A Theory of Grift
Rising levels of “grift” in politics, business, and everyday life are linked by commenters to structural shifts: software displacing personable white‑collar work, a neoliberal attention economy that rewards charisma over substance, and financial conditions that make speculative or deceptive schemes attractive. Many point to the United States as an extreme case, citing healthcare, education, politics, media, and banking as increasingly extractive, while others argue this reflects broader human tendencies amplified by social media and weak regulation. There is also debate over whether consumer choices (“voting with your wallet”) or only collective political action can meaningfully curb these dynamics.
Drivers of Modern Grift
- Several commenters like the article’s link between software/disintermediation and fewer “personable middleman” jobs, arguing this pushes charisma into more extreme, zero‑sum arenas (politics, content, scams).
- Others add that when legitimate profit opportunities shrink or saturate, “grift” becomes an attractive strategy to meet investor/market expectations.
- A political angle: reforms meant to “disintermediate” politics can reduce incentives to govern well and increase rewards for incendiary, fundraising‑driven behavior.
Macroeconomics and Financialization
- One camp sees a strong link between money printing, low interest rates, and grift: if asset bubbles reward doing little, they also reward swindling.
- Others counter that grift thrives even in poor countries without cheap capital, and that downturns typically increase, not decrease, grift as people scramble for income.
Culture, Geography, and US Exceptionalism
- Multiple non‑US voices argue that the current US level of everyday grift (spam, exploitative healthcare/education, “hustle” culture) is unusually high among rich countries.
- Some push back, claiming exaggeration or pointing to similar issues elsewhere, particularly in post‑socialist or “developing” states.
- There is a long subthread on whether the US is the main global threat to peace since 2003; participants sharply disagree and trade casualty and counterfactual arguments.
“Vote With Your Wallet” vs Systemic Change
- Proponents say purchasing choices are meaningful “votes” that shape markets and future offerings.
- Critics argue this cannot substitute for government action on things like transit, war, or regulation; it also assumes time, money, and resistance to PR that many lack.
- Some see “wallet voting” rhetoric as subtle victim‑blaming and emphasize protest, political engagement, or even emigration as more effective levers.
Executives, People Skills, and Dark Traits
- One thread disputes the article’s claim that non‑social roles now dominate high earnings, noting that top earners are still heavily inherited wealth and senior managers.
- Debate ensues over whether executives and political leaders are unusually “ruthless” or just better at persuasion; dark‑triad research is cited but treated cautiously.
- Several note that persuasion‑heavy fields (politics, media, sales) structurally reward overconfident, sometimes narcissistic personalities.
Definitions and Overuse of “Grift”
- A few worry that defining grift as “getting less value than you paid for” makes almost every transaction a grift and dilutes the term’s usefulness.
- Others insist intent and systematic exploitation matter: not all bad deals are cons.
Charities, Matching Gifts, and Regulation
- One subthread explains matching campaigns as a response to tax‑law incentives: charities want many small donors to avoid being flagged as fronts for a single rich patron.
- Some doubt this is a major real‑world constraint; others extend the example to speculate about large foundations’ mixed motives and PR value.