If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?

[BoyNextDoor]

Turns out it’s just chance.


The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role

What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy? Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?

Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in this process.

The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science.

Courtesy of MIT Technology Review

 

[chillywilly2]

So its the same as fishing huh.

20% of the fishermen catch 80% of the fish
talent, perseverance and a bit of luck

 

[FescueFan]

What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy? Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?

Fairer place? You mean....with more equal outcomes???
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/PettyConcreteAtlanticspadefish-size_restricted.gif

Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in this process.

The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science.[/I]

Courtesy of MIT Technology Review

Hose the rich, they didn't earn it!!!

LOL......

 

[FescueFan]

So its the same as fishing huh.

20% of the fishermen catch 80% of the fish
talent, perseverance and a bit of luck

Meanwhile the BoyNextDoor types didn't get out of bed until 10am....didn't prep their ship and essentially wasted a day fucking off cry "It's no FAIR!! You're just lucky so I'm going to need you to hand over a fair share of OUR catch." .

Because that's what leftist scum does.

 

[Lazaran]

There's only so many fish in the sea.

The real fisherman who catch most of the fish aren't anglers.

Those unprincipled industrial fishermen, much like the John Galts spread throughout society, have pushed the system to the breaking point.

Anything done on an industrial scale has massive impacts on the environment and society as a whole, requiring regulations and taxation adequate to mitigate the damage caused by the unnaturally intensive, intrusive, and destructive manner in which they operate.

Over time these "great ventures" and "great venturists" have proven to be poor self regulators, and left to their own devices, would plunder the environment, and, by extension, society for their own short term gains.

Even with taxation and regulation, these exploitative entities still manage to consistently loot and pillage with impunity, because their lobbyists and lawyers have effectively neutralized oversight.

If people would be as concerned about the looting and destruction caused by industry and industrialists as they are about individuals, maybe they would be taken seriously.

I actually oppose both.

What say you???

 

[chillywilly2]

fish by the rules and elect somebody to make some proper rules

 

[FescueFan]

Even with taxation and regulation, these exploitative entities still manage to consistently loot and pillage with impunity, because their lobbyists and lawyers have effectively neutralized oversight.

If people would be as concerned about the looting and destruction caused by industry and industrialists as they are about individuals, maybe they would be taken seriously.

I actually oppose both.

What say you???

I say show us the "looting and destruction" you speak of.

Other people having more than you doesn't mean they've looted or destroyed anything....your ASSUMPTION that it does is your Marxism showing.

 

[Saint_Ann]

I figured out when I was 19 that I was unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to make it happen.

 

[Lazaran]

fish by the rules and elect somebody to make some proper rules

To the first part of your answer I say. Yeaaaaah suuuuure.

To the second part I say; democrats have been trying, but thanks to citizens United and those who believe that "the rules" we're set in stone in 1788, corporations and oligarchs have had free reign to make the rules and unduly influence elections.

It's the reason that, while I don't like the people in black T-shirts illegally and violently, looting and destroying, I won't hold them to a higher standard of behavior than the people in black suits who are "legally" and "peacefully" looting and destroying on a far greater scale.

When I see some outrage from the right about the damage corporations and oligarchs have done, and continue to do, I will raise my level of outrage over the damage these more common criminals are doing.

 

[Lazaran]

I'm not going to provide FecesFan with every example of corporate malfeasance in the history of the world. It would crash the site.

Let's just say, that enough have been litigated in the courts to satisfy even a less than developed and incurious mind.

 

[Lysander444]

Well, it is said that there is a magic codex that predicts how your life will be.

It is called the ZIP code of your birthplace...

 

[FescueFan]

I'm not going to provide FecesFan with every example of corporate malfeasance in the history of the world. It would crash the site.

Let's just say, that enough have been litigated in the courts to satisfy even a less than developed and incurious mind.

Oh so it went to court...why would that happen if what you said earlier was true???

Even with taxation and regulation, these exploitative entities still manage to consistently loot and pillage with impunity, because their lobbyists and lawyers have effectively neutralized oversight.

