “Screw Your Freedom” Schwarzenegger to me.

Oh man its great to read that here. This site is so filled with woke people who probably STILL agree with him.

Next time when you're at the operation table, tell the surgeon and assistants that there's no need to wear masks.

Well that would be silly, masks MUST BE WORN when you’re standing around or walking to a table, you can only take them off if you’re actually seated at the table. Same as a restaurant. #science

The interviews on Tim Ferriss and Rich Roll podcasts were very good.

The second interview on TF, released this month, was good.

But Arnold’s first interview with Tim back in 2015 was much better (IMHO).

https://tim.blog/2015/02/02/arnold-schwarzenegger/

That sounds so Thomas the Tank Engine, who is Really Useful.

Arnold is a nice guy, certainly, but his political legacy is a bit questionable. He was a useful tool for certain energy interests, but it's not that laudable:

> "On May 17, 2001, future Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Los Angeles Mayor Republican Richard Riordan met with Enron CEO Kenneth Lay at the Peninsula Beverly Hills Hotel in Beverly Hills. The meeting was convened for Enron to present its "Comprehensive Solution for California," which called for an end to federal and state investigations into Enron's role in the California energy crisis."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%9301_California_ele...

Maybe a tool for energy interests, but apparently not a very useful one given the fate of Enron and Lay in the months and years following that meeting. There were plenty of investigations into Enron after Schwarzenegger was elected governor.

So he had a meeting? What’s your point?

Takes a little digging, as the corporate media is mostly owned by the same shareholder conglomerates that own the utilities and their providers... but Schwarzenegger dropped the lawsuit against those who rigged the California energy system. (2003):

> "According to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Los Angeles, the biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed by California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the Unfair Business Practices Act. This litigation, based upon rock- solid evidence of alleged fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt "laundering," fake power delivery scheduling and straight-out conspiracy, is headed to trial now in Los Angeles. The lawsuit would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers."

> "The prediction is that Gov. Schwarzenegger will now bless a sweetheart deal with the power companies that short circuits the lawsuit by way of a "settlement" of 2 cents per dollar negotiated by Bush's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, headed by a guy originally proposed by former Enron CEO Ken Lay."

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2003/11/19/hell-wor...

Arnold then dropped the $9 billion lawsuit once in office, I think the eventual settlement was only a few hundred million. I guess he was useful.

There were 2 cases filed by Bustamente.

May 2 2001 https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2001/04/30/daily...

> California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante today filed suit against five out of state power generators, accusing them of price fixing.

> Named as defendants are Dynegy, Inc.; Duke Energy; Mirant, Inc.; Reliant Energy Inc., and Williams Energy Services.

> The suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, was joined by Assemblywoman Barbara Matthews, D-Tracy. Both entered the suit as private citizens.

Nov 26 2002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1037917427814504588,

> A class-action lawsuit was filed by California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante against McGraw-Hill and a number of energy companies for allegedly conspiring to inflate natural gas and electricity prices in the California by publishing false natural gas prices. The suit was brought by Mr. Bustamante as a ratepayer and on behalf of the general public.

The initial 2002 case was dismissed:

> On November 20, 2002, California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante (“Bustamante”) filed a claim against several sellers and marketers of natural gas and gas price indices publishers in ... After the court granted a motion to dismiss filed by defendants, Bustamante filed an amended complaint on August 13, 2003 ..,

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1010775/000110465905...

Hard to believe that "the biggest single threat" to Lay in 2003 (during the Enron bankruptcy proceedings and criminal investigations) was one of these Bustamante lawsuits (which did not include Lay or Enron as defendants) that the court initially agreed to dismiss.

> Arnold then dropped the $9 billion lawsuit once in office, I think the eventual settlement was only a few hundred million.

This is the part that needs a source ...

These lawsuits were filed by Bustamante as a private citizen while he was lieutenant governor, so please also explain the mechanics of the governor of California dropping a lawsuit filed by a private individual in the LA Superior Court.

I don't doubt that Bustamente's cases settled for millions rather than billions, but I would tend to attribute that to Bustamente overstating the strength of the cases and potential settlements for political purposes while campaigning for lieutenant governor in 2002 and for governor in 2003 rather than Schwarzenegger somehow intervening in the California judicial system, and there being no shortage of lawsuits against these companies and money preferentially going to claims from entities with stronger cases (i.e. not attempted class action lawsuits by private individuals)

> Bustamante’s lawyers have agreed in principal to the deal, saying they would accept a settlement of $20 million -- though that is a fraction of the money, perhaps $1 billion or more, Bustamante hoped to recover when he filed the case on behalf of overcharged California consumers.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-nov-21-me-busta...

See https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/comm-respon... and https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/electric/general-inform... for details on some of the litigation that actually resulted in refunds from some of these energy companies ($4.5 billion by 2005, and the cases continued long after that - maybe still going)

Good old, "Screw your freedom" Schwarzenegger. Love that guy.

I like Arnold the most of any American public figure but, no

> Champion bodybuilder. Hollywood superstar. Governor of California.

I would question whether any of those count as useful.

But this snark is truly something…

Are you useful?

Well, I'm not doing anything useful with my life either, so that makes two of us.

Unfortunately there's no room for critizing him here. HN hivemind has become reddit-like and decided who is good and who is not.

It’s fine. If you don’t want to like Schwarzenegger, you don’t have to. But I would still recommend reading the interview. I found it thoughtful.

What do you consider useful?

IDK about bodybuilding, but:

a) Entertainment and arts are useful, even Stone Age hunters and gatherers left some art behind. It is part of our humanity. We obviously feel need to produce and consume art. (Maybe not you, but we the people in general.) And movies are art.

b) Big sets of people, like California is, need to be managed somehow. Individual politicians might be useless, but the office of the governor is useful.

[flagged]

Arnold the Tank Engine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com