With all due respect to you Lex, I question your decision to interview Schwarzman. In what way has this man contributed to humanity? In what way has this man contributed to advancing computer science or science in general? He is a financier, a private equity investor. He hasn't built a business from scratch, he hasn't invented anything, etc. He allocates capital, nothing more nothing less. One may argue that he serves a necessary purpose for the operations of markets by allocating capital from inefficient usage to more efficient usage, but oftentimes one cannot logically discern whether it is truly skilled or whether luck is involved and Schwarzman is simply the beneficiary of survivorship bias. And in cases where there is sustainable rent-seeking, often it is at the expense of a public good, whether public trust in the markets, moral hazard, or some sort of market manipulation through unethical means. There is absolutely no way to get any sort of useful information from this gentleman. Either he was lucky, which implies that anything he has to say about business or success is moot, or he took advantage of his rent-seeking position to manipulate the market as to keep away the competition, benefited from insider information, game the system as to introduce moral hazard, lobbied the state to provide a means to socialize his losses while privatizing his gains, and thus will not tarnish his own reputation by admitting any of this.<br><br>Financiers like this gentleman or Warren Buffet represent a class of people who are simply admired for being wealthy. It is vulgar and shallow. At least Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerburg, Mark Cuban, etc actually built businesses and are worth talking to because they had a vision and executed. Guys like Schwarzman are glorified bean counters.