If people would be as concerned about the looting and destruction caused by industry and industrialists as they are about individuals, maybe they would be taken seriously.

Probably because it's not true, you're just made other people are better at the game than you are.

 

[FescueFan]

Well, it is said that there is a magic codex that predicts how your life will be.

It is called the ZIP code of your birthplace...

Another lie.

My father was born in war torn Korea, watched "progressives" murder most of his family, was very successful here in the US....just like millions of other immigrants/refugees from "progress".

 

[toeskr]

There's only so many fish in the sea.

The real fisherman who catch most of the fish aren't anglers.

Even with taxation and regulation, these exploitative entities still manage to consistently loot and pillage with impunity, because their lobbyists and lawyers have effectively neutralized oversight.

Billary and Barry left the house apparently dead broke.

What changed for them?

Surely they didn't "build" that!

Lawlz! Are they the 1%'rs you are bitching about?

 

[OldJourno]

Hey, BND, what's a Profiteer?
You had the word in a prior thread where I think you were praising Bernie and I was just wondering what level of wealth someone rose to before they attained the rank of Profiteer.

 

[toeskr]

Hey, BND, what's a Profiteer?
You had the word in a prior thread where I think you were praising Bernie and I was just wondering what level of wealth someone rose to before they attained the rank of Profiteer.

Pause... explain wealth to borenextdoor.

Just don't mention soros.

 

[Saint Peter]

keep your hands off of my

stack

 

[SissySalina]

Turns out it’s just chance.


The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role

What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy? Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?

Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in this process.

The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science.

Courtesy of MIT Technology Review

If you are really smart, why would you need money?
The real key is how you define "Rich".

 

[dolf]

Do really smart people set their sights on just accumulating money, or are they more likely to choose a field that stimulates and gratifies them? Because I'm willing to bet Hawking was considerably smarter than Zuckerberg or Bezos.

 

[SpeareChucker]

So its the same as fishing huh.

20% of the fishermen catch 80% of the fish
talent, perseverance and a bit of luck

Computer models are not complex, not far-ranging and purely objective,
but are established upon subjective lines and valuations.

It's hurricane season, a simpler system to model
and it's clear for anyone who has watched
a newscast and seen the projections,
there's never one path of
convergence in the
models until the
event passes.



The model may be right, but it is more likely that it is
a projection of the modelers believe system
as to how the world works much as
a good fisherman has a way of
enhancing luck...

 

[SpeareChucker]

Do really smart people set their sights on just accumulating money, or are they more likely to choose a field that stimulates and gratifies them? Because I'm willing to bet Hawking was considerably smarter than Zuckerberg or Bezos.

I agree with your opening, but am not as sure about your conclusion.
They might have all been equally intelligent, but following
the field of stimulation. Didn't Hawking waste
a lot of his life as a party animal?

That's not smart, but
I need to look that up.
I am remembering an interview,
but it could have been someone else...

 

[toeskr]

keep your hands off of my

stack

Share your wealth with peeps that don't want to contribute.

'Tis the new and modern way.

Keep werking so others don't have to.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I cannot really verify that last part.
The Wiki alludes to a more involved life
but seems more intent on examining his career
than they are his life...

 

[Saint Peter]

Share your wealth with peeps that don't want to contribute.

'Tis the new and modern way.

Keep werking so others don't have to.

I work and pay taxes. Some taxes build fast new roads. Some taxes offer assistance to the sick and elderly. Some taxes build aircraft carriers.

Be fair about it. We need both defense and fed old people.

 

[toeskr]

I work and pay taxes. Some taxes build fast new roads. Some taxes offer assistance to the sick and elderly. Some taxes build aircraft carriers.

Be fair about it. We need both defense and fed old people.

I agree, I do the same.

All is fair until the axis changes and only some are working and supporting but the majority think it is their right to demand and receive the fruits and labors of others while not contributing.

But who am I to question the dogma of socialist and progressives?

Should we be the second or third lemming to to follow the first over the ledge?

Who will support the inclusive dependants when we die?