91–100 of 356 posts
https://twitter.com/MichaelJFoody/status/1022521010078273536 >it says a lot that when confronted with an objectively dumb rich dude like trump (no working memory, can't apply grammar consistently, childish vocabulary, shallow concepts) people will choose to believe he's secretly smart rather than that wealth isn't a result of intellect
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My kid will someday pay taxes that will finance the retirement of people that didn't bother to have kids. All things considered, that is definitely not a given. Social security for instances is tied to one's lifetime earnings, throw in the correlation between life time earnings and longevity and it smooths out to getting what you put in (roughly). There are also a lot of benefits, both employer funded and tax payer…
> Social security for instances ... And parents likely have lower lifetime earnings than non-parents. So its possible they're not only funding the future of social security, but also getting less for themselves... It would be great if someone had a source if parents are net recipients of benefits beyond the societal benefit of having children.
I've got no kids and no retirement savings. No one's going to support me when I get old. If I had kids there'd be a chance that they would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like this is a free will argument. In a reductionist view, yes, everything is all blind luck because the universe was set in motion at the Big Bang and has evolved according to the laws of physics since. If you got rich through intelligence, determination, and good choices, that was still luck because your intelligence and determination are largely determined by your genes and your choices by your environment,…
But, the best we know is the laws of physics are not deterministic! The quantum states that your neurons fire to is unknowable in advance and determined only at the point of measurement. Therefore, you are _free_ in the exact results of your neural mass are unknowable in advance and truly random. There's certainly a distribution of probability to the randomness... but be free and don't by the deterministic, 19th cent…
True, but you can't be lucky if you don't roll the dice, and some people roll the dice more than others.
Years ago, a friend of the family said "You're so smart. Everyone thought you would be a millionaire by age thirty. What happened?" I pointed at my kids and said "They happened. And they take all my time." I was a full-time wife and mom. This is not a career known to lead to great wealth. So, for starters, not all interests or career paths have equal potential to lead to wealth. Intelligence in no way guarantees that…
Are you from america? As a european, this assumption that everyone would value getting as rich as possible as their top priority seems really weird.
Talk about my fintech venture or trading and young people are visible apprehensive
Very distinct from the general awe and congratulations and “wow but you're so young!” that comes with completely misunderstanding what personal and liquid monetary wealth is
Outside of Monaco and Zug I just started telling people I was a student studying communications
> For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000. True, but can IQ be, say 210? If yes, then standard deviation cannot be applied here, right? Because for that you would need someone with opposite IQ, i.e. -10? > The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but…
Years ago, a friend of the family said "You're so smart. Everyone thought you would be a millionaire by age thirty. What happened?" I pointed at my kids and said "They happened. And they take all my time." I was a full-time wife and mom. This is not a career known to lead to great wealth. So, for starters, not all interests or career paths have equal potential to lead to wealth. Intelligence in no way guarantees that…
It is the same for men, too. I had everything set up to retire at 35... then I married. Sure, I am a more socially productive person now. My kid will someday pay taxes that will finance the retirement of people that didn't bother to have kids.
The experiment design was flawed in the following way. What if, in real life, there are people who are much more likely to take big chances with their whole career trajectory? Also, what if there are people who are much more likely to perceive which products will change the world, and when. The combination of these two qualities is the key. Even if these qualities are distributed on a normal curve, the result of poss…
My point is, we praise captains for industry for their unique insights, but I doubt they’re really that clever. Yes, they have skills, but not skills as rare as their wealth would suggest.
What you need is a talent that earns revenue and the foresight to retain the net income and increase revenue. "It's all about leverage".
Another approach I have personally done is taking out a $30k loan, invested it and doubled my money paying back the loan. What does that mean, I started with zero, and ended up with $30k. I then took my newly made $30k and continued to invest it (without a loan).
My point being, you aren't rich because you didn't take a "chance". You didn't increase your net worth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, 2, 3 and 4 can be reduced to 1. You don't choose your genes or where you are born. Those factors, which are blind luck, determine all of the other lucks for your whole life. In the end, everything is just blind luck, but our egos want to feel like they are in control somehow.
Hustle and preparation are not luck, they're skills you have to hone for them to be useful. You have to actually do something. They aren't something you can be born into (much to the dismay of rich parents with deadbeat kids). By reducing 2 and 3 to luck you're implying that people have no agency. Sure, the person who develops those skills in rural Africa isn't going to go as far as someone who develops those skills…
For example, from what I understand, in the big five model of personality, conscientiousness is over 40% heritable.
Anecdotally, I remember how even in the first grade there were kids that were clearly low in conscientiousness and kids who were clearly high in conscientiousness.
Pretty sure the kids in the latter group didn't instill a work ethic into themselves by age 6.
I hope that it's possible to develop conscientiousness as an adult, at least to some degree, but clearly it is something that you can be born into.
I'm using "conscientiousness" as an example, I don't think it's the same thing as "hustle", in fact I'd even suspect that there's some conflict between the two.
However, my point is that development of skills aren't independent from luck, since we all are dealt different cards with which we then have to play.