About a year ago I had a heated disagreement with a conservative friend, and successful "creative capitalist", on a similar subject. While he (wrongly) insisted that market success is the only criteria for admiring someone's accomplishments, I insisted that presumes that the market (the many) is the final moral definer of who is admirable. Bibly, who is someone I rarely agree with, is on the right track.
For 'the most admirable' I tend to discount those in the 1 percent who:
- Made money in hedge funds and the stock market. While there are some very bright fellows who are traders, skilled gambling and shrewd trades of 'shares' is less than inspiring for those seeking something truly admirable.
- Made money in currency speculation and/or manipulation. I rate these fellows BELOW the stock market sharpies.
- Made money by guessing the latest Internet - Technology trend, and getting rich 'overnight' with a venture capitalist sugar daddy.
- Made money in "soft" cyber products such as search engines, phone apps, etc. These 'intangible' products, are often widely profitable NOT because they are intellectually challenging but because of a single seed idea and fortuitous timing.
I do tend to admire those who earned their wealth in tangible and difficult products and services, especially in mature economic sectors. Rather than falling ass backwards into a pile of money, folks who become wealthy from years of sweat and risk in energy production, transportation, shipping, construction, retail, etc. are far more likely to have 'paid their dues'. They faced years of risk, difficult management and company building, usually in the face of fierce competition.
I would tend to admire the first guy to develop a profitable fraking technology a heck of a lot more than the first guy who developed the first social media page.
