3 ms·

Acknowledging luck as a factor is good sense. Flatly attributing to luck is foolish. Tearing down the wealthy because they happened to be lucky in some way is

Acknowledging luck as a factor is good sense. Flatly attributing to luck is foolish. Tearing down the wealthy because they happened to be lucky in some way is hostile. Statements like 'Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made.' are hostile and toxic. Not just toxic but toxic along several axes. First, it obfuscates the real problems. The problem isn't inequality of income or assets -- it is when that inequality leads to monopolistic situations for the have's or desperation for the have nots. This is a much easier problem to solve than forced equality thus making a surmountable problem seem much more intractable than it is. Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. For the most part, in functioning societies where wealth is generated through voluntary exchanges of value, the wealthy are, generally speaking, doing a ton of good in the world. If we discourage people from taking that path by vilifying it, we are doing much more harm than good. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. If the wealthy are only wealthy because of luck, well, not generating wealth is as good as creating value for other people and generating wealth, right? Wrong. Luck is a factor in wealth generation, no doubt about it, but luck is a secondary characteristic. Focusing on it, especially while discounting all of the other factors of financial success, is a mistake that hurts everyone.

vannevar 9y ago
Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. How? If someone wins the lottery, obviously it isn't vilifying them to say that it was predominantly luck. If someone by chance invests in a mining company that the very next day discovers a rich deposit in a mine though played out, is it vilifying the investor to praise their luck? The author believes that most great wealth is attributable to luck. You can argue that this is not true. But if it is true, it's certainly not vilifying anyone to make the suggestion. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. No, it allows people to feel good about not being rich. It also makes them less likely to blindly worship the wealthy. Human beings are, on the whole, naturally productive. They want to contribute, and feel needed. It's human nature. It's not like everyone will suddenly sit on their hands if we were to find out that becoming rich is mostly luck. Not getting cancer is mostly luck too, but that doesn't mean people don't take prudent measures to reduce their risk.

vannevar 9y ago

Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. How? If someone wins the lottery, obviously it isn't vilifying them to say that it was predominantly luck. If someone by chance invests in a mining company that the very next day discovers a rich deposit in a mine though played out, is it vilifying the investor to praise their luck? The author believes that most great wealth is attributable to luck. You can argue that this is not true. But if it is true, it's certainly not vilifying anyone to make the suggestion. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. No, it allows people to feel good about not being rich. It also makes them less likely to blindly worship the wealthy. Human beings are, on the whole, naturally productive. They want to contribute, and feel needed. It's human nature. It's not like everyone will suddenly sit on their hands if we were to find out that becoming rich is mostly luck. Not getting cancer is mostly luck too, but that doesn't mean people don't take prudent measures to reduce their risk.