It is very fair to say that there is a class of people of various professions who have a great deal of influence but not a great deal of money. To what degree would you buy my notion that most of those people work for people in a higher economic class? Where do you see decisions being made independent of (or out of proportion to) their economic impact?
I'm more sure that wealthy people tend to be insiders than the professional non-wealthy. Once you've acquired enough to be considered wealthy, you care about the stability of currencies, banking systems, countries at least to the degree that it preserves your own wealth.
'The sleep of a laborer is sweet,
whether they eat little or much,
but as for the rich, their abundance
permits them no sleep.' - Ecc 5:12
It would help my argumentation skills if you could you point out where I suggested equivalence. I started with 'more like an insider than an outsider'.
Good point. Unfortunately, the threading view of Hacker News doesn't show me the comment I responded to by default and I just try to remember it.
I remembered your comment as, "anyone with more than $4 million is an insider."
If there's any lesson to draw, perhaps it's that more concise statements are less likely to be misunderstood. The more words, the more room for overlooking some of them.
It also might be the context. You were responding to someone saying Gates or Buffet is an outsider (again, I don't have that comment visible). Your comment in isolation would imply "more like" just as you wrote. However, as a response it sounds like a direct contradiction: he's an insider, not an outsider.
It is true that I believe both Gates and Buffet are insiders. They're at the far end of the economic distribution, and, by simple self interest, have to take an interest in all the concerns I mentioned. I'd wager you could do an image search on Bill Gates and most world leaders and find a picture of them together. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'insider', but I don't see how outsider' applies.
