For economics, the paradox destabilizes the most basic assumptions of value theory. If markets are truly efficient, if productivity and human capital reliably translate into wealth, then the persistent poverty of history's greatest innovators should be impossible. Yet the evidence---Tesla's unpaid hotel bills, Ramanujan's fragile existence, Van Gogh's destitution---suggests otherwise. This forces us to ask: do markets recognize all forms of value, or only those that can be commodified quickly enough to satisfy investors and consumers?
For sociology, the issue strikes at the promise of functionalism and meritocracy. If societies truly allocate rewards according to contribution, then intellectual giants should sit atop the social ladder. Instead, we see YouTube entertainers eclipsing Nobel laureates in income, and social media influencers commanding more attention than philosophers or scientists. The genius paradox exposes the extent to which contemporary societies reward distraction over substance, performance over profundity, and exploitation over exploration.
For the philosophy of science, the question forces us to confront the uncomfortable distance between truth and power. Science and intellectual labor are often idealized as noble pursuits detached from material concerns. But when the very survival of those engaged in truth-seeking becomes precarious, the autonomy of knowledge is threatened. What happens to the pursuit of truth when the structures of wealth consistently punish curiosity-driven inquiry? The paradox of the impoverished genius reveals that civilizations may live off the fruits of intellectual exploration, yet systematically fail to nurture or sustain the explorers themselves.
Thus, this question matters because it challenges three powerful illusions simultaneously: that markets are efficient allocators of value, that societies are just distributors of reward, and that truth-seeking can flourish independently of material conditions. By interrogating these illusions, we not only shed light on the plight of past geniuses but also expose the structural conditions that continue to shape the fate of contemporary innovators, scientists, and thinkers.
II. Theoretical Background
A. Review of Six Paradigms
1. Classical Economics
At the heart of classical economics lies a comforting narrative: the invisible hand of the market ensures that value, wherever it emerges, will be recognized, exchanged, and rewarded. Adam Smith's formulation of self-interest as the engine of prosperity suggested a world where individual talent and innovation would, by necessity, be transformed into wealth. In this view, the genius---the ultimate producer of new value---should be one of the greatest beneficiaries of the system.
Yet history persistently undermines this vision. The classical promise assumes that all forms of value are equally legible to the market, but intellectual value is often illegible until decades, or even centuries, later. The mathematical beauty of Ramanujan's infinite series did not translate into coin. Van Gogh's canvases, which today serve as speculative assets in elite auctions, could not secure him a loaf of bread in his own lifetime. Tesla's visionary pursuit of wireless energy was so misaligned with the practical appetites of investors that he died with debts rather than dividends.
The flaw of classical economics, then, is not merely an oversight but a structural blindness: the market sees only what can be commodified in real time. Its invisible hand is not a universal guide of fairness but a filter, coarse and selective, rewarding those who can align discovery with utility while ignoring or discarding explorations that lack immediate profitability. The genius, whose work is often abstract, foundational, or ahead of its time, becomes collateral damage in a system that conflates value with exchangeability.
Thus, classical economics inadvertently sanctifies opportunists like Edison---who mastered the art of patenting, lobbying, and marketing---while erasing or impoverishing visionaries like Tesla. The myth of the market as an impartial arbiter collapses when confronted with the corpses of geniuses who created value too vast or too subtle to fit into the narrow vessels of commodity and currency.
