5 ms·
Perhaps obviously, when your interpretation makes the article not make sense, it's useful to try interpretations that work. I guess another way to put it is th
by oldmanjay 10y ago
Perhaps obviously, when your interpretation makes the article not make sense, it's useful to try interpretations that work.
I guess another way to put it is that a very human mistake to make is to infer something and assume it was implied, then use that assumption to form a dismissal.
I get that your particular interpretation is likely meant as some subtle manner of dismissal of the Koch brothers (something along the lines of how they didn't earn their wealth would be my guess) and I'd like to encourage you to state such feelings directly. It's far more interesting than low-grade emotional rhetoric that just turns into boring no-light-low-heat discussion.
- idlewords 10y agoThis is a spreadsheet, not an article, so I'm confused about your first point. When looking at a list of billionaires, it's natural to wonder "where did this fortune come from?", and in the case of the Koch brothers, the answer is "oil". I don't think it requires a deep dive into my psyche to defend this interpretation of the "source" field, though I'm always happy to swim around down there.
- hkmurakami 10y agoSuppose I make my first $10M getting lucky in technology, then make my next $1B getting lucky in real estate by leveraging my lottery winnings. What's the source of my wealth in this case? (this seems to be a clarifying exaggeration of what is being asked here)
- ryandrake 10y agoIn my view: Technology. Without that first $10M, you'd never have had the opportunity to make $1B in real estate. When I think "source" I'm digging down to root cause.
- e7c6ht6iad 10y agoBut if you only made $10M, you wouldn't be on the list.
- chirau 10y agoWhat is Michael Jordan's source of wealth?
- pc86 10y agoBy your logic the actual source in "inheritance." More than half of their wealth came from non-oil sources so I don't see how "oil" makes sense as a source.