I don't find it reprehensible at all. It's not like the cockroach farmer is saying he wants to be a party leader so he get lucrative contracts for his friends. He seems to be just selling a product.
I feel it used to be the same in the US at some point in time. Getting rich was seen as a reward since you provided a good solution to consumers and therefore you could gain from the overall value you provided to society.
On HN, I'm not sure what is the trend, since you see people saying that "profit is evil" and stuff in that line of thought, as well as folks cheering for SpaceX, Tesla Motors' CEO Elon Musk who is getting very rich through the process of what he does - and it does not seem to bother many people in these kind of situations.
I don't think that's ever been the case in the US. There's long been an ideal that anyone can become prosperous, in the sense of upper-middle-class; that's the "American Dream". But people have also long been skeptical of the very wealthy, and in the early US there was even an ideal (though a pretty counterfactual one) that the US didn't really have any super-rich, in contrast to the British, but rather was a nation of approximate equals, everyone a tradesman, shopkeeper, yeoman farmer, etc.
The 19th-century industrialists were very unpopular among the general population, especially in the period before several of them made extensive efforts to improve their popularity through PR and philanthropy. Some of the industrialists themselves were even conflicted about the role of extreme wealth in society, which motivated writings like Andrew Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth", in which he argued that the wealthy had an obligation to spend their wealth to improve society through philanthropy, and ought not to either spend it purely on personal luxury, or to keep it and produce hereditary family fortunes in the old European style.
It's interesting you say that because European right wingers always depict the US as a paradise where people can be wealthy (which they equate to successful) and respected for it.
"On HN, I'm not sure what is the trend, since you see people saying that "profit is evil" and stuff in that line of thought, as well as folks cheering for SpaceX, Tesla Motors' CEO Elon Musk"
I don't see any contradiction. Most people feel one should be rewarded based on their contribution to society, and have respect and admiration for skilled and ambitious persons.
What is usually debated is: how much should be the reward, and how to assess everyone's contribution.
What's interesting about it? And I have no idea why you start putting politics inside here - that was not the point. You are right about one thing, in Europe people are despised if they have money, no matter if they deserved it or not.
What is usually debated is: how much should be the reward, and how to assess everyone's contribution.
Vote with your wallet/dollars. What else is there to measure ? Honestly I don't see who would be in position to decide "what should be the reward" or these kind of things. That's why we have market systems, to avoid stupid solutions to this kind of issue.
But if you went inside, you were likely to find all the trappings of 1980s affluence (all sorts of consumer electronics, nice art on the walls, gorgeous furniture).
China today has a nouveau riche that consumes conspicuously, but it's not a universal trait.
Or alternatively, perhaps we can respect other peoples world views without judging them within our own limited set of cultural values.
Why wouldn't it last?
Why can't some members be incompatible with others?
Why must there be a framework to make judgements on others?
The United States is a good example (in a lot of ways) of successful multiculturalism (it's a bad example in some ways as well). But no official language, no restrictions on belief, the only consistant thing is a 'rule of law', is that what you mean by a framework for judging?
That's fine to not like it your self... but to condemn others... That seems more than just intolerant, that is verging on bigoted.