71–80 of 245 posts
Hangovers also started to last days.
Learning new stuff that requires precision also seems harder - like syntax. Even though I feel like I'm much smarter when it comes to fuzzy processes like judging a good idea or programming language.
Dementia runs in my family... But I think I'm too young for that and it's just what happens when you're not 25 anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed. The references that I looked for suggested that around 30-40% of wealth is inherited. No citation that I found suggested that it was a majority. Do you have any sources that I could additionally review to support the majority claim?
That's in the US. Old money in Europe is older than US as a country.
https://www.famcap.com/2016/05/2016-5-17-wealthspike-europe-...
Edit: there has also been the absolutism movement which effectively removed control from large fractions of lower nobility over their lands, requiring them to be in the royal palace. There was also the german mediatization at the start of the 19th century where the holdings of lower noble families got integrated into larger units. Those larger units, as well as their holdings, then got turned into democracies in the 20th century.
Actually surprised that there is this much of a correlation. Making money and being smart to me have always seemed only lightly related, like height and basketball skill. Many dumber people than me I know making much more than I am, and many smarter people making much less.
The idea that salary is a measure of self-worth is an unfortunate lie that our modern society perpetuates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone can buy tulips in the beginning, even accidently.
Maybe of interest to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChSUvdU_Sbk
Implicit is the presumption that the smartest people optimize for wealth, or that the smartest people are good at optimizing for wealth. Outside of Wall Street, "smart" people - academics, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. - are just as likely to make bad personal finance decisions and/or to stay in labor (rather than management) positions for most of their careers (leave aside the dual-track IC/management ladder at…
It also disregards the type of lottery game that is a part of wealth accumulation. Of course, it is not all luck but to believe wealth accumulation is a type of purely deterministic meritocratic game without a giant stochastic factor is ridiculous. That might even be the dumbest aspect of our society. Believing the powerball lottery winner is a genius for picking the numbers they picked is obviously stupid. Yet we ba…
Implicit is the presumption that the smartest people optimize for wealth, or that the smartest people are good at optimizing for wealth. Outside of Wall Street, "smart" people - academics, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. - are just as likely to make bad personal finance decisions and/or to stay in labor (rather than management) positions for most of their careers (leave aside the dual-track IC/management ladder at…
It also disregards the type of lottery game that is a part of wealth accumulation. Of course, it is not all luck but to believe wealth accumulation is a type of purely deterministic meritocratic game without a giant stochastic factor is ridiculous. That might even be the dumbest aspect of our society. Believing the powerball lottery winner is a genius for picking the numbers they picked is obviously stupid. Yet we ba…
It's not a lottery game, it's a poker game (and in reality, it's much easier than poker because the economy is positive sum and poker is zero sum). If you only consider "wealthy" to be people who have made billions or hundreds of millions then it's a lottery. But someone that consistently makes decisions that maximize expected monetary gain can consistently become a "rich" person if our definition of rich is have more than $10million.
(Poker is negative sum if you are playing in a raked game)