71–80 of 438 posts
LOL what? Can't have it both ways, pal.
I've seen this line of thought expressed a few times before, and it strikes me as disingenuous to hold that a corporation is a person... right up until the moment that idea puts slightly less money in your pocket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luck by definition is an independent variable. Edit: I don't know who downvoted me, but this is the definition of luck according to Google: "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions"
Luck just determines specific momentary opportunities that that have the potential to set you in the right direction. The thing is, you need to be prepared to take advantage of those opportunities, as well as work on increasing the occurrence rate of those opportunities. It’s like playing blackjack. Ultimately, it all comes down to luck, but you are significantly increasing your chances of winning by employing certai…
Otherwise by definition it is not luck, but a high chance of winning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe you just don't want to play the game anymore.
I think this is sadly very true - trying to actually be a kind person really limits how well you can play "the game". There's no good solution to this either - if there was more kindness in the world, then that would just create even more opportunities for the people playing the game to get ahead, because they would have more victims to exploit.
I've also encountered people from wealthy families and these individuals typically don't comment on what they think of others less fortunate in society. They also stay out of politics or anything where people get disgruntled about. I'm unsure if it was how they were raised and or they know the game of life is rigged. In any case, I respect this group the most which is sort of odd because everything was handed to them.
Anyway, the first group of individuals probably would have been better persons if they were just born into money as well. They have a fallacy in their head of they earned their success and wouldn't have had it any other way in life. In reality they just had a worse path to eventually becoming financially independent and sadly these individuals place their ego around wealth because of it.
I don't necessarily believe in the traditional idea of luck. I think everything is predetermined at birth. But wow does it help to be born into a wealthy family with somewhat decent genetics. Quality of life will be so much better. It's so noticeable that I sometimes wonder how others don't see it as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luck favours the prepared.
Luck by definition is an independent variable. Edit: I don't know who downvoted me, but this is the definition of luck according to Google: "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions"
To answer the question posed in the title (and yes, I read the fluffy article) - luck decides who gets rich.
I think that’s needlessly reductionist. Read the biographies of people like Mark Cuban and Richard Branson: both of these men were born entrepreneurs and salesmen, with Cuban starting his first business at age 12 and Branson at age 16. A good parallel to this is the music industry, actually: yes, there is a significant amount of luck in “making it.” But you cannot deny that talent is one of the strongest predictors:…
EDIT: spelling