Could it be that I … like tomatoes?
Observe this chart indicating the amount of money it is not worth Bill Gates' time to bend over and pick up as a function of time. The chart assumes that it takes four seconds to pick up some money (and doesn't take into account that picking $600 in denominations likely to be lying around to be picked up will take longer than picking up a single), and that while picking up money, he isn't making any other money some other way. Fine. But what it fails to consider is that it might be worth Gates' time to pick up a tenner and thereby forego earning $600 in four seconds—simply because by doing so he thereby makes a statement, in effect, about how much money he already has: enough that he can casually shrug off over half a grand without thinking, and do so several times an hour. The amount of money he might choose not to earn—or even to lose—as an expression of his financial power will, of course, only increase as his worth increases; however, there may come to be a point at which it's worth his ego's while to forego exactly the income he would otherwise make, at which point he will plateau. Or perhaps he'll jump beyond that point, and find himself in the curious position of demanding compensation for taking the trouble of being paid.
Comments
on 2005-07-27 7:30:35.0, tammy commented:
VINDICATION
and, further, on 2005-07-27 8:24:24.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
Context?
and, further, on 2005-07-27 8:35:16.0, ben wolfson commented:
All the context you need to understand the post is in the post. It's rather self-contained.
and, further, on 2005-07-27 8:48:28.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
What vindicates whom, and why?
and, further, on 2005-07-27 8:51:23.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
Never mind. Knowing would just mar my obliviousness.
and, further, on 2005-07-27 8:51:25.0, ben wolfson commented:
I'm not sure. Frankly I'm not sure how speculation regarding Bill Gates' income might vindicate anyone here. Maybe something to do with how I'm forming the possessive of "Gates"?
and, further, on 2005-07-27 9:05:48.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
I don't think typography should dictate orthography, especially at the expense of uniformity. In this regard ess apostrophe ess is better than just ess apostrophe, yes?
and, further, on 2005-07-27 9:17:44.0, ben wolfson commented:
Yeah, I think so.
and, further, on 2005-07-27 0:25:25.0, tammy commented:
I was referring to the post title.
and, further, on 2005-07-27 13:08:21.0, ogged commented:
Wolfson fucks like tomatoes, I think he's trying to say.
and, further, on 2005-07-27 13:27:52.0, text commented:
that is what ellipses always mean, tis true.
and, further, on 2005-07-27 16:26:26.0, Matt Weiner commented:
You know, I was thinking something similar, about the ellipses, and about how Borges remarks that all words refer to the Rite of the Phoenix: I heard on the radio a song about "I've got a fish in my dish and I caught in on my own line." Which was obviously rife with innuendo. Except I can't for the life of me figure out how it's any more innuendous than say, "I've got a chop in my crop and I served it with my own fork" would be, or any other MadLib substitute. (The singer was a woman, so the thing you're thinking presumably doesn't apply.)
and, further, on 2005-07-27 18:42:27.0, text commented:
au contraire. The ladies can enjoy fish on a dish.
and, further, on 2005-07-27 18:44:58.0, text commented:
I've got a donkey on my honky and I ride him in my own kind.
you are right.
and, further, on 2005-07-28 10:06:07.0, Matt Weiner commented:
I very much doubt that the lady was supposed to be enjoying fish on a dish in that way. I suppose your most recent comment perhaps concedes that.