6 ms·

> Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new ht

> Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion_(psychology) There's a good reason for this: If you gamble on something that can hurt your livelihood, then if you win you only get marginally richer, but if you lose you might not be able to feed yourself or your family. Or to put it in a cruder way, reproductive success has strongly decreasing return to scale as a function of economic success. Bill Gates has only 3 children, even though his income is around ~300,000x that of the average American.

hammock 10y ago
Hes not saying that there's not good reason for it... It's a fact of life that you have to play to win. The richest in history took extraordinary risks to get there, and for every winning risktaker there were 10 losing risktakers. This also goes hand in hand with why hard work and perseverance are virtues.
- ramparrt 10y ago
  only 10?
- tw04 10y ago
  > The richest in history took extraordinary risks to get there Not exactly accurate. Bill Gates may have dropped out of college to pursue Microsoft, but that was hardly an extraordinary risk. His parents were extremely well off, and had that adventure been a failure, he simply would've gone back to school and completed his degree. Same thing with Zuckerberg.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    Without 20/20 hindsight it was absolutely a huge risk. What if Microsoft had failed after five or ten years? He would have lost all of the time he could have spent earning a college degree and developing/working his network. Given that his parents were well off and he went to Harvard of all places, that is an insane opportunity risk to the vast majority of people if they didn't know that their efforts would become one of the most valuable companies in the world.
    - tw04 10y ago
      Given that he had a multi-million dollar trust-fund, I would imagine he either would've spent his days living off that and doing whatever work interested him most, or just continued on with his career at a roughly 5-year deficit to that of his peers. With a Harvard degree I'm quite confident he would've managed to get by.
      - akiselev 10y ago
        Except, you know, he wouldn't have a Harvard degree if he dropped out, he'd have no career, he'd be bleeding money out of his trust fund, he wouldn't continue developing the very valuable network or pedigree during his remaining years at Harvard, and he'd be stuck with knowledge that wasn't as valuable then as it is now. That's how opportunity costs work. We're not talking about whether he'd "get by," that's irrelevant. We're talking about relative risks assuming that Microsoft didn't succeed.
        Zafira 10y ago
        People want to believe that there's some sacrifice...some payment made for people like Bill Gates to have earned their wealth. I think Bill Gates is a great businessman and he has worked for his wealth, but let us not be delusional. The son of a well-respected Seattle lawyer from a long-standing Seattle family that could afford to send their kid to the most prestigious school in Seattle was never going to have issues having a comfortable career by going with "Plan B".
        akiselev 10y ago
        An opportunity cost is literally a sacrifice by definition. Bill Gates made a choice to start Microsoft instead of finishing school so there was clearly one opportunity that he rejected and one that he followed. It's not "payment," it's a fact that he chose one path and due to the universal law of causality had to give up one opportunity for another. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded he would have been left empty handed. That's the very definition of risk. The only delusion in this thread is the idea that Bill Gates took no risk when he decided to drop out of Harvard and start a company with the goal of ushering in the age of personal computing. I'm not comparing him to a starving African child, I'm just pointing out that he took a risk just like every entrepreneur on the planet.
- vintermann 10y ago
  > The richest in history took extraordinary risks to get there First of all, in real terms, no they didn't. In monetary terms maybe, but poor people take bigger risks all the time. It is true, though, that the richest of the rich take bigger risks than their peers, and bigger risks than are arguably sensible. This is the difference between the "nouveau riche" and old money. In terms of securing the level of consumption they're used to, and usually in terms of happiness, rich people are better off playing it safe, and most do. But some rich people may just have borderline pathological need to prove themselves, and buy metaphorical "lottery tickets". It makes sense that the richest individuals of the rich come from the group of those who take "dumb" risks that happen to pay off (I'm thinking Steve Jobs, Elon Musk etc.)
dredmorbius 10y ago
BG's reproductive success is a bit of an outlier by historical and even contemporary standards across cultures. Ibn Saud, founder of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabian, had 45 sons alone. Such large families continue in the House of Saud. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud There's the oft-cited case of Ghengis Khan, who by DNA estimates may have as many as 16 million surviving progeny. Estimates of the numbers of his actual children are quite hard to come by, and range from low (he had only one official wife) to many thousands. Gates, in particular, is aware of several modern challenges, including overpopulation. His "reproductive success" may well be a calculated strategy for long-term advantage. Or simply altrusitic motive.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Birth control and the modern tendency to frown upon mass rape/women as property are probably primary factors to the Ghengis Khan vs Gates example.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    There was a reason I provided both ancient and current examples of high-reproductivity in dominant males.
    - cma 10y ago
      Dowry systems in Saudi Arabia are pretty far along the rapey end of the spectrum as far as consensual sexual relations go.
- jpatokal 10y ago
  Genghis Khan died in 1227, meaning ~40 generations since then. If a random person sired two sons in 1227, and each of them had two offspring in each generation who in turn had children, that's 2^40 = 1e12 progeny today.
  - btilly 10y ago
thaumasiotes 10y ago
> Or to put it in a cruder way, reproductive success has strongly decreasing return to scale as a function of economic success. Bill Gates has only 3 children, even though his income is around ~300,000x that of the average American. This is a recent coincidence. Bill Gates could easily have 300,000 times the reproductive success he's expected to have. It's not a priority for him.

