I read it and I don’t think it’s a “much better essay by a vastly more skilled writer”. It’s not practical, but BRs essay is.
Peculiarly, I think your opinion and the difference between the two essays gives credibility to BRs points. One essay by a egocentric multimillionaire, and the other by a man of knowledge and people err on the relative value of the people who make money because that’s what they’re taught to do.
What is the point of this post exactly? That the same logic can be used to argue the opposite if you invert the basic assumptions? Do you think that's such a groundbreaking observation that it justfies such a snarky post? If you actually wanted to contribute something, how about attacking those basic assumptions?
Peculiarly, I think your opinion and the difference between the two essays gives credibility to BRs points. One essay by a egocentric multimillionaire, and the other by a man of knowledge and people err on the relative value of the people who make money because that’s what they’re taught to do.