Why is this man not seen as mad? Charles Mudede
Two big recent stories. One concerns the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Najib Razak. The other concerns the CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos. This month, parts of the world learned of Razak's "excessive collection" of luxury goods: handbags, watches, jewelry, clothes, and 1,000 pairs of shoes. Those shoes, of course, recalled the "crazy" former Philippine First Lady Imelda Marcos, who famously owned nearly
3,000 shoes. The reporter for one article on Razak, "
Just like the case of Imelda Marcos," even interviewed a psychiatrist, Dr. Abdul Kadir Abu Baka. The doctor described Razak's condition as a form of depression; people like him must accumulate expensive things or they "get distressed." The doctor also pointed out that the condition "is something similar to narcissistic behaviour;" meaning, "it is about flaunting wealth" with the idea that one "can get away with it." So, the accumulation of things is clearly seen as a form of mental imbalance, if not illness. But what about Jeff Bezos? This week, the whole world learned that his fortune had grown to $150 billion.
Bloomberg called Bezos the richest man on earth and in earth's history. To use words from "Rapper's Delight," he now had "more money than a sucker could ever spend." But the reporter of the Bloomberg story did not consult a psychiatrist about Bezos and his super-excessive wealth. In fact, it is not even considered excessive. 3,000 shoes, and you are nuts and bats. $150 billion, and there is some talk about maybe doing some philanthropy, and maybe some talk about how some of this money might soon be lost because Prime Day got off to a rocky start. What is going on here? Why do we not see the excessive pursuit and accumulation of money as a form of madness? I think I have the answer.
Continue reading »