hammock 10y ago

Hes not saying that there's not good reason for it... It's a fact of life that you have to play to win. The richest in history took extraordinary risks to get there, and for every winning risktaker there were 10 losing risktakers. This also goes hand in hand with why hard work and perseverance are virtues.

ramparrt 10y ago
only 10?
tw04 10y ago
> The richest in history took extraordinary risks to get there Not exactly accurate. Bill Gates may have dropped out of college to pursue Microsoft, but that was hardly an extraordinary risk. His parents were extremely well off, and had that adventure been a failure, he simply would've gone back to school and completed his degree. Same thing with Zuckerberg.
- akiselev 10y ago
  Without 20/20 hindsight it was absolutely a huge risk. What if Microsoft had failed after five or ten years? He would have lost all of the time he could have spent earning a college degree and developing/working his network. Given that his parents were well off and he went to Harvard of all places, that is an insane opportunity risk to the vast majority of people if they didn't know that their efforts would become one of the most valuable companies in the world.
  - tw04 10y ago
    Given that he had a multi-million dollar trust-fund, I would imagine he either would've spent his days living off that and doing whatever work interested him most, or just continued on with his career at a roughly 5-year deficit to that of his peers. With a Harvard degree I'm quite confident he would've managed to get by.
    - akiselev 10y ago
      Except, you know, he wouldn't have a Harvard degree if he dropped out, he'd have no career, he'd be bleeding money out of his trust fund, he wouldn't continue developing the very valuable network or pedigree during his remaining years at Harvard, and he'd be stuck with knowledge that wasn't as valuable then as it is now. That's how opportunity costs work. We're not talking about whether he'd "get by," that's irrelevant. We're talking about relative risks assuming that Microsoft didn't succeed.
      - Zafira 10y ago
        People want to believe that there's some sacrifice...some payment made for people like Bill Gates to have earned their wealth. I think Bill Gates is a great businessman and he has worked for his wealth, but let us not be delusional. The son of a well-respected Seattle lawyer from a long-standing Seattle family that could afford to send their kid to the most prestigious school in Seattle was never going to have issues having a comfortable career by going with "Plan B".
        akiselev 10y ago
        An opportunity cost is literally a sacrifice by definition. Bill Gates made a choice to start Microsoft instead of finishing school so there was clearly one opportunity that he rejected and one that he followed. It's not "payment," it's a fact that he chose one path and due to the universal law of causality had to give up one opportunity for another. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded he would have been left empty handed. That's the very definition of risk. The only delusion in this thread is the idea that Bill Gates took no risk when he decided to drop out of Harvard and start a company with the goal of ushering in the age of personal computing. I'm not comparing him to a starving African child, I'm just pointing out that he took a risk just like every entrepreneur on the planet.
vintermann 10y ago
> The richest in history took extraordinary risks to get there First of all, in real terms, no they didn't. In monetary terms maybe, but poor people take bigger risks all the time. It is true, though, that the richest of the rich take bigger risks than their peers, and bigger risks than are arguably sensible. This is the difference between the "nouveau riche" and old money. In terms of securing the level of consumption they're used to, and usually in terms of happiness, rich people are better off playing it safe, and most do. But some rich people may just have borderline pathological need to prove themselves, and buy metaphorical "lottery tickets". It makes sense that the richest individuals of the rich come from the group of those who take "dumb" risks that happen to pay off (I'm thinking Steve Jobs, Elon Musk etc.)

dredmorbius 10y ago

BG's reproductive success is a bit of an outlier by historical and even contemporary standards across cultures. Ibn Saud, founder of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabian, had 45 sons alone. Such large families continue in the House of Saud. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud There's the oft-cited case of Ghengis Khan, who by DNA estimates may have as many as 16 million surviving progeny. Estimates of the numbers of his actual children are quite hard to come by, and range from low (he had only one official wife) to many thousands. Gates, in particular, is aware of several modern challenges, including overpopulation. His "reproductive success" may well be a calculated strategy for long-term advantage. Or simply altrusitic motive.

Spooky23 10y ago
Birth control and the modern tendency to frown upon mass rape/women as property are probably primary factors to the Ghengis Khan vs Gates example.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  There was a reason I provided both ancient and current examples of high-reproductivity in dominant males.
  - cma 10y ago
    Dowry systems in Saudi Arabia are pretty far along the rapey end of the spectrum as far as consensual sexual relations go.
jpatokal 10y ago
Genghis Khan died in 1227, meaning ~40 generations since then. If a random person sired two sons in 1227, and each of them had two offspring in each generation who in turn had children, that's 2^40 = 1e12 progeny today.
- btilly 10y ago

thaumasiotes 10y ago

> Or to put it in a cruder way, reproductive success has strongly decreasing return to scale as a function of economic success. Bill Gates has only 3 children, even though his income is around ~300,000x that of the average American. This is a recent coincidence. Bill Gates could easily have 300,000 times the reproductive success he's expected to have. It's not a priority for him.