Lost me at the end ... took an otherwise detailed and nuanced analysis and concluded it with a broad generalization that smooths over all of the detail and nuance.
“At any rate, at some point decades ago, we decided that most political and business institutions in America should be organized around cheating people. In this case, the warped and decrepit state of the GSA leads to McKinsey-ifying the entire government. Mr. Clinton, you took a fine government that basically worked, and ruined it. McKinsey sends its thanks.“
True, and yet those are also only several movies of many tens of thousands. I don't think this debate would be resolved back and forth example for example. Instead, replace the OP's use of the word never with "only sometimes", "don't usually", or even "more often than not don't", and the comment would be more reflective of its underlying nature: opinion, absent hard data.
Could be, but a re-evaluation of my past harsh assumptions felt more constructive than further writing them off in my head as inept. I don’t know how many others are out there that I can say originated the idea for Facebook (at least in its Harvard-only original form) AND were early to get involved big with Bitcoin (and now, at least on paper, are billionaires because of that insight/luck/combo whatever).
Agreed. One of my biases was to equate inability to execute on an idea but ultimately claim credit for its successful execution as ineptitude. Clearly this was an incorrect and unfair assumption.
Yup, totally agree. Probably also because there’s no written record of what was actually said or done in the majority of micro-events that help to define personalities and setup plot lines (eg the opening bar scene at Thirsty Scholar in The Social Network between Mark Zuckerberg and his love interest).
Hmm, well clearly in this case I was wrong about these guys, but I have to disagree on your comment about never trusting Hollywood adaptations to be remotely historically accurate or honest. Personally I think Hollywood adaptations generally get the broad points correct, so they are generally accurate and honest (eg Howard Hughes was a reclusive hermit toward the end of his life, as portrayed by Leo DiCaprio in The Aviator).
True. But surely this isn’t the only reason for their success. Kudos for their being successful, given their predisposed privilege, as there are many in their shoes who would have otherwise squandered it.
Wow, admittedly my perception of these guys was totally skewed after seeing the movie The Social Network. When I read about their original investment in 2013 I totally wrote it off as being a hairbrained move. Clearly succumbed to my own biases in passing that unfair judgment. Good for them for being so savvy.