I wonder what it would take to shake America of the whole 'temporarily embarrassed millionaire' problem.

At this point I assume even a hard economic crash pioneered and gleefully supported by the rich isn't enough of a cold water splash. I think that mentality is too locked in for a large subset of Americans. Musk has been increasingly getting more and more rancid and that doesn't seem to deter his supporters at all.

I wonder if unchecked capital accumulation combined with cutting the social safety net and major public works will lead to commerce without customers: An economy built on consumption where nobody has the money to consume.

Neither are the politicians, or the influencers, or Hollywood, they all have an end-game, a message or something to sell, none of these people are better than you, yet people pick someone and agrees with everything they say.

The world has lost the ability to critically think.

Mostly off-topic, but I've wondered, is there a measure of wealth that involves first liquidating everything? And what is that for Musk? I don't find it meaningful to say someone has a net worth of $X if they can't actually liquidate their assets and pay off their liabilities to produce $X.

What matters isn't Elon Musk (or any other person's) net worth. What matters is how this money is being deployed. If Elon has $1T in his basement and he's not doing things with this money then the net outcome is the removal of this money from the economy which is deflationary - makes your money go farther. If Elon invests it in things that produce broader value (e.g. create jobs, improve productivity, etc.) then it can be a net positive. It's not about the amount- it's about how it is deployed. One rich person (or country e.g.) can be your "oppressor" (more likely in non-democratic countries) and another could be your benefactor.

Making money is the incentive we have in capitalism for individuals to create value. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system we know of. In systems where we don't allow people to become rich (in theory) we typically produce less value and end up with most of the value concentrated into one dictator (e.g. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia). We can argue about taxation etc. but fundamentally this is the system that has proved to be the best for everyone. We can argue about checks and balances as well but again in practice having rich people and western democracy correlates with better outcomes for everyone historically. If you propose we get rid of this system you need to make a reasonable argument for an alternative that is better. If you're arguing that life isn't always fair and luck plays a role- well yeah.

I enjoyed seeing this refer to the Phaistos disc, because I have just come back from Heraklion and saw it in the flesh (clay)

A reminder that deciphering Linear B was the work of a number of people and a brilliant book by John Chadwick discusses the statistics, and the application of numerical/statistical methods to the analysis That Chadwick and Ventris used, from the ground breaking work of Alice Klober.

The problem with Linear A and the Phaistos disc, is that there isn't enough material to apply these kinds of methods. I believe most Linear A is tally records